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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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 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

Sure! But you better get rich to do it.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by John Mace

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.

I never said they should be for it because other countries do it. Heck, they be for universal health care if they used that as a criterion.
And I did make a case for how polygamy is better for society, in rewarding productive (rich) members of it and giving non-productive members a better incentive to better themselves in order to get mates.
A lot of conservatives want to make this a Christian country, which we haven't been for well over 200 years, so I will not insult them by saying they aren't willing to accept new ideas.

[Measure for Measure]

It seems to me that John Mace is making a Burkean argument. That is so-o-o-o-o 1955.

[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.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Voyager

I never said they should be for it because other countries do it.

And I didn't say you did. What I said was we have dozens of countries in the world where polygamy is legal, so this isn't some abstract thing. Conservatives can look around the world and see if these polygamous societies are worth emulating. Why would they think they are?

And I did make a case for how polygamy is better for society, in rewarding productive (rich) members of it and giving non-productive members a better incentive to better themselves in order to get mates.

First of all, that presupposes conservative men want multiple wives or think that having multiple wives is a good thing or a "reward". Most don't. The overwhelming number of conservatives and liberal think polygamy is bad for society.

Besides, what makes you think that only rich men will marry multiple women?

A lot of conservatives want to make this a Christian country, which we haven't been for well over 200 years, so I will not insult them by saying they aren't willing to accept new ideas.

They want to get rid of new ideas that they think never should have been accepted in the first place. Most conservatives think keeping religion out of government is a bad thing and want to turn back the clock on that.

Actually, liberals should be for polygamy. If people love each other, why should they be prevented from marrying? Marrying is a fundamental right that should not be curtailed by the government as long as it is between consenting adults.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by John Mace

And I didn't say you did. What I said was we have dozens of countries in the world where polygamy is legal, so this isn't some abstract thing. Conservatives can look around the world and see if these polygamous societies are worth emulating. Why would they think they are?

Like I said above, the state of the healthcare debate indicates that conservatives don't give a fig about what other countries do. We're exceptional, remember?

First of all, that presupposes conservative men want multiple wives or think that having multiple wives is a good thing or a "reward". Most don't. The overwhelming number of conservatives and liberal think polygamy is bad for society.

Besides, what makes you think that only rich men will marry multiple women?

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of mistresses and general infidelity for rich conservatives versus rich liberals. Certainly none would say they would like multiple wives today, but none say they want a man on the side either, until they get caught at it. I'm not disputing the conservatives and liberals do think that today - I'm stating the reasons why conservatives should change their minds.
As for your second paragraph, of course not, but the more money you have the probability of having more wives increases. Simple economics. On the average rich men will have more wives. Not all - some rich people actually do use their money for job creation, after all.

They want to get rid of new ideas that they think never should have been accepted in the first place. Most conservatives think keeping religion out of government is a bad thing and want to turn back the clock on that.

Odd, given their Founding Father worship. I will admit they are perfectly happy to distort history on this subject. If they got behind polygamy, Ben Franklin would become the paragon of virtue, and they'd dig up some evidence that he actually was a polygamist. Give them some credit, please!

Actually, liberals should be for polygamy. If people love each other, why should they be prevented from marrying? Marrying is a fundamental right that should not be curtailed by the government as long as it is between consenting adults.

You don't understand very liberals very well, do you. We clearly demand equality of outcomes, both in forcing all people to have the same amount of money, and the same number of wives. We're perfectly happy to curtail freedom for the evil rich people.

However, when we force gay marriage down the throats of the country, the poor men could just marry each other. So, maybe there is a reason for liberals to support polygamy 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.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Like I said above, the state of the healthcare debate indicates that conservatives don't give a fig about what other countries do. We're exceptional, remember?

You're wrong about that. Conservatives often trot out the failings, imagined or otherwise, of so-called socialized health care in other countries as something they don't want to emulate.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of mistresses and general infidelity for rich conservatives versus rich liberals. Certainly none would say they would like multiple wives today, but none say they want a man on the side either, until they get caught at it. I'm not disputing the conservatives and liberals do think that today - I'm stating the reasons why conservatives should change their minds.

Well, we can talk about imagined statistics all night long, but they don't make for a good debate. Still, just because someone wants a little strange on the side doesn't me he wants more than one wife.

As for your second paragraph, of course not, but the more money you have the probability of having more wives increases. Simple economics. On the average rich men will have more wives. Not all - some rich people actually do use their money for job creation, after all.

Yeah, but you don't have to say that "on average" rich people have more money. That's why money is the true reward conservatives see for being successful in business.

Odd, given their Founding Father worship. I will admit they are perfectly happy to distort history on this subject. If they got behind polygamy, Ben Franklin would become the paragon of virtue, and they'd dig up some evidence that he actually was a polygamist. Give them some credit, please!

Franklin didn't have multiple wives. None of the founding fathers practiced polygamy, despite the fact that many might have had affairs.

You don't understand very liberals very well, do you. We clearly demand equality of outcomes, both in forcing all people to have the same amount of money, and the same number of wives. We're perfectly happy to curtail freedom for the evil rich people.

Since you are so fond of imagined statistics, which group, conservatives or liberals, would be more likely support legalized polygamy? Perhaps it is you who doesn't understand liberals!

[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.

[LinusK]

Originally Posted by 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

If you have to take out your own garbage, you're clearly not a job creator. Ergo, only one husband for you!

[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.

[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.