[ColSpanker]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/568941...y.html.csp
Read and weep. Advocates of teh gey marriage may try to claim that it won't lead to this, but I think otherwise. With men able to take multiple wives throughout much of the world, there's no reason anymore they have to leave #2 and #4 back in the old country.
And rich American alpha dogs will now have a reason to pick any hot babe they want. Just send over-the-hill wifey#1 off to do some voluntee work and commence to the hot tub with the newer models.

[Luvianka]

It's great! Polygamy is not bad since you send a good message: Winner takes it all! Besides, housework lightens having many hands at home. Children can be raised in a healthy enivironment and women would be happy.
After all, with so many gay men these days in America, many women have not a single chance of ever getting married.

[GameTheory]

how long before " age of consent" laws are UnConst. ???

[Aliblahba]

   

[Icarus]

This will be fun!! Note that polygamy is a generalization of polygyny:

Polygamy = more than one partner.

Polygyny = more than one wife.

So, if polygamy is decriminalized, that means that gays will be able to marry several partners. And women will be able to have several husbands, too!! Imagine a former hottie marrying all her beta orbiters after she hits the wall!

What a clusterfuck this will be!

[Excelsior]

[runsonmagic]

I actually thought about attempting to sue over this to push boundaries.

There is a greater historical precedent for multiple wives. No culture has ever allowed gay marriage in the past, but many cultures, nations, and religions have allowed multiple wives.


Let the games begin.




Sidenote: all the dudes in this photo are gay married. To each other. In one marriage.

[Sonsowey]

Anti-Polygamy laws always struck me as ridiculous.

If you believe in personal liberty, why can't several adults enter into a consensual agreement like this?

It's insane that people here talk about harem management, and there is nothing illegal about having multiple girlfriends, yet if you want to marry them, suddenly you should be in jail.

Let people be polygamous. So what? It's already the de-facto norm for many.

[eradicator]

So if a man has 3 wives, they all divorce him, do they all get half?

[Aliblahba]

(12-14-2013 08:07 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Let people be polygamous. So what? It's already the de-facto norm for many.

4 ex wives= 4x the alimony paid.

4 ex husbands= 4x the alimony gained.

Someone is going to get rich off of this. And many more poorer. Let them do it.

[DjembaDjemba]

A mathematician's nightmare. A divorce lawyer's wet dream.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Guys, hate to kill the buzz here but polygamy was not made legal by this ruling. Read the article.

Utah had a much more restrictive anti-polygamy law than other states, prohibiting cohabitation between a man and multiple women -- designed to support the official LDS church position against polygamy in its battle against some glorious old school pro-polygamy diehards. This is the part that was struck down -- you can now cohabit with any number of people you want in Utah just as you can in any other state. You still can't be legally married to more than one person.

The idea that polygamy will be permitted in the US is an absurd fantasy. Forget about the "logic" that if gay "marriage" is OK then why not polygamy? Logic of any kind is beyond irrelevant. Women don't want it so it won't happen and that's all there is to it.

[demolition]

From the perspective of valuing ideology of personal freedom and individual autonomy, anti-polygamy laws are no less "bigoted" than opposing homosexual marriage.

From a more utilitarian & historical perspective valuing outcomes of most individuals as well as the outcome of society as a whole, opposing gay marriage and polygamy makes a lot of sense.

[Icarus]

(12-14-2013 08:07 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Anti-Polygamy laws always struck me as ridiculous. If you believe in personal liberty, why can't several adults enter into a consensual agreement like this?

Well, because I don't believe in personal liberty in this context.

Think in terms of human ecology. Suppose each man can marry up to 5 women. Now think of a small city with 200,000 singles, half male, and half female. The alpha males, say 10% of the male population (a total of 10,000) can marry 50% of the female population (a total of 50,000). Now, please explain what the 90,000 males that are not top dogs will do when there are only 50,000 women available? Almost 2 men for each woman.

A system that benefits 10% of the men, 50% of the women, and condemns 90% of young men to fucking fatties is not very stable. Unless you're planning on drafting the bottom 40% of males, some 40,000 dudes, and sending them to Afghanistan, I suspect you will unleash the lust for violence and chaos that many young males have.

[Sonsowey]

(12-14-2013 08:22 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 08:07 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Anti-Polygamy laws always struck me as ridiculous. If you believe in personal liberty, why can't several adults enter into a consensual agreement like this?

Well, because I don't believe in personal liberty in this context.

Think in terms of human ecology. Suppose each man can marry up to 5 women. Now think of a small city with 200,000 singles, half male, and half female. The alpha males, say 10% of the male population (a total of 10,000) can marry 50% of the female population (a total of 50,000). Now, please explain what the 90,000 males that are not top dogs will do when there are only 50,000 women available? Almost 2 men for each woman.

A system that benefits 10% of the men, 50% of the women, and condemns 90% of young men to fucking fatties is not very stable. Unless you're planning on drafting the bottom 40% of males, some 40,000 dudes, and sending them to Afghanistan, I suspect you will unleash the lust for violence and chaos that many young males have.

I understand that polygamy leads to an unequal distribution of women.

Yet this is undoubtedly ALREADY the situation. The players on this forum easily are the 1% of the sexual marketplace. Most "regular" guys are happy fucking 1 girl for years. Many of them deal with years of celibacy. Yet players here are kicking themselves if they're not bedding new girls weekly.

We already live in an era where the vast majority of men get no pussy or just the bottom of the barrel, and a small minority of men are fucking well more than their fair share of women.

Personally, I believe marriage should not exist as a legal category at all. But as long as society is tied to the concept, why not let some dudes get married to a couple people?

Also, in response to the low availability of pussy at the bottom of the pyramid, we have of course seen cases of several men willing to share one land-whale. This is ALREADY the society we live in. And since our society loves marriage so much, it's only natural that people of all stripes want to get married just like anyone else.

[Icarus]

(12-14-2013 08:15 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Women don't want it so it won't happen and that's all there is to it.

Are you sure? Polygamy (or, more to the point, polygyny) would allow all reasonably attractive women to have an alpha husband. Them womynz would have to share the alpha husband, but I suspect that such an arrangement would be preferable to marrying a beta nerd.

I may be missing something obvious, but this could greatly benefit women. An alpha CEO could marry a hottie every 3 years. He could marry at 30, then at 33, then at 36, etc. After 10 marriages, he could have 20 kids, 2 from each wife. If the guy has 100 million USD, each wife would get 10 million USD, each kid would get 5 million.

If the CEO guy is Steve Jobs, with a net worth of 10 billion, then 10 wives would inherit 1 billion each. If polygamy were allowed, Steve Jobs could have married 1000 women, and each would still get 10 million after his death. If Steve Jobs had sired 10,000 kids, each kid would inherit 1 million!

[ColSpanker]

It's been proven that Polygamous societies make for violent societies. With less tail for young dudes to chase, because the older, rich men get extras, the younger men turn to violence. How this will all play out in the future remains to be seen.
I agree, the judge's ruling does not make polygamy legal, just stops midnight raids against people who practice it in private. But this is just the beginning. Until teh gey and their feminist allies get Bob and Bruce married in all 50 states, they will try and argue against the practice. But once Sally and Rachel can be recognized in Alabama, this may all change. Or at least they will no longer have any argument against it.

[Shotgun Styles]

(12-14-2013 08:22 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 08:07 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Anti-Polygamy laws always struck me as ridiculous. If you believe in personal liberty, why can't several adults enter into a consensual agreement like this?

Well, because I don't believe in personal liberty in this context.

Think in terms of human ecology. Suppose each man can marry up to 5 women. Now think of a small city with 200,000 singles, half male, and half female. The alpha males, say 10% of the male population (a total of 10,000) can marry 50% of the female population (a total of 50,000). Now, please explain what the 90,000 males that are not top dogs will do when there are only 50,000 women available? Almost 2 men for each woman.

A system that benefits 10% of the men, 50% of the women, and condemns 90% of young men to fucking fatties is not very stable. Unless you're planning on drafting the bottom 40% of males, some 40,000 dudes, and sending them to Afghanistan, I suspect you will unleash the lust for violence and chaos that many young males have.

No sympathy. I'm out to do my thing and if cats can't keep up that's on them. Step your game up. It's chess not checkers and only losers whine about "their best".

Only the weak are afraid to compete. Game is for the strong.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Icarus, I didn't say it wouldn't benefit women, only that they don't want it. Big difference.

It would also benefit women if they forgot about feminism and became good submissive wives. See that happening any time soon?

This is a fanciful shooting-the-shit discussion anyway, but does anyone think that American hags would permit the idea of a man of means being officially sanctioned to add some tasty younger bitches to his stable? They would kill and die, and torture and be tortured, to prevent that from happening. But there is not the least chance of it.

[randomForest]

(12-14-2013 08:15 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Guys, hate to kill the buzz here but polygamy was not made legal by this ruling. Read the article.

Utah had a much more restrictive anti-polygamy law than other states, prohibiting cohabitation between a man and multiple women -- designed to support the official LDS church position against polygamy in its battle against some glorious old school pro-polygamy diehards. This is the part that was struck down -- you can now cohabit with any number of people you want in Utah just as you can in any other state. You still can't be legally married to more than one person.

The idea that polygamy will be permitted in the US is an absurd fantasy. Forget about the "logic" that if gay "marriage" is OK then why not polygamy? Logic of any kind is beyond irrelevant. Women don't want it so it won't happen and that's all there is to it.

Exactly right. Polygamy is still very much not legal--they just made it legal to live with more than one adult person.

It's absurd that it was ever banned in the first place. Nothing much to see here, if you ask me.