Should polygamy/hypergamy be emancipated and endorsed ?

should polygamy/hypergamy be emancipated and endorsed ?

BAMP

No. marriage is more than an emotional bond between two people, it's a legal tie that impacts things like the right to make decisions on behalf of the child or the spouse in certain circumstances.

Those laws already get messy enough, especially if the couple breaks apart. The construct gets geometrically more complicated the more people you add.

No, polygamy is extremely damaging and leads to masses of young men with no sexual prospects destabilising society, as they do in Islamic countries.

I don't doubt that would be true if that were the case, but isn't polygamy pretty uncommon in the Islamic world, even in places where it's legal?

>Hurrrr, polygamy can only mean "multiple wives".
Actually, having multiple husbands is also a case to consider.
Furthermore, you could allow having multiple husbands in societies that are lacking females.

Why wouldn't we just force people to marry each other? Government can handle that task just fine, I believe.

Correct, polygamy means "multiple wives". Multiple husbands is polyandry.

>but isn't polygamy pretty uncommon in the Islamic world, even in places where it's legal?

It depends what you mean by uncommon. Even a small number of polygamous marriages disrupts the ratio of available men to available women, and in most Arab countries it's by no means uncommon for older, wealthier men to have the maximum four wives allowed by the Koran, and that means three young men with no prospects.

>Correct, polygamy means "multiple wives".
Except it doesn't.

The Greek "gamos", from which the "gamy" part stems, means "marriage".

No.

It leads to increasing inbreeding and worse well being for the kids.

Polyandry is incredibly rare for several reasons, including but not limited to; no matter how many husbands a woman has, she can only bare one child at a time, because men don;t like to share, and because women in general don't want multiple men, they want the single man with the highest status.

>should polygamy/hypergamy be emancipated and endorsed ?
Yes. Some men will get all of the wives and live in civilisation. The others will form into wandering maennerbunds of warrior-poets who live in the liminal places of the world hunting, fighting, playing chess, composing songs and eloping with the young wives of the settled poygamists. As they get older they will conquer a married man's household and claim his wives and hearth as his own, when they bear him a son he will be sent off into the wild to complete the cycle.

Basically my ideal society.

That's interesting and absolutely irrelevant from a moral standpoint, which is the topic of this thread.

Besides, if people were fine with those problems, they would marry, if they weren't, they'd divorce, or wouldn't marry in the first place.
And in some societies (with male overhead) that would be the only possibility for some males to get married, which would be better than not being able to marry at all.
Also, only being able to bear one child at a time only matters if you raise that to importance, rather than, for example, being able to pleasure multiple people at a time, which is in favour of polyandry.
It also contradicts itself, if we consider that that polygamy doesn't need one gender to have only one individual. You might as well allow a polygamous marriage of 2 women + 2 men.

Polygamy in practise always means the same thing, it means older, wealthier men marrying multiple young women, leaving young men with no prospects, leading to massive social unrest and crime. You may not accept reason as a valid "moral" argument, but there are no valid moral arguments. All we have to go by is reason and experience, both of whihc suggest polygamy is a terrible, terrible idea.

Polygamy is a bad idea because women are cancer to your mental healthy having two cunts in your house is just asking for trouble.

>Polygamy in practise always means the same thing, it means older, wealthier men marrying multiple young women, leaving young men with no prospects, leading to massive social unrest and crime.
Alright, so if it was true that societies with legal polygamies had lower unrest and crime rates, it would be okay?

Also, what about societies with female overhead then? There are more females than males on this planet, by the way.
What if the neighbouring country had a massive female overhead?
Why not allow male homosexual polygamy, if you have a male overhead?
And what if your "in practice" scenario wasn't the case?

>You may not accept reason as a valid "moral" argument,
Yeah, you can go fuck yourself, too.

>but there are no valid moral arguments.
I don't think you know what the term "valid" means.

*tips*

To proprely enslave the woman, you have make sure she is the second class citizen of her own household.

The most efficient way to accomplish this is reinstating polygamy, because in polygamy she not only is the second class citizen, she does not even have a claim over the household, the household isn't "hers", she lives in her master's, for as long as he is pleased with her.

Of course, the enslavement is most evident and effective when there is a hierarchy of wives in place, and she's at the very bottom, the most disposable and most frequently subject to divorce. She can be a third, fourth, fifth class citizen, then.

The goal is to convince her that being one out of many wives is liberation, and being the only possible wife until death or divorce is oppression, so she can become the advocate of her own enslavement, no longer THE wife but A SECOND wife.

Such tactics rely on the assumption that women are fundamentally stupid, and cannot perceive there might be a trap in restoring or introducing a third world country practice in Latin-alphabet-using ones - countries that forsook it, and that are significantly ahead in the field of women's rights.

Polygynous societies are invariably patriarchal societies where women are controlled by their husbands, typically with culturally approved physical coercion (as in Islam).

If our modern society were to adopt polygamy, then yes I would agree that most men would not be able to handle multiple wives; however, in our society, we already have a similar arrangement whereby the "Chads" monopolise the best females, and the kind of man who would be henpecked by two wives is left to masturbate to crudely drawn 2d lolis instead.

>Alright, so if it was true that societies with legal polygamies had lower unrest and crime rates, it would be okay

It would be one less reason to oppose it, certainly.

>Also, what about societies with female overhead then?

Then that might be a persuasive argument for some to support polygamy.

>Why not allow male homosexual polygamy, if you have a male overhead?

Queers are already polyamarous for the most part. If you mean we should allow groups of men to get married and enjoy the financial benefits thereof, then the problem I would forsee is straight men "marrying" purely for the benefits.

>And what if your "in practice" scenario wasn't the case?

If the circumstances were different then yes, the circumstances would be different.

>I don't think you know what the term "valid" means.

Go on then. Give me a valid moral argument.

>then the problem I would forsee is straight men "marrying" purely for the benefits.
Which is exactly what's possible for heterosexual couples already.

>Give me a valid moral argument.
Either I'm really missing something, or you're confused, or you're trying to troll me. I don't see wherein the difficulty in making a valid moral argument would lie.
Are you sure you know what validity is and you aren't confusing it with soundness?

Maybe you're some sort of weird moral relativist that thinks that you can't make a moral claim because claims need to be either true or false and morals aren't.

But, fine, here's one:

(1) It is morally right to save dogoos.
(2) Buying Neptunia Rebirth 1 will save dogoos.
Therefore, (3) buying Neptunia Rebirth 1 is morally right.

(1), (2) and (3) constitute an argument.
That argument is valid.
A moral argument is an argument that has a moral claim in its conclusion.
(3) is a moral claim.

How the fuck is it not a valid moral argument?

>Also, what about societies with female overhead then?
Rare, they either tend to find some husband elsewhere, or in the case of Paraguay, you let polygamy be legal for a bit.
>There are more females than males on this planet, by the way.
There are slightly more females, because they tend to live longer.
But you can do your wild harem of 85 year olds, if you want, without social unrest, user.
Follow your dream.

Otherwise, your special cases are rare occurrences that mean your society is so fucked up, multiple marriages is the least of your concerns.

are you not begging the question ? you are just applying a moral standard to a concrete situation you are already starting with a supposed moral truth and such a truth is apparently what wants you to prove in the first place from nonmoral scratch

>But you can do your wild harem of 85 year olds, if you want,
I am not allowed to, and unjustifiedly so. That's the problem.

Truth and falsity are irrelevant to validity.

>I am not allowed to, and unjustifiedly so. That's the problem.
Because the number of people that have requested such special corollary is in the single digits.

There are countless laws that get applied never or merely once in 30 years. Single digit applications are more than enough.

>How the fuck is it not a valid moral argument?

Because it's founded on a bald assertion.
>(1) It is morally right to save dogoos.

Why? You haven't demonstrated this at all, just declared it to be the case.

>I am not allowed to, and unjustifiedly so. That's the problem.

Yes you are, you're just not allowed to marry them and reap the financial benefits.

Do you know what validity is?

It means logically sound. Your argument is not logically sound because you haven't provided a logical basis (or any basis) for it.

>you're just not allowed to marry them
That's what I was referring to.

Why are you singling out the normative claim then? Why not single out the factual claim (2), which would need an equal demonstration?

Also, it doesn't mean "logically sound". Logically sound arguments are just one one subtype of valid arguments: those that are both valid and true in all their premises.

How about you show us an argument that suffices your criteria?

>How about you show us an argument that suffices your criteria?

I already said, there are no sound moral arguments. We don't reach moral conclusions thru reason but thru instinct.

Im not even sure what the point of marriage is. Just give out contracts to have couples make babies. They are legally obliged to take care of it and then they can just go fuck whoever they want afterwards.

>That's what I was referring to.

Marriage isn't a right, it's in the gift of the state.

>I already said, there are no sound moral arguments.
No, you said that there are no VALID moral arguments, upon me repeatedly asking whether you know what validity and soundness are: >Go on then. Give me a valid moral argument.

A universe of a difference.

Besides, using your own requirements for arguments, you haven't made a single valid argument in this whole thread, which I could nicely demonstrate with this post: But I guess that's enough embarrassment for a day.

>upon me repeatedly
despite me repeatedly*

>HURR

That's nice, retard.

>tfw you have no imperial harem

>Leftist don't want to destroy family values they said