Social Liberalism has Polygamy in its sights

Whenever we make a substantial change in our laws people talk about a slippery slope. When abortion was first legalised they said it was a slippery slope and that not only would we end up with abortion on demand but that we would end up having late term abortions. They were right. Now a Social Liberal has pointed out that by winning for Gays the right to be married we have dismantled all the arguments that previously could be used against Polygamy. Fredrik deBoer says that we are now on a slippery slope and society is heading straight for Polygamous marriage.

PHOTO-http://images.politico.com

PHOTO-http://images.politico.com

 

Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What’s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.”

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.

In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?

Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.

Why the opposition, from those who have no interest in preserving “traditional marriage” or forbidding polyamorous relationships? I think the answer has to do with political momentum, with a kind of ad hoc-rejection of polygamy as necessary political concession. And in time, I think it will change.

The marriage equality movement has been both the best and worst thing that could happen for legally sanctioned polygamy. The best, because that movement has required a sustained and effective assault on “traditional marriage” arguments that reflected no particular point of view other than that marriage should stay the same because it’s always been the same. In particular, the notion that procreation and child-rearing are the natural justification for marriage has been dealt a terminal injury. We don’t, after all, ban marriage for those who can’t conceive, or annul marriages that don’t result in children, or make couples pinkie swear that they’ll have kids not too long after they get married. We have insisted instead that the institution exists to enshrine in law a special kind of long-term commitment, and to extend certain essential logistical and legal benefits to those who make that commitment. And rightly so…

…While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay. Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It’s time to legalize polygamy.

Fredrik deBoer is a writer and academic. He lives in Indiana.

-politico.com

UPDATE: Turns out it is already getting approval in the UK

 

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • jasper

    The punishment for polygamy should be more than one wife.

  • phronesis

    People commonly think of polygamy as a man with two wives where the wives are not sexually involved with each other. This kind of historical polygamy is sexist to liberals so they don’t support it. However if we start with a bisexual woman who wishes to express her identity by being in a sexual relationship with both a man and a woman at the same time then the Liberals will be all for it. This will be the test case that SCOTUS ends up ruling on.

  • Stuarts.burgers

    I agree with Cams comments about ” Everybody who wants a mother in law should be allowed one ” Now Norma my mmother in law is a really nice person but who in their right mind would want more than one mother in law.

    Polygamy as we see it is normally one husband with multiple wives. Has anybody seen the situation of one wife multiple husbands.

    For example in the Muslin faith multiple wives seems to be ok but how would Muslims react to one wife multiple husbands. It would seem that Muslims live in a very male dominated society, I can not see the idea of one wife multiple husbands going down well. Would there be “honour” killings if one of the husbands brought dishonour on the family.??

    • Sunshine

      Ummmm I know of a few young things who do indeed have multiple male partners and who intend for these men to be their lifelong relationships. So yes indeed it is possible and seems to be a growing normality from what I am I being told by said participants in this lifestyle. I think we have much to be worried about, the challenge for alternative polygamous relationships to be recognised will be orchestrated, it’s only a matter of time.

  • cows4me

    But they only want equality, yeah sure. Just another rod to beat us over the back with, the road to damnation is paved with good intentions. The whole liberal/progressive agenda was to break down the traditional family unit and most fell for it hook line and sinker. So where is this all going, to a totally screwed up world that no longer recognises any sort of morals or values. And I wouldn’t really want to object to any sort of “marriage” for soon it will get you a date before the courts for hate speech.

    • ex-JAFA

      You don’t have to like, recognise or embrace any arrangement between other people if you don’t want to. Because it’s NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS. The world doesn’t have to “recognise any sort of morals or values” – those are personal, not global. As long as YOU are not causing any harm or loss to any other person or their property without their consent, you’ll be alright Jack. As will we all.

      • cows4me

        Haha, fine then. I’m fine with it being none of my damn business but unfortunately it will be at some stage. I suggest you tell the first bakery that refuses to make a cake because it has one guy and three girls on top or the priest that refuses to marry the next big thing in marriage and gets taken to court. And don’t say it won’t happen. Or if you are pushing polygamy and some guy leaves his four wives and sixteen kids who picks up the tab. It’s all very well saying mind my own damn business but I’m afraid this sort of thing tends to become everyones business.

        • ex-JAFA

          If a bakery refuses to sell someone a cake with one guy and three girls on it, that someone can shop elsewhere. Or bake a cake themselves. A priest is a representative of a religion and will therefore operate under the religion’s rules; the people wishing to marry can go elsewhere. Businesses and individuals opting not to participate in any aspect of a polygamous marriage is their own choice, and no different to refusing participation in currently legal marriages between homosexuals, people of different ethnicities, people of different generations, people of different religions, people of different incomes, or any other discrimination you can think of.

          If some guy in a polygamous marriage leaves four wives, those wives will continue to love and support each other. Polygamy isn’t one person marrying a bunch of others, it’s a bunch of people marrying each other. Those four wives are as committed to each other as they were to the man who’s decamped and as he was to each of them. In any case, those women are as capable of looking after themselves individually as any solo mum in the current scheme of things. Nobody need become a burden on you any more than they do now – which is not at all.

          • KatB

            But very recent history has shown us that the gay couple who couldn’t get their cake baked at a particular shop, didn’t just go elsewhere quietly, or bake their own cake quietly, no, instead, they made life hell for the business that said no to them. As cows4me is saying, all things in society good, and bad, affect not just the immediate parties but filters onto others. Cows4me and anybody else has a right to stand up and object or support as it’s no point in moaning about it when it’s here.

      • Rob Ward

        “Because it’s NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS” — sounds like a moral judgment to me. Do you expect others to be bound by your “morality”? If so then you are appealing to a global moral law which in the same breath you are denying.

  • Crowgirl

    I don’t see how polygamy fits within the definition of marriage. If we are to accept that marriage is a contract between 2 people, no matter the gender, then polygamists are still excluded by virtue of there being more than 1 of them. I don’t care how people want to live and how many partners they want to have, but I can only see problems with extending the marriage contract to include polygamists, and the only winners will be lawyers. I don’t see how same-sex marriage opens the door for plural marriages at all, and – as socially liberal as I am – I won’t be agreeing with it.

    • ex-JAFA

      Marriage used to be defined as between “one man and one woman”. It’s now defined as “between two people”. There’s no reason why it can’t be redefined as “between consenting adults”, allowing official recognition of polyamorous arrangements.

      Like you, I don’t see the link and can’t find a slippery slope. But, unlike you, I’m perfectly happy for any number of consenting adult humans to profess their mutual love for each other.

      • Crowgirl

        My main concern is the legalities of it – custody battles, divorce, division of property, and inheritance issues if someone croaks. I don’t care how people choose to live, but I think having that legal bond with a bunch of people will just bring a whole heap of issues with it.

        • ex-JAFA

          True dat. As you say, the winners will be the lawyers. We can only hope that existing matrimonial property law is modified sensibly and reasonably quickly.

        • Rob Ward

          So you are a self confessed moral relativist. In which case you should be consistent and admit that lawyers who makes piles of money from these things are not doing anything morally wrong, just distasteful. Like killing Jews and the unborn — not wrong, just morally distasteful.

          • Crowgirl

            As stated elsewhere, it’s not a moral issue in so much as a legal one. Marriage is a legally binding contract and brings with it a whole set of rights and obligations. Polygamy would require a whole set of new laws and a special legal status, and I don’t think anyone should get special legal status because I believe in the same rules for everyone. Polygamy is problematic from a legal perspective. I don’t care about the ‘morality’ of it.

          • Rob Ward

            A few possible permutations:

            H = Husband
            W = Wife
            C = Child

            H+H
            W+W
            H+W

            H+H+H
            W+W+W
            H+H+W
            H+W+W

            H+H+H+C
            W+W+W+C
            H+H+W+C
            H+W+W+C

            etc.

            And don’t forget that these relationships are no longer stable (statistics show that, for example, homosexual relationships are mostly short term and NOT monogamous). So most of the above relationships can now be fluid and change from day to day.

            So where does this leave children? Simply it will require the state to become dramatically more involved in the “family” to clean up all the mess and psychologists to try to clean up all the psychological mess.

            We are rapidly heading back to first century Rome.

          • Crowgirl

            Which is why I’m not in favour of polygamous relationships – because it will be a legal mess. Hell 1+1 relationships are complicated enough and that’s when assets can be split fairly easily.

            With polygamous relationships can you imagine what would happen if the husband was braindead and more than 1 wife therefore had a say in a DNR? Then you’d have a situation where some wives have seniority over others and the marriage would ultimately not be between equals.

          • Mark

            But right now there are issues with my choices regarding organ donation & DNR & Wills where my express wishes legally made with sound mind & body can & are overruled.As always the Lawyers win. We need less Govt & less laws. I do know you agree with this btw. :)

          • Mark

            Oh yes,it’s for the children because State involvement in the family thus far is working out so well!

            ed;sp

      • Geoff

        Would consenting adults allow incestuous relationships? Why should I not marry my sister providing we agree not to procreate.

        • ex-JAFA

          As far as I’m concerned, yes. I wish you and your sister every happiness. Incestuous procreation is the well understood problem, and has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. You can knock your sister up now, and the genetic problems will manifest themselves regardless of your relationship’s legal status.

        • Rob Ward

          If you did procreate, then our culture has an efficient killing machine that will “remove” the genetic problems. It is called abortion and unborn babies have no rights to life or to marriage.

    • Jonat

      Because love. Arguments based on love for gay marriage were always silly. Now you can argue for polygamous relationships based on the exact same thing. Surely we shouldn’t discriminate against committed groups of lovers who want to make their love for each other official through marriage?

      Love doesn’t qualify anything. It doesn’t even qualify heterosexual relationships between one man and one woman. Love isn’t a requirement for marriage. Love was the most stupid argument ever, but people fell head over heels for it.

      I think marriage should be of religious significance only. All legal relationships must be made through civil unions. In which case religious people who get married would likely go for a civil union also.

      • Crowgirl

        For me it wasn’t ever about love, it’s just about equal rights. People were being forbidden from marrying committed partners on the basis of gender. Allowing the gays to marry does not afford them any more rights than heterosexual marriages – they cannot marry more than one partner any more than you or I could. People in pluralistic relationships can still have their multiple partners and marry 1 of their partners, but allowing them to marry multiple partners extends their marriage rights beyond what the rest of us – gay or straight – could ever hope or want to have. It’s giving them special legal status IMO and bring in a heap of problems with it. There’s a huge difference between gender and number of spouses for me.

        • Rob Ward

          “it’s just about equal rights”

          So are you prepared to offer those equal right to my daughters if they want to marry me? If not, why not?

          • Crowgirl

            Because there are laws against incest and history tells us there are good reasons for this. There are no such laws anymore against being gay, and it is not incest nor a detriment to the gene pool because they can’t breed. A marriage is supposed to be between equals – quite apart from anything else, a marriage between a father and daughter would suggest an unequal power balance at the very least because it could be argued that a father has power/influence over a daughter and therefore could compel her to marriage.

          • Rob Ward

            There have long been laws against homosexual behaviour across almost every culture and almost every time — and there still are in most parts of the world (other than some liberal western countries).

            If you are suggesting that since there are no longer any laws against homosexual marriage then homosexual marriage is now okay, then I simply ask you whether a law change to allow polygamy or incest would make that right also.

            The problem is that once God is cut out of the equation we only have moral relativism left. Then everything is permissible (Dostoyevsky). We are now seeing the fruit of this lunacy.

          • Crowgirl

            No a law change would never make incest ok because of the very real biological problems with it.

            Polygamy is not legal so polygamous marriages are not allowed. Whether that changes remains to be seen, but since polyamory is not illegal, I don’t think a law change is required. A law change was required with homosexuality because they were actively being discriminated against in countries that professed that discrimination is not ok. It made no sense.

          • Rob Ward

            How were they discriminated against? They could live together just like any other consenting adults. They could even adopt children as they have here in New Zealand. Laws could have been changed re insurance or other state benefits without touching marriage. But that would not be enough….. ultimately what the left want is to destroy marriage altogether and make all people “equal” and able to choose their male/female identity. This is no secret as google would show you.

            The question is, can our culture survive without the traditional strong heterosexual marriage culture? I doubt it. Kids are going to be even more messed up than they are now, litigation is going to go berserk, persecution of Christians and any other dissenters is going to step-increase as seen in recent days in the USA, and the quagmire is is likely to tie itself up into knots while the barbarians circle the walls. Western democracy is unnatural. The natural state of humanity is to resort to the laws of the jungle and that is where we are headed. Women are likely to be sex that is most hurt by this. Take care.

          • Jonosbro

            History also tells us that homosexuality suggests a lack of moral restraint, and deviancy. At least, until the characteristic tendency to revert to historical revisionism among social liberals to justify their agenda began to apply to homosexuality a few decades ago.

            Marriage has never been “among equals”. The traditional view of marriage is that the man is the head of the household. In the ceremony knows as the ‘Solemnisation of Matrimony’ (ie the marriage ceremony), the wife vows to “obey him, serve him, love, honour and keep him”.

    • Rob Ward

      You are inconsistent in your thinking. If the state cuts itself free as it has from any belief in divine laws (e.g. the Bible which has formed the basis of our culture) then the state is free to make itself “god” and define whatever it want however it wants. If #lovewins is the basis for the new sexual morality then the force of logic demands that marriage be open to all: women and their cats, multiple partners, children and their parents, and any other permutation that you prefer, As long as it is based upon #lovewins.

      • ex-JAFA

        Animals, plants and objects cannot give consent. Children cannot give consent – not because they lack the means to do so, but because society accepts that they lack the understanding required to do so. Only a very disturbed person would even entertain the idea of such arrangements.

        Consenting adult humans should be allowed to formally declare their devotion to each other. Neither you nor I may wish to have such marriages, but it’s none of our business if others choose them.

        • Rob Ward

          I was having a discussion with friends about this recently and I took your side re consent of children. They however took the other side and cited cases in the UK where paedophilia is already widespread among the wealthy, and pushes to reduce the age of consent to either 8 or 12 (I forget). Given the rate of change for SSM I would not be surprised by anything any more.

  • jaundiced

    I want to marry my cat – where’s the harm in that?
    OK- a bit extreme, we can’t assume that the cat has give its informed consent. What about my sister then? Hard to find a rational barrier. Particularly if we don’t intend having kids.

    • ex-JAFA

      There’s no harm. The only barrier is antiquated law which equates a commitment of love between people with the production of offspring.

      • jaundiced

        I know – there’s no ‘harm’, but its just… icky

        • ex-JAFA

          I agree. But our icky is someone else’s lovely. Let’s not stand in their way – we don’t have to participate ourselves.

          • Jonosbro

            Not everyone subscribes to moral relativism.

      • Jonosbro

        How is that “antiquated”? How else are children supposed to be raised in a stable, loving home?

        • Rob Ward

          The horrible answer is that the state will have to step in and “raise” the children in the future. My guess is that schools will be given more power to clean up the mess and further indoctrinate with their secular worldview.

        • ex-JAFA

          Mankind invented science, and discovered that coitus is a physical interaction between people, while marriage is a legal arrangement between people. Marriage does not necessarily mean that children will be produced, just as not being married is no barrier to producing children. I don’t understand your second question; children can be loved and raised successfully in homes where there’s one or many caregivers, not necessarily related to them.

          • Jonosbro

            Marriage is traditionally intended for three purposes: for bearing children, for avoiding fornication, and for the mutual benefit of society. It is more than a “legal contract”, it is a sacred union, a covenant, and to many and certainly in the eyes of the Church it is a sacrament.

            My second question was related to the fact that marriage between man and a woman is the safest and surest way for children to be brought up in a stable, loving home. Having a child being raised by two homosexuals, or one man and two women, is the surest way to screw up his mind.

    • Rob Ward

      And denying you that “right” to marry your cat is species-ism. The loony left including Princeton philosopher Peter Singer believe that species-ism is a sin, so being consistent he really ought to allow you to marry your cat.

  • Mark

    I’m not a parent,to those that are,is it possible to love more than one child?
    If it is,why can some not accept that it is possible to have a loving commitment to more than one spouse?

    • Rob Ward

      Obviously they are different (I have both a wife and children). When children become adults, they tend to think their own thoughts and leave the parental home. A second wife would have her own mature thoughts but remain under the same roof.

      • Mark

        Yes they are different,but loves grows from a response to shared values in adults,finding those values in people should be enjoyed & celebrated in the ways those adults wish to commit to.

  • jasper

    I think it is hypocritical to support same sex marriage but not plural marriage IMO.
    I can’t profess to understand either lifestyle choice but it is their choice.

    • Rob Ward

      Choice sure, but this is going to affect many more than just those involved in these relationships. This is going to have effects upon all of us and imo will largely destroy our (post Judaeo-Christian) society in which free speech is both expected and respected. It is no accident that free speech is rapidly disappearing (http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/05/kiwi-cyberbullies-face-jail-as-new-zealand-criminalized-trolling/) while sexual deviancy is rapidly increasing.

      • Jonosbro

        IMO, the collapse of our society’s reverence of free speech and other virtues coincides with the collapse of a Christian moral backdrop. We will continue to free fall morally as long as Christian morality is forgotten.

        • Rob Ward

          Agreed Jonesboro. Have you considered why? Let me offer a couple of thoughts…

          Christianity hold to objective morality. That is, moral values exist in the universe irrespective of whether humans exist or not. They exist because they exist in the mind of God. A nice video by William Lane Craig demonstrating this is below.

          Our secular culture on the other hand, now living in the “afterglow of Christianity” (phrase by Peter Hitchens, Christian, and brother of the late new atheist Christopher Hitchens) has moved on to subjective morality which means that morality only exists in the minds of people (since God does not exist in the secular worldview). And since morality is subjective in this secular worldview, one person’s morality is as good as another’ morality and the one who gets to choose is ultimately the one with the most power. This is exactly what we are now seeing, with the supreme court imposing secular morality upon the culture. They are the ones with power, and they are now wielding it.

  • ruawai

    Why is it that men want many wives but women almost never want many husbands??

    • Mick Ie

      Is it so they can rotate the wives on a need by need basis? Not only sexually but also emotionally. As long as they don’t live at the same premises their hormones won’t align and therefore it is unlikely they will share the same monthly cycle.
      Still sounds like a lot of hard work though. And expensive.

      • spanishbride

        In the UK it is not only cheap it makes the ‘ husband’ money as the Sharia marriage is not currently recognised by UK law. Because of this the Muslim ‘ husband ‘ can have as his ‘wives’ women who all receive the UK equivalent of the DPB. I read of one unemployed chap who has 3 wives and they all have their own places and children. He visits them when it suits him and controls all the joint income. if he had to actually work to pay for his harem I doubt he would be so keen.

      • Mark

        I have read that multiple wives tends to result in a sympathetic aligning of the cycles,no I not going to go looking for a citation,I’m scared enough now!

        • Dan

          The study you refer to probably links to the work of Martha McClintock, who published a paper in the scientific journal Nature suggesting that the menstrual cycles of women who spend a lot of time together tend to synchronize over time. Her work lead to others and it became in the 70s the lastest craze for psychologists, and the “human pheromone” concept was born. It was a fun discussion topic when I was teaching reproduction in class as it made this topic more interesting than colouring in a 28 day wheel.

          Synchrony is now losing the debate by the way so maybe nothing to fear Mark!

  • Annoyed

    I see it as a power issue. A marriage between two people is at least on the face of it equal. However, where there is three people there is a very real chance that someone is going to have a disproportionate level of power over someone else. Likewise, the brother/sister issue comes down to power/grooming – one person can unduly assert their influence on the other to get them to marry them.
    Neither of these issues are relevant in the case of same sex marriage.

    • jaundiced

      Not sure why you confine a power issue to polygamy, brother/sister. All marriage is prone to power imbalance.

  • Logan

    I can see one more huge issue with Polygamy, given we now live in a time where young men are not killing them selves off quite so fast, polygamy ends up with an excess of young fighting age men with no hope of every having a wife or family.

    The Middle East is currently seeing the results of that, and China (due to the one child policy favouring boys) may also have problems in the future.

    • The Accountant

      There are a lot of women in NZ complaining of a man-drought. The future looks rosey for them!

  • Bootboy

    All modern society is doing is reverting back to ancient Greek and Roman times. A time when the seduction of young boys by older men was expected and honoured; a time when boys and women were freely interchanged and multiple partners were common place. What changed all that? Among all the ancient cultures only Judaism forbade homosexual or adulterous behaviour. It also promoted marriage between 1 man and 1 woman as the ideal. It is these Judeo/Christian morals which are seen as “deviant” by social liberals today yet it were those moral foundations and values which made the Western world the success story it has been until recently. It is no surprise that we see Western civilisation going down the gurgler at the same time as we neglect our morals and destroy the traditional family unit. They are both interconnected. If you destroy the traditional family unit then socialist state control get’s a foothold and the gullible & naive supporters of this liberal claptrap will get the highly destructive sex crazed LGBTIPP society they deserve. Yes you might as well add the two PP’s on the end for Polyamorous and Paedophilic because you’ve already been desensitised and it is just a matter of time before they get tacked on too….

    • Mark

      The difference between your two P’s is a simple one of ADULTS who are capable of informed consent.
      Seduction of people incapable of informed consent is immoral & in most cases illegal,which has nothing to do with Polyamory.
      At least we seem at WO to be able to have this discussion without me being accused of wanting to marry my sister,but the day is young… My sister by the way is happily married for many years to a man who seemingly was not right for her & it would never last,but I digress… :)

      • Bootboy

        The term “Adult” can be defined in different ways. Some Muslims say Mohammed was justified in having sex with his 9 year old child bride Aisha because she reached puberty early. I have no hesitation in saying that many deviants in western society today would be of the same mindset. Remember that Helen Clark and Phil Goff mooted lowering the age of consent to 12 back in 2004. All it takes is social liberals to redefine the definition of “Adult” or the reduce the age of consent and the slippery slope begins. What is considered to be immoral now wasn’t considered to be immoral in ancient Greek and Roman times. All it takes is desensitisation and the removal of mental barriers. History shows that Polyamory and Paedophilia were once rife in those communities and present trends show that we are heading back in that direction.

        • Mark

          I agree that the term “Adult” can be defined in many ways,I won’t allow Muslims & Helen Clark or Phil Goff to define my morality,for they are mostly devoid of it themselves.

          This NZ community knows that the onset of puberty does not equate to ripe enough to slaughter & has placed an arbitrary age on “consent”. Yet we do not have “Statutory Rape” & make provision in our justice system to take into account the circumstances of both parties & their “power” relationship.

          There are many people over the age of consent whom I would not consider mentally fit for me to have sex with. ( I mean don’t get me started LOL.)

          I don’t consider that there is an moral equivalency between Polyamory & Pedophilia, the Polyamory community teaches how to give/receive informed consent & such consent is not applicable to Pedophilia .

          In NZ we have made great changes over the last 20 years as to how we deal with & discuss such issues,I believe positive changes. Refusing to discuss such things would be sending us backward instead of forward.

  • Kevin

    Polygamy is one of the basic causes of Islamic terrorism because a lot of young muslim males are left with no chance of ever finding a mate and that excess sexual energy gets channelled into terrorist acts. It’s no coincidence that most suicide bombers are young males. I believe there is a direct psychological link between being a suicide bomber and sexual frustration.

    And then there’s the promise of 92 virgins…

    • Mark

      Misogyny & a lack of separation of church & state are responsible for the issues we face with islam. It is a male dominated tyrannical ideology of which Polygamy is a part,because it suits such males.

    • Rob Ward

      Perhaps true in part, but David Wood’s videos on youtube provide much better and clearer explanations.


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbHeKW4xb9Q

    • NeverMindTheBoll

      Of course, the fine print says the 92 virgins are in fact their predecessors

  • Dan

    There may be precedents I am unaware of, but since a marriage is a legal contract, to have more than two sign a contract would be akin to forming a company, corporation or partnership.

    These days an [unknown number of] couples sign pre-nupts, similar to bailout clauses in corporate law. The law allows 50:50 split unless agreed otherwise in the pre-nup, so imagine the discussions over 3 getting 33.33%, 4 getting 25%. Or if one “divorces out” would that mean their share gets divvied out to the rest, or do they have to buy out their share. Or since these things tend to be one man with many wives, does that mean 50% for the man and (say) 25% for each wife? A whole new class of lawyer is born!

    On another note, with three in a relationship you get 4 inlaws – yikes!

  • Jas

    Gay marriage is going to be a small percentage of all marriages and polygamy marriage would be an even lower percentage especially in NZ. Why are people so worried? There is going to be far more issues arising from normal marriages with spilt ups and children issue etc etc.

    • spanishbride

      Look at the UK for example. There is a large Islamic population there who currently do not have their Islamic polygamous marriages recognised by law. The question will be whether or not they want the formal legal acceptance of their ‘ marriages’ as currently the husband can get rid of a wife simply by saying I divorce you three times. He then has no obligation to her or her children financially and she is entitled to none of their assets. If it was legal under UK law he would have obligations that he does not have to meet under Sharia law.

      Also these ‘ Sharia ‘ marriages in Western countries allow Muslim men to have so called wives who are on the UK equivalent of the DPB which means they get to pocket the cash.

      • Jas

        That is why the laws around obligations and custody etc etc need to be seperated from the marriage laws and that marriage customs etc can not superseed the law no matter what religion it is. And if people don’t like that then they can go elsewhere

  • Steely Man

    “The legal protection marriage affords”. What might that be? It seems to me that the State should get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to religious groups. All I have to do is live together with someone for three years and from that time forward I am effectively married.

    • Mark

      I actually have a lot of sympathy for the Church & them saying marriage is their institution,I agree with that. However if the Church had not sought State support to codify such an institution we would not have this issue now. All that we would be arguing about would be what legal arrangements can be made between consenting adults.

      • Steely Man

        We wouldn’t even be arguing about that. It is of no concern to the State about legal arrangements apart form the usual rules about contract law: Competency, Legality etc

  • Mark

    That pattern description is brilliant! I’m stealing it,not sure when I’ll get to use it,but it nails it.

    • Martin

      Google “Neomasculinity” and you’ll find a wealth of theory that makes perfect sense and helps you realize how brainwashed we have been by cultural marxism. I’m sure you recognise which direction third wave feminism is pushing just from a couple of those terms I used (“It takes a village to raise a child” “Sl*t shaming”), ie toward un-fettered hypergamy. We already have it now, it’s just a public arrangement rather than a private one because as someone else points out later in the thread, it’s very expensive for an individual man to keep more than one woman, but if the government pays its much more doable.

  • Jonosbro

    Absolutely right. Our society is headed for the toilet. Morality has been forgotten, and the NZ we grew up in is quickly dissappearing..

  • Intrigued

    Polygamous situations are already provided for under NZ law in terms of their economic impact on the parties – whether they are actual marriages or having more than one domestic partner. The Property Relationships Act 1976 which replaced the Matrimonial Property Act 1976 in toto in 2002 provides for the division of property where there are contemporaneous relationships whether they are married, in a civil union or de facto. See Section 52A (2) (b). I believe the legislators at the time wanted to provide some equity in situations where ratbag partners were living double lives with more than one household which could be classed as a domestic relationship. But you can see how easy this scenario would apply to the Muslim with several wives/partners (wherever they are living) and polygamous and polyamorous relationships. It is a slippery slope to legitimising those relationship in their totality but we are already well on the way. What next? Legitimising incest? Why not? After all as de Boer points out that if the liberals are “accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose” then that is the next logical step. It is a taboo that is also based on a moral judgment that is currently illegal. You can’t knock it back for it being dangerous to have children when gay couples can’t have children without a third party. All of these moral judgments have been codified as against the law at some point. To use the argument that it is morally wrong doesn’t cut it these days. But before we see the total breakdown of the moral fibre that knits our society together and completely destroy the family unit (a goal of socialism) it is as if we need to find a way to reframe the discussion and justification as to why polygamous and incestuous relationships ought to remain illegal. But of course I am viewing this from the viewpoint of a person brought up on Christian values and principles – the underlying “mores” of our society in NZ. The problem is that social liberalism and immigration has opened the door for other cultures and other social mores to come to the fore. How do we define what is morally wrong or right anymore? That is the question. Who knows the answer?

48%