On the issue of homosexual marriage, there have been many dissenters pointing to the dissolution of tradition and the elevation of one class of people over another, and why this matters for straight men. One other aspect worth thinking about is where the arguments supporting same-sex marriage will lead.
A Thought Experiment
Let’s see where this all leads
“Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want if they’re not hurting anyone.”
This has been the rallying cry for homosexual marriage advocates over the last two decades, along with “why do you care what people do if it doesn’t affect you?” In this article, I’ll take this rationale to its logical conclusion: Incest and polygamy.
Support for homosexual marriage has been buttressed by the idea that loving, consenting adults should be allowed the same status as traditional couples. They’re “born this way” and by denying them the right to marry society is treating them as second-class citizens. Consent has been of utmost importance to same-sex marriage supporters, as it has been in other debates centering on sex. But consider the following scenario:
John is a 58-year-old man who is on vacation with his 30 year-old son. One day they decide it would be fun if they tried making love. They both found they enjoyed it and after a few more sessions decide they want legal recognition in the form of marriage for their newfound commitment to each other. Should they be allowed to do this?
Provide some reasons why they shouldn’t, and they’ll likely be the same reasons opponents of same-sex marriage have given for why homosexuals shouldn’t get married. “It’s disgusting,” “It’s wrong,” “It’s unnatural.” Yet by the reasoning of allowing same-sex marriage, this scenario should be perfectly fine. Incest between opposite sex family members can be shot down by citing biological deformities that can occur in their offspring.
But why shouldn’t a man be allowed to marry his grandson if they’re both adults? Why shouldn’t a woman be allowed to marry her mother? These are ideas that can’t be refuted if we accept that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want, the standard refrain from homosexual marriage supporters. By the way, bestiality, the idea that leftists point to and laugh at, does not fit into this framework—animals can’t consent, but a man and his brother can.
Polygamy Is Around The Corner
The new normal
Plural marriage, or polygamy, is on the horizon as well. This is something that is guaranteed to happen for three reasons. First, if a group of adults want to get married, they can co-opt the reasons homosexuals used and apply it to their own situation. They’ll claim that loving, consenting adults should have their marital arrangement recognized by the state. Supporters of homosexual marriage must acknowledge that this is where their reasoning leads.
A second reason is distribution of finances and time. While some might claim that polygamy will negatively impact the well-being of children, they could refute that argument by pointing to the fact that this was also something homosexual marriage opponents claimed. Moreover, even if this were true and could justify restricting plural marriage rights, they could claim that polygamy is good for children, because more adults are available to share the physical, financial, and emotional demands of caring for them. For them, any difficulties would be outweighed by this benefit.
Bear in mind that a generation ago, a worker with a steady job could support a family, own a house, and send a child to college. At a certain point some may deem it necessary to have three workers to be a successful family unit. Some may respond to the changing economy by forming economic groups of several people in one marriage. One income used to be enough to raise and provide for a family, now families require two incomes. Soon it will be three or more.
This leads to the third reason why polygamy will be legalized: the benefit of the state. Isn’t it interesting that as soon as women started entering the workforce in droves, households required two incomes to sustain themselves? The system understood that by encouraging women to work, they would increase the amount of producers and taxpayers. Expect to see wages continue to dwindle as support for plural marriage rises and the state co-opts the polygamy movement. The system will be able to pay workers less while simultaneously appearing “progressive” and “enlightened” on the issue of polygamy and appeasing the supporters of the upcoming movement.
Broken Families = Mindless Consumers
Be a good little producer for one corporation, so you can give money to another one for entertainment
Along the same lines, polygamy will destabilize families, and cause each person to care less about any member of their family. With multiple parents and offspring not bonded by blood living together, the natural connection that forms within nuclear families will collapse. They’ll look for fulfillment in another way: By consuming— trendy foods, the newest iPhone, Taylor Swift, franchise movies, Netflix binges, Instagram, celebrity gossip, etc. This is already happening as families have broken apart, and it will accelerate.
In sum, arguments supporting homosexual marriage can also be used to support incest and polygamy. Furthermore, as support for these movements grows, the system will seize this opportunity to co-opt the movement in order to pay workers less while maintaining an equal amount of producers and consumers, all under the guise of progress.
Read More: We’re Only Three Small Steps Away From Legalized Pedophilia
There is a breaking point. I don’t know where exactly it is, but it’s there. This insanity can’t and won’t go on forever. I’m just ready to reach the breaking point like yesterday.
“This insanity can’t and won’t go on forever”
I’ve been waiting for this breaking point for some time now.
Also coming to a society near you: legalized pedophilia, animal marriage, robot marriage and polyamorous marriage.
The argument people make, “why do you care what people do if it doesn’t affect you?” basically can be used to legalize anything.
We’ve become a society that makes decisions based on emotions, feelings and rhetoric from one based on logic, reason, facts and Truth.
Nope. Kids, animals and robots can’t consent. Try some different and original fear mongering next time.
Fear Mongering? Sweet argument! If you were capable of critical thought, then you would not be a liberal. Fag marriage is not only a black mark on our society, it’s in no possible way justifiable, needed, or even serving in purpose. It is definitely contributing to the increased degeneracy that will ruin our nation. That’s not fear mongering, you fucking dipshit, its fact.
You are wrong and have a tenuous grasp on the definition of “fact.” See my other post in this tread. Gay marriage – where reason and logic goes out the window…
You are still ok with whore mongering or are you just all out anti mongering?
We need to build a wall to keep out those smelly fish mongers!
Actually, good fish mongers provide a valuable service. When you just buy at the grocery store you never know what you are getting. A knowledgeable and talented fish monger will be the cornerstone to a healthy diet.
Do you take jokes too seriously professionally, or is it just a hobby?
But seriously, fish mongers are great for you city folk. Real men catch their own…
I am not sure I would hinge my masculinity on catching my own fish.
Also, it is just a hobby.
Actually some pedophiles and psychologists have argued that a 12 year old who has gone through puberty can give birth to children and even knowingly consent to sex. With this pedophiles say that as long as the kid can say they want to do it they should be able to.
Some pedophiles and psychologists have ALSO argued that children aren’t “manipulated” into having sex they’re “seduced” and they then conclude that if it’s manipulation when it happens to children it’s manipulation between two adults. A child knows when it does doesn’t want or like something.
I assume most of those people can be labeled quacks and idiots too. Well on a certain level, they may be somewhat correct, it ignores so many other dynamics at play.
Plus, you have to look at the groups as a whole. Sure, some 14 year old may be mature enough to handle such situations, but a crap ton are not. That’s why we have age limits on things. As a society we assume that at a certain age, the majority of that population has the maturity to partake in certain activities.
It doesn’t about the amount who are not only who are. Society has changed it’s views on homosexuality why not anything else? Also isn’t the age of consent in Japan like 13 or something? Age of consent is nonsense that only takes a few hollywood produced movies about a 12 year old in love with her teacher to get changed. Propaganda is a powerful tool look at gays.
Eh, I’m not a chicken little type guy. I don’t believe all reason will be thrown out the window. Views on homosexuality have changed, but I don’t see it as anything drastic, merely acceptance/decriminalization of a pretty common act/lifestyle.
First it will be minors with consent of their parents. Then it will be an emancipated minor without parents. Then it will be unfair to “discriminate” on age.
Remember R. Kelly “Age ain’t nothin’ but a number” ? — you think a 14 year old girl who shows up at his party dressed like a whore and tossing herself at him can’t ‘consent’ ? — she knows why she is there, he knows why she is there. Just as gays have chipped away at the Overton window for acceptance, next up are kiddy fiddlers.
So any common act/lifestyle should be accepted/decriminalized?
For the most part, any common act/lifestyle that does not directly affect others, yes. Things like hard drugs, etc. there is room for debate.
No there isn’t when it comes to “hard drugs”. Weak argument.
Hey, I’m with you that hard drugs should be legal too. But I can see the argument that heroin directly leads to crime and problems and the stupid proles need protected from themselves. Still, practically, I believe that legalization will reduce the harms overall.
Reality is just a crutch for those that can’t face hard drugs.
If heroine were legal and cheap, how would it lead to crime? Just like prostitution leads to all kinds of other problems like trafficing, abuse by pimps, and deterioration of neighborhoods in which it flurishes is all because it is illegal. Make it legal and most of the problems, if not all, go away.
Sure, and I agree, but it’s still addictive and people are still going to waste their lives away on it and need money for more, even if it cheap, thus there will be crime. People will still OD. That leads to the question, will it be cheap? Think of dram shop liability, big tobacco lawsuits, etc. where suppliers are liable for harms done to users. A legal heroin dealer will require a huge insurance policy.
Interesting topic, that I admit I haven’t thought or studied on a lot.
Legal dope dealers…sounds like your average doctor.
If aduilts choose to expend their lives in a drug haze that is a ok by me. If they OD it is no different than dieing in a ski accident or while scuba diving or sky diving. You choose dangerous past times and you bear the costs.
The technical definition of “pedophile” involves a preference for pre-pubescents. Hebephile covers early adolescents (roughly 11-14) while guys whole like teenagers 15+ are ephebophiles. What you could call “non-paraphilic ephebophilia” (a guy who likes to fuck older teenagers but not exclusively) is otherwise known as “being normal”.
Act? About 10%. Lifestyle? No more than 2%. I don’t think that qualifies as “pretty common” unless you are basing your view of reality on Hollywood and television sitcoms.
If a child can “consent” to gender re-assignment surgery performed
before reaching puberty, then pedo marriage is right around the corner.
And thinking that a child can do that is idiotic. These issues are nuanced but like most other issues in society, the mouth breathing public only sees it in extreme black and white terms.
Ahh the “nuanced” response implying you’re more intelligent when your argument collapses.
No, literally it is a nuanced topic with a lot of squishy social science going both ways. Unproven theories of cause and effect do not win an argument.
Doubling down on “nuance” is female illogic.
Thanks for not trying to even pretend to use reason or fact. Keep spouting your troglodyte propaganda nonsense, us intelligent people will continue on without you as usual.
I wrote an article a few months ago on this exact thing. One part of it is the idea that children can consent to gender re-assignment. The other part is establishing gender-reassignment as medically necessary. This would mean that children have a legally recognized right to make sexual decisions about their own bodies, even against the objections of their parents. If your four-year old says she wants to marry the creep next door, then you’d have not more right to stop her than you would if she was an adult.
That’s very nuanced of you.
No, that’s me mocking you.
yeah, but it is nuanced mocking.
Nuance is fag language. Not totally gay, just a little gay.
Nuanced Cocking?
however, a 16 or 17 girl/guy can’t consent went it comes to dating but a 3 year can consent for gender re-assignment? i’m confused here…..
SJWs like to create complexity where none actually exists to justify their positions while talking down to those who don’t agree with them.
Academia will insist that ‘age’ doesn’t matter.
Robots don’t need to consent. They are not living entities, and therefore have no rights. Kids and animals cannot consent, and do have rights (of course kids have more rights than animals, but animals still have some rights).
All the libs have to do is Redefine these things to their liking, lower the age for Adult to lower ages, I a few years ago read one Child Molester argue the you girl he violated was really an adult in a little girl’s body rather reads like the transgender nuts claiming they’re really women in men’s bodies or men in women’s. Back in the Clinton administration they referred to adult women as twelve and older. Liberals are very good at Redefining things. Only matter of time before they strike in that direction. As you might recall back in its early founding in Germany The Greens were very much in favor of decriminalizing Pedophilia. Ruth Bader Ginzburg has advocated lowering the age of consent to Twelve so how long do you think that might come before the courts now?
I don’t know, but hopefully when it does, there is some science and fact behind the arguments instead of just unproven propaganda claims by either side.
The entire French leftist show biz/ intellectual sphere signed a petition in the 70s to legalize sleeping with 13 and 14 teenagers.
Among them Sartres, Simone de Beauvoir…
Unfortunately so called ‘Science’ these days is totally devoid of Fact it is more politics and social engineering to justify an agenda. One need only look at what ‘Race’ was a hundred years ago, the so called Aryan business is just typical of that time as pushed by the racist establishments of various nations including the Elite of the United States as defined by Woodrow Wilson and his kind.
Typical ‘modern’ europeans.
Up until a few years ago, the age of consent in Canada was 14, and with a close-in-age provision as low as 12. Even now it is 16 or 18 if you are “in a position of trust or authority” or buying a hooker or doing her up the ass. What is different from a lot of other jurisdictions is that this a bright line regarding ANY sort of sexual touching, not just intercourse.
Keep in mind that only SJWs are allowed to invoke “the precautionary principle”. Any conservative that tries is a fear-mongering, racist, homophobe.
Robot’s may not be able to consent, but they CAN FEEL! AND HURT!
My hand can’t consent. Does that make me evil?
I’d look it up in the law books but my eyesight is not very good lately.
Get a male dog and a human female and a jar of peanut butter and you could see the animal consenting all over the place.
LOL I’ve read stories about that sort of thing…
‘Kids can’t consent’. OK, fine. Not gonna argue with that. But consider this: the age of consent might be 18 in many US states, but over here in the UK it’s 16. So can a 17-year-old consent? “No?” So should the US invade the UK to save 17-year-olds from being abused? “Yes?” Then why is the age of consent 18 in much of the US? Shouldn’t it be lowered to 16 to bring it in line with the UK? While you’re at it, better bring it in line with Italy, where the age of consent is 14. Oh, but there’s also Nigeria to consider; her age of consent is 11. And finally you get to the Middle Eastern countries like Afghanistan where there is no age of consent; as long as you’ve married her you can do whatever you like with a 9-year-old.
“Look if me and my friends wanna play ‘The Deer Hunter’ and do a Russian Roulette tournament in my basement, that’s my business and not the governments concern.”
For many people I have had to deal with, I would have no problem with them doing exactly that. I would, however, suggest they use an automatic.
When I meet people who don’t pay taxes or other such “paperwork crimes” I don’t give a shit because that’s between them and government and it’s not my job to enforce such laws of regulation and taxes.
But pedophilia is something I will enforce against on the site. Meaning if I catch someone molesting a child, I shoot the pervert in the head on the spot.
Sane Headline: Valiant citizen Doktor Jeep protects child from rapist.
Leftists Headline: Gun-totting, conservative radical Doktor Jeep murders man because of man’s sexual orientation.
And that’s why I will actively support any regime that will round up leftoid journalists and academics and exterminate them.
I like the way you think
Damn, I was about to call dibs on shooting the pervert.
I think feet-first into a wood chipper works for me.
In prison thats like the unforgivable crime. Probably because so many of their lives were ruined because of it.
There is a difference between molesting a child (what for 1000s of years has been a crime) and having sex with a young WOMAN.
A woman beeing defined as a female who has had her period. Mother nature does not make mistakes. If she bleeds, she is ready to have children and this does include having sex.
I do see nothing wrong if a 15 year old woman has sex with a 30 year old man. She might even have a better overall experience than she would have with a 15 year old boy who has no idea what he is doing.
On the other hand if the same 30 year old guy goes after a 7 year old child. This is against nature and a crime.
Todays laws would make both of these acts equal. This is wrong and only the real child abusers will benefit from it. Not a coincidence.
Man, the future looks bright. Do you think the robots will be a-sexual or will they all be programmed differently? Like gay-bots?
“Also coming to a society near you: legalized pedophilia”
Pedophilia is fucked up shit, and of course the reason for establishing such a thing is for promoting man –> boy pedophila and woman — > girl pedophilia, and woman — > boy pedophila.
And while making it socially unacceptable for a normal, moral heterosexual man to ask out a woman who is more than five years younger than him.
Well said. That’s exactly it, pal, especially your last statement … what makes me go bonkers with having a “discussion” with many morons and retards is that after putting forward a **fact-based**, logically constructed, rationally presented point-of- view regarding an issue, the imbecile response is “oh, but that’s just your opinion”! Many times I’ve wanted to get the HK45 and pump an entire magazine into the moron’s corpse, followed by a “special treat” with the 44-Magnum, Model29. Only the thought of becoming Bruno’s bitch for the rest of my life at the local pen has deterred me from act.
It looks as if it is already here:
https://youtu.be/no44_XRjLzw
Ditto:
https://youtu.be/ls_PtdU4q2c
I say allow both as long as all the parties are consenting (however, the power dynamic between a parent/offspring could be argued as to disallow incest as well as its not true informed consent). Government sanctioned marriage is nothing more than a bundle of private contract and partnership rights – inheritance, medical rights, taxes, etc. Let’s not act like it is an act sanctioned by god. It should be available to whoever wants it in whatever combo they choose.
I always say, yea homosexuals didn’t choose to be gay. And neither did pedophiles!
You are absolutely correct. Polygamy is already on the rise since polyamory is becoming popular. I’ve seen a lot of it on the west coast.
I met a girl and we openly flirted around what I assumed to be her beta orbiter. Later, I found out it was her husband and they said were both into the idea of me having sex with her. Their entire friend group was into polyamory and they exchanged lovers. No loyalty and probably lots of disease. I got out of there fast after learning that.
Poly is being mainstreamed now as a relationship status on dating sites.
I’m going to gather as many wives as possible , work my ass off to build a fortune , then make them fight to the death gladiator style for the trust . There can only be one .
.
Worked for me!
Then they wouldn’t fight ….
They would need to get their black eyes the old fashioned way — not listening.
Ah you mean “not looking and walking into a door”.
“We’re gonna have…tryouts!”
My standard answer to polygamy is always that I don’t even want one fuck buddy that lasts more than 3 months, why would I want multiple wives?
However, my friend, this…right here…this…this is worth striving for.
When one is sulking you can fuck one of the others. You can make them compete with each other for your attention. As a result they will all be better behaved…
So funny you say this. I just told someone yesterday who has problems with women….nice guy…ugh….that he should never hit on only one woman at a time. Hit on a few and let their natural competitive instinct kick in. She will be trying so hard to win that she will beam with pride when she finally gets your cock in her mouth.
That’ll show those girls.
Yep. I asked out this girl in a store. She is now fucking about (i.e. being non-committal). She is super-hot and Romanian. But zero-fucks are being given. So I am now going to ask out another girl in the same store.
Nice. Romanians make me weak too. They have tempers closer to Latinas than Eastern Europeans. Dread game and jealousy work so well on them.
She works with a Latvian girl. Not as cute but seems to like me. I was just working on her this morning…
Romanian women are great though. Slim, long dark hair, beautiful clear skin, endless legs… No wonder they think they’re special.
So funny. Two hours after chatting up the Latvian girl, the Romanian girl was calling and texting me. However, her flakiness has put me off. As Eazy-E said:
next time she try and tell a lie…
I agree.
Multiple women trying to out fuck each other for your attention is always best.
MUahahahahahahahahahaha. You patriarchal shit lord!!
I must add that before, during, and after, they must be made to please you. Because you have needs to! Otherwise, they only want you for your body! Your body because who ever can claim your body, can claim the fund. That shallow coven of selfish witches.
you’re doing it wrong. gather wives, have them work. you do man stuff. you win.
Your’re doing it wrong too. Gather women. Live with them but don’t marry any of them. Have them work and submit their paychecks to you. Dominate them completely and enjoy life.
Better yet, don’t live with them. Have members of your soft harem come over in various combinations for threesomes etc. assign each woman a number and roll some dice. Get creative. Have fun
You’re talking just like a pimp.
Don’t say that as if it’s a bad thing. Pimps have game.
Player In a Management Position
Or just have a tournament each week and the winner gets to suck your dick and sleep in your bed; the losers can sleep in a cage in the garage and eat dog food.
you’re poop.. more like
diarrhea 🙂
You’re 12…more like 11
I’d pay to watch that!
“Plural marriage, or polygamy, is on the horizon as well.”
In Europe plural marriage is on the horizon because of refugees. I’m sure that if the EU Governments vote for such laws, it will be because of the refugees – to comply with their whims. Well, at least we will have the chance to get multiple wives.
Another interesting fact regarding polygamy marriages: You, the tax payer, will be forced to fit the bill. Already in norther Arizona and southern Utah, there’s several polygamy sects and all of them rely on food stamps paid for by the government. It’s one thing for the local state to do it, but the states that have been mentioned also reroute federal tax income for these huge families.
Source:http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2142621
We taxpayers have to foot the bill for every type of irresponsible behavior. We have to pay for irresponsible baby daddies who refuse to take care of their children. We have to pay for unmarried single mothers that continually get knocked up.
You are right about the polygamous Mormon sects. They do tend to rip off the system as well.
A man should only have as many wives and children as he is willing and able to provide for.
Still not convinced anything is wrong with polygamy.
Okay, no. Having read the article now (skimmed it at first), fuck you. Okay, that out of the way here is the rational reason for my fuck you.
The reason incest is wrong (and should remain illegal) is that it increases the risk of BAD STUFF happening to the kids.
The reason that polygamy is not bad is that it is what we used to do, for millions of years. It is in our biological nature. We know from genetics that for every male who procreated two females did. Thus we can infer that either polygamy or serial monogamy was the norm pre-agriculture.
In conclusion, what we have had for the past several thousand years was unnatural and therefore wrong.
Let me pose the question, if we live in a “equal” world wont that mean any number of people can marry? Also wouldn’t that mean that any women you marry can marry other men and women as well?
We do not.
The main problem with polygamy is that it disrupts the marriage market. If men can have multiple wives, then many women would prefer to be the second or third wife of a rich man, rather than the only wife of a poor man. This would leave lower-status men without marriage, a traditionally a stabilizing force in the lives of individual men and the body politic.
If women were able to marry multiple men, it would exacerbate demographic decline. One high-status woman could have several husbands, leaving lower-status women without husbands of their own. More wombs would go unused.
The only way for stable polygamy is to restrict men to marrying only one native citizen, and allowing them to have additional wives from abroad. The man should have to prove he is capable of supporting another wife and more children. The woman should have to be healthy (physically and mentally), and she should have no rights to citizenship or custody of her children in the event of a divorce. Finally, the government should set quotas and restrictions on a foreign wife’s country of origin. Europeans would have an easy time assimilating, and an almost unlimited number could be brought in without social disruption. Many Asian groups (Japanese, Koreans) would have an easy time assimilating as well, but it would be wise to put some restriction on the number. Finally, some groups would have a hard time assimilating, and should be severely restricted or banned altogether.
Post-war if there is an abundance of women and only a few men, it seems sensible to allow for this.
I think we’re on the same page that marriage laws need to make some sense within the conditions of the surrounding economic system.
Marriage is worthless in a world where you can have sex outside of marriage without being a social pariah.
Exactly. The arguments people are making here were valid a hundred years ago. In today’s sexual marketplace those arguments are idiotic, since the negative consequences they fear are already embedded in our society and have been for a long time
Using the gay marriage logic, incest marriage could be allowed for opposite sex couples if they can provide medical statement showing one of them is infertile. The poly issue is already being challenged by muslims.
Considering how much they will bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims, polygamy is just around the corner (but only for Muslims, not for Herero white men).
I actually a lesbian incestuous couple argue that because they’re the same sex they can’t have kids and should be able to get married.
The biggest problem would come from sanctioning these relationships with the full force of socialist, anti-libertarian laws.
In a more libertarian society, insurers would have the right to stipulate that they will not cover children produced by incest. Employers would be able to fire (or not hire) someone for engaging in such relationships, on the grounds that such relationships are indicative of mental illness and a degenerate character. Furthermore, a more libertarian society would not provide food stamps and housing assistance for some polygamist’s 20 children.
So in a poly marriage if I married 3 women, could those 3 women marry other guys too? At point would we all just end up marrying the same women and it just becomes a joke to even call it marriage?
Using the gay marriage logic, a person could have multiple spouses at the same time.
I wonder what kind of sexuality they’d create to make it normal…I mean you say bi but I have a feeling they’ll get creative.
In the future all gender orientations except for “pansexual” will be outlawed as hate speech. Thank “liberals” from criminalizing being a straight male.
I’m sure you could get that ‘group’ marriage like on the SyFy series ‘Caprica’
Calling what we have today between heterosexuals marriage is already a joke.
“Animals can’t consent”. Only by our CURRENT definition of “consent”; the same that our previous definition of marriage was “between a man and woman”. We know that leftists like to change the definition of words to suit their goals. Changing the definition of consent is nothing.
Of course human heterosexual intercourse will require affirmative consent, beastiality will require some other form.
After all, “all love is pure and should be not only allowed, but celebrated”.
Well considering animals could show discontent with whatever’s going on in many ways, consent if the animal stays. I’ve seen dogs who hate being petted nearly killing people, trying to stick your dick in it would probably give the same reaction if it didn’t want it.
Its not required to get animals “consent” to breed or slaughter them. Why would it be legally necessary to get consent to marry an animal? Expect beastie marriage to be brought to you by the same lawyers who rammed through gay marriage over the will of the voters. They will argue that its always been happening in human history and its time to bring these people “out of the shadows”. Expect to see sheep riding on the float in the pride parade.
The breed/slaughter argument is something I’ve never heard before. Interesting.
Good point. “Consent” is a word the New Speak Left is already messing with. I predict that the standard for consent will become more and more difficult to attain for oppressive white heterosexual males, while becoming easier and easier to obtain from animals, children, and folks under the care and control of others.
Look at how leftists have tried to warp the word “racism.” According to them, racism can only occur when there is a difference of social power, so no one can every be racist against whites.
They might try to do the same thing with consent to make it something about need and power. According to communists, people who need something are entitled to take it from people with power. So, if a frumpy elementary school teacher needs a little lovin’, then she is permitted to get some from a six-year-old boy because he has male privilege.
animals don’t consent at all, they just follow their instincts to fuck other animals. God forbid if government would allow beastiality, i’d say we are really fucked.
Meanwhile people as young as 8 years old basically know whats right and wrong.
If there is enough people demanding for poligamy and incest recognition, these will be accepted. But as long as there is not a push in society for these, there is no reason for them to be introduced. There is not such thing as a poligamy or incest lobby, unlike in the gay case.
WhatAboutMe-ism always takes root.
Ten years of sympathetic portrayals by hollywood is about all it takes to build a lobby.
No. All it will take is one case bankrolled by someone with enough dough to see it through to a federal court that will read the gay marriage ruling and conclude it’s basic reasoning applies to incest/polygamy as well. That will start the chain of folks filing in other federal districts which rule the opposite setting up the conditions for SCOTUS to hear the case. Since they didn’t simply kick the gay marriage back to the states as a states rights issue, they’ll have to rule on incest/polygamy marriages.
At the state level people will vote to for amendments banning polygamy and incest. And… activist federal judges will rule them unconstitutional.
Mormon and Muslim examples aside, I wonder how much science fiction accounts for the push for polygamy, like in Robert Heinlein’s novels.
Keep in mind that the nerd enthusiasm for polygamy comes from guys who have trouble finding one girlfriend, much less several willing to marry them. Polygamy looks like the sexual version of the medieval myth of Cockaigne, a fantasy of the sexually starved man.
In Robert Heinlein’s novel it was clear that it was women with multiple men.
Details, details. The less desirable men got sexual consideration once in awhile, even the mature and cranky Jubal Harshaw. In the real world a lot of nerds who read science fiction haven’t progressed far enough in sexual experience to claim basic competence in it.
Heinlein’s sexual utopia, if you could call it that, makes an interesting contrast with Ayn Rand’s vision of a sexual utopia portrayed Atlas Shrugged, published a few years before Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land. Rand shows in the novel that many of the villains have girlfriends, pickups and mistresses, while the good men often have to go without sex for years at a time, often their entire lives in Eddie Willers’s case. Yet the bad boys can’t derive proper enjoyment from their sexual opportunities because they suffer from bad premises or something; while the philosophically straight-thinking heroes experience whatever sex they have access to, if ever, as nearly transcendent events. Well no wonder, if they have to wait years to get any sex, instead of getting it regularly as part of an Aristotelian vision of the good life which requires a measured share of the goods of the body to support the higher work of the mind.
I was thinking The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which went into alternatives to monogamy in great detail.
There it was a stabilizing function for a heavily skewed male society. More like a coping mechanism so that the men weren’t all killing each other for access to the few females.
The whole pandora’s box could have been totally avoided if the government had simply taken one step in the other direction–and gotten out of the marriage business. The government did far more than legalize gay marriage–the government essentially made the following moral statement: “The only types of marriage unions that are moral and good are man-woman, man-man, and woman-woman… and all other types of unions are not morally fit and thus get no endorsement and protection from the state.” Legalizing gay marriage was not a statement that i”adults can do whatever they want with each other” it was a statement that gay marriage is morally equal to straight marriage, and morally superior to any other type of union.
It is not the government’s job to define sexual morality between consenting adults.
It isn’t the government’s business to define marriage. The Creator defines marriage (if you are an atheist who rejects the Creator, then Nature defines marriage).
The government needs to get out of the business of trying to control marriage.
That’s always been my biggest argument. Why do I register with the state at all? It’s stupid.
That’s because the government has all sorts of laws about marriage, principally those about alimony, child support, custody, and inheritance.
Firstly, alimony should be done away with. Couples can just create marriage contracts where they agree to a dowry, alimony, or whatever they want.
However, it gets tricky when people produce children and get divorced. They could establish this beforehand in a marriage contract they create between them. But what happens if they don’t address this issue, or if people have children without any marriage contract? Who gets custody? What are the visitation rights?
And then a stranger(s) decide your fate. Brilliant. Laws for marriage are bullshit and so is the justice system.
The best solution would be to have a clear, utilitarian, universal default that kicks in in the absence of a specialized marriage contract created by couple. After all, two people have a kid and split up, someone or something has to resolve the custody dispute.
The most socially cohesive default would be to have no alimony, and to automatically award to the father the custody and financial obligation of his children born in wedlock. This would eliminate the financial incentives for women getting a divorce, and would encourage them to stay married to be around their children. Furthermore, after abolition of welfare, the custody and financial obligation of children born out of wedlock would be awarded to the mother. This would encourage women to get married in the first place.
Again, people should be able to create custom contracts, but it’s practical to have a basic default.
Marriage licensing came to be in the USA because southern states wanted to prohibit interracial marriages. Note carefully how when that practice was declared unconstitutional, it was only the discrimination part that was struck down, the concept of marriage licensing still remained.
The government would never willingly give up a power it had seized long ago.
since marriage is defined by the creator (God) therefore, pastors and priest should have control of marriage. So if pastors and priest have full control of marriage, then gay marriage would’ve never seen the light of day. I bet on you that.
As a Christian, I do not believe that pastors and priests have ANY control of marriage. The Bible itself defines marriage. The only people that really need to have anything to do with it are 1. the man marrying a woman, 2. the woman, and 3. the woman’s father (assuming she is a young unmarried woman)
I think you could make an argument that polygamy exists in nature, and it certainly existed in the bible.
Most human cultures throughout history have permitted traditional patriarchal polygamy.
Biblical polygamy is a good thing. A man, Biblically, should be allowed to have as many wives as he can afford. One can even make an argument that feminism began, and patriarchy began it’s decline, when polygamy became “evil” to society. There’s nothing more patriarchal than a man with multiple wives or a harem of concubines.
A man is biologically built to efficiently pass his DNA to multiple women. Biblical polygamy is an effective answer to many problems facing Western civilization, from declining birth rates, divorce and strife over men cheating on their wives, and men who avoid marriage because they know they will never be satisfied with just one woman for the rest of their lives, just to name a few.
Polygamy, Biblically, is a morally sanctioned practice and a blessing. Incest and homosexuality are among sexual transgressions which call for the death penalty at the mouth of two or more witnesses. Completely different ends of the moral spectrum. For those who consider themselves contemporary Christians, it would be wise to consider Yahweh (God) Himself had more than one “wife”. The House of Israel and the House of Judah are figuratively spoken of by Him as His wives throughout the Bible.
I am so glad to read your post. It is refreshing to hear this coming from a fellow believer. I’ve studied the Bible, and know darn well that what you are saying is true. I even got kicked out of an Evangelical church for believing what the Bible says about polygamy.
I cannot believe how misled and misinformed most Christians are about this issue. It goes to show that cultural traditions are extremely powerful.
Two weeks from today, I am scheduled to talk with the elders of my new church about it. I fear that they (like the leaders of my last church) will fear man more than God, and that they will set aside the Law of God, in order to uphold the traditions of man.
Pragmatists are a dime a dozen in American Christianity. Biblically faithful men are few and far between. May God be pleased to raise up more of them.
I have a jewish friend that explained how the rabbinical councils eventualy made polygamy illegal. They said the law allowed it but required that each wife be treated identically; which since this is impossible to do then plural wifes weren’t allowed.
I think the Rabbis basically made it illegal, since they were living in societies surrounded and dominated by Christians who incorrectly thought polygamy was illegal. The Rabbis were probably afraid of looking bad in the eyes of “Christian” society.
The Law of God in the Hebrew Scriptures obviously allows it, and the New Testament never prohibits it either.
The Patristic fathers, and later the medieval Roman Catholic Church seem to have adopted and sanctified the pagan Greco/Roman view of monogamous marriage. I think Gnostic influences had something to do with it as well. They certainly did not get their views on monogamy from the Bible.
Even the Protestant Reformers couldn’t or wouldn’t go back to what the Bible teaches on the subject (although the Lutheran reformers Martin Luther, Melanchthon, and Martin Bucer, are on record as having supported polygamous marriage).
It takes a lot of balls (or perhaps I should say Faith) to admit that the Bible allows patriarchal polygamy.
I agree that polygyny isn’t a sin. And looking at the way men and women reproduce, it even makes sense in a way. Although for population reasons it wouldn’t work for most people.
The same happen with women work. They push the agenda of women want to work to hide the reality. Women need to work so we can tax them and pay less. But everyone is happy and clapping. The poor women always worked. But that work can’t be taxed (nanny, wash others cloths, clean other houses). So now the poor women pay taxes urray. The middle class who was bored in the house now lost the status and become poor. The elite remain the same. But eeey she don’t need it, she want it, remember.
If Polygamy is allowed you can forget about Game. Any female with looks and a sense of self worth will line up for the chance to share a hedge fund manager, a doctor, a politician..etc etc.
Monogamous marriage is part of the social contract that gives beta males the chance to find some joy in life with female companionship and the possibility of sending his genes into the future by having a child. If you take that away from a large portion of the male population then social unrest and daily occurrences of violence against the system will become normal.
Women have no issue sharing an alpha male, leaving betas with no options. Examples happen everyday with sports stars and celebrities. Polygamy, incest and pedophilia will be the final nail in the coffin of civilization as we understand it.
No fault divorce already gives women the power to do that with serial polygamy. Hypergamy.
According to the Bible, these sorts of women are called adulteresses. Adultery is not polygamy, and polygamy is not adultery. A woman who breaks her marriage covenant and marries a different man is a whore, not a polygamist.
All cultures are equally good, and for you to say that polygamy is bad for a society just means you’re a racist bigot. There is absolutely no evidence to show that polygamous societies are also unstable, except for this:
Traditional patriarchal polygamy – Where a man has more than one wife – has been widely practiced throughout history. Most cultures and societies have permitted it.
Most importantly the God of the Bible permits it.
It is a completely legitimate activity.
This chart shows how we get polyamory here. The Muslim Sharia law allows for it, so with our leaders rabid desire to be multicultural those laws will be removed and poly follows. OK Cupid is getting on board early with poly.
From a Christian viewpoint, the primary consideration in the creation mandate of marriage seems to be PATRIARCHY (or male headship) rather than MONOGAMY.
According to the God of the Bible (who I believe is God of the Universe), incest is an abomination. Homosexuality is an abomination. Polyamory is an abomination. Adultery is an abomination. Bestiality is an abomination. He prohibits all this stuff.
However, this same God treats traditional PATRIARCHAL POLYGAMY as MARRIAGE, and calls it MARRIAGE. The Bible is full of godly men who were polygamists. They included many of the heroes of the Faith. Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Caleb, David, Solomon, Josiah, and many more were all polygamists.
God never rebuked or reproved any of them for it, though He did rebuke them when the committed real sins (like David committing real adultery with Bathsheba, or Solomon turning marrying idolatrous women and turning to idolatry).
The Bible never directly prohibits traditional patriarchal polygamy. The Bible never calls it sin/immoral/unclean/evil/ungodly/perverse, or anything of the sort.
The word adultery in the Bible (Hebrew word “Na’aph” – Strong’s 5003) literally means “woman who breaks covenant”. It refers to a man having sex with a woman married or betrothed to another. It always relates to the marital status of the woman.
No polygamous man is ever said to have committed adultery by marrying an additional wife.
I don’t think polygamy is generally an advisable practice, but according to the Bible, it is a lawful, and legitimate form of marriage.
The Roman Catholic church has lied to us about this issue for hundreds of years. Most Protestants haven’t really studied the issue, and are usually to close minded and too ignorant to discuss the issue rationally. (I’m an Evangelical of the Reformed Baptist persuasion personally)
don’t forget about Noah’s daughter whom basically had sex with their father after the great flood…
According to Genesis, Noah had no daughter. Eight persons survived the Flood in the Ark. There was Noah and his wife. There were Noah’s three sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) and their three wives.
You may be thinking of Lot. Lot did have sex with his two daughters after the destruction of Sodom.
There is a lot of ugly shit in the Bible. The Bible has a unique way of showing the ugly truths about humanity.
the way dating is right now and so many betas that are thirsty, i believe that it will lead to incest in order to get rid of their sexual frustration. For example, if a guy has so much trouble getting a girl and gives up, he might look at his female cousin or a farther cousin to have a sexual pleasure.
i don’t know that’s my theory.
A guy who can’t get girls isn’t going to be desirable to his female cousin.
i wonder where is that going to lead him next…
Monogamous marriage merely gives betas the opportunity to be divorce raped. Polygamy wouldn’t change the current state of things very much at all.
However, alphas already get all the women they can handle, so there is really no incentive for them to get married, polygamous or otherwise
What you say is correct, but we are in the era of the “soft harem”. If polygamy is institutionalized the mask comes off. A beta lurching around not understanding that his options are limited in a fog of war is one thing…outright showing him the truth by way of law is a another matter.
The state and the federal gov have no legal reason nor any constitutional footing to regulate the relationships between adults. Marriage for tax purposes is elevating a certain class of people above others and is on itself a violation of equal protection clause… Get the gov out of the marriage business and you avoid all sorts of conflicts. Marriage is a religious convention. Where is the ACLU screaming about separation of church and state ?
Yours is the ideal conservative small government argument.
Of course this will never fly with the left, because for them, the state is their church.
Yep. If government has an interest than it should be the legal agreement between two people– in which case it should be a legal contract that’s enforceable and the clearly articulates conditions for and penalties for violation of or dissolution of the contract.
Convert the legal aspects of marriage to contracts, leave the religious marriage to non-legal ceremony in whatever faith the individuals follow.
I think incest has the easier legal argument (2 consenting adults), though polygamy may be easier to advance socially.
There’s no reason NOT to have Polygamy…the biggest argument AGAINST homosexuality is from the Christian Right…often as they invoke the Old Testament. That same Old Testament has multiple examples of church fathers (Abraham, etc.) with multiple wives, and those claiming to want to be more ‘godly’ will say they MUST have multiple wives. The push will start, with Hollywood glamorizing group marriages as the ‘hip’ new thing.
Though most conservative Christians do not realize it, the Christian Bible clearly permits traditional patriarchal polygamy. The Bible never prohibits it. It is never called sin/evil/unclean or anything like that. Many of the heroes of the faith (including Moses the author of much of the Bible) had more than one wife. God never corrects or rebukes any of them for doing it, while He does clearly rebuke them when they commit actual sins.
Christians need to get their head out of the sand and realize that Patriarchy, not monogamy is the defining characteristic of Biblical marriage.
Will the new trend-following BSA leadership be early adopters?
Gays have done horrific damage to boy scouts and catholic church.
“Gays have done horrific damage to boy scouts and catholic church”
Absolutely. It used to be that the boy scouts and churches were the very few places to escape progressivism. That’s no longer the case now.
I have been in scouting and had four sons in scouting. I would not let any male relative of mine be in scouting today.
Scouting died the day they took that idiot “vote” to allow gay scouts. Too many slimey infiltrators in the Scoutmaster area that sabotaged it.
I know a gay man who was a scout in his boyhood who was against gays in the Boy scouts. He would know why.
It’s a done deal….because “Other cultures practice it.” , in addition, just as academia insists that ‘gender’ and ‘race’ are a social construct, so too will they insist ‘age’ is a social construct. We will see a judge somewhere insist it is a ‘civil right’ of a father to impregnate his own 9 year old daughter…and if you don’t like it, the left will call you a ‘bigot’ 🙁
Polygamy is probably next. It fits with islam, which means the argument can be made within a multi-cultural framework. The real reason though will be feminism’s investment in gender theory and the lgbt movement. In other words, whatever it turns out to be in practice its not going to be patriarchal on the surface. It will be packaged so as to meet the changing needs of the modern relationship: bisexuals, remember them?
Lot of women like to think of themselves as swinging both ways – (men do too but usually because they’re gay). With women though its frequently for feminist ideological reasons – they have turned away from heterosexuality as an oppressive patriarchal institution – but have committed more to the theory of the lesbian continuum than to the practice. Polygamy, which in most cases is likely to translate into one male, two women, will enable feminism to perpetuate the deceit through ideological sleight of hand: they can relate equally to both women and men (in that order obviously)
Through the new polygamy feminists will get to be romantically feminist with other feminists (feminism has never given up on the notion of the woman identifying woman) while satisfying her more traditional womanly needs with a male protector / provider etc, though in likelihood he will be described as anything but that. As others have pointed out this will also permit both women to pursue the better deal hypergamously.
Its unlikely to catch on. People get jealous, and isn’t likely to be the basis for a stable family structure – unlike islam etc it won’t have the discipline of a religion behind it. But most of these changes are symbolic anyway
Polygamy is anti-patriarchy, even in its old form of one man, many wives.
Now, we can assume that since there is gay marriage, well then, the cherry is busted, let there be polygamy.
Not so fast. This is a gynocracy. This is the society where you can have sperm banks but when the topic of artificial wombs in laboratories come up, women start screeching about misogyny.
The polygamy is going to be one woman, multiple simp men.
In many ways, it already is that way. It’s just not state-sanctioned. One whore can work a stable of beta orbiters and fuckboys.
But.. what was marriage all about at one time? Aside from being a “reproductive unit” (hence I laugh at women past their prime looking for marriage) it was also a contract that protected women: she gives you her best years, she has financial security in her worst in exchange. After all, if you decide she’s past her shelf life at 35, she can’t just go throw on the same shit she wore at 18 and start over.
But female-centered polygamy will be based on that. The level of entitlement and self-importance of the post modern woman will be a concept of “it takes more than one man to meet MY needs”. It will be official, the “beta bucks alpha fucks” paradigm. But don’t expect any contract that “protects the male wives”. It will likely be based on “you are part of her harem, but if you don’t do your chores and pay your part of the bills you can be divorced out and that’s that” but there probably won’t even be a reason needed.
Again, it’s almost like that now.
Dear God or Putin please nuke it all now.
I fear that you are right. What we will soon see widely instituted is polyamory and polyandry, not traditional polygamy (polygyny). The betas and omegas are going to get screwed over big time.
I disagree with you about traditional patriarchal polygamy. The God of the Bible clearly permitted it. Biblically speaking PATRIARCHY rather than monogamy seems to be the key principle.
I don’t think traditional polygamy is necessarily advisable, or ideal, but the Bible certainly allows it.
God is the Ruler and in a sense “Father” over all things. He created and rules the universe, and Christ is head of the Church. Christ is Lord over the Church.
Man is a little tiny vassal (or sub-regent agent) of God. Man governs over his tiny little sub-kingdom, reflecting the way Christ leads His Church. Whether a man’s little sub-kingdom contains only a wife, a wife and two children, or five wives and twenty children isn’t really the important point. The point is that the man is to love, protect, and provide for all those under his care. Those under his care are to submit to his leadership.
Homosexuality, polyamory, and polyandry all radically violate this created order. Traditional patriarchal polygamy doesn’t.
While you do have good arguments for polygamy, I cannot see modern men putting it into practice. They can’t cope with one wife.
True,
I’m mainly just talking hypotheticals based on what the Bible teaches.
Which goes to show, how far we’ve let just each women, become so unmanageable.
heh.. thanks Bart. I’m not good on the terminology and making the same dumb inventions a typist (modern journalist) makes.
Betas and omegas are already screwed over big time. Women who want to share alphas are already sharing them
You are mostly right but keep 8n mind that polygamy was accepted only because there was a “glut” of widows as a result of constant wars and higher work related mortality rates.
Otherwise all you will get is the Middle East’s dysfunction.
“bring the bombs already, its too late for us now”
ghostwolf, nukes.
Ah… moral relativism at its finest. When every thing is shades of grey, nothing can ever be black or white. Everything must therefore be permissible.
The mental gymnastics that a progressive yuppy must perform every day when they get out of bed must be bewildering.
The idea for this article came from a conversation with a liberal friend. He was forced to admit that under his rationale for gay marriage, a man should be able to marry his father. Shades of grey indeed.
Well said … don’t get me started about the “shades of grey” relativist garbage, pal. There are only a small number of situations in life where a combination of complexity and the variegated nature of an issue makes matters convoluted. HOWEVER, 95% of problems in our daily lives are **black-and-white.** Period. Every time I hear some cunt or a mangina utter the “shades of grey” garbage, my head does 360’s and smoke comes out of my ears like a fucking choo-choo train. It’s a small miracle that the arteries in my head have not burst yet.
On a somewhat positive note, any guy dumb enough to have multiple legal wives is going to be divorced-raped every new way to Sunday.
Precisely. Unmarried polygamy is infinitely preferable to any kind of marriage
I wouldn’t even attempt that. The way crazy courts are these days a guy in that arrangement might still be on the hook for some kind of support arrangement.
WTF is wrong with (restricted) polygamy?
Some interesting legal aspects that might be incentives to incestuous marriages with no basis in love/sex.
Dying father has a retirement that can only transfer to a surviving spouse. Marries his daughter/son/brother/whatever relative he loves in order to be able to legally transfer the retirement.
Or inheritance– different rules about a spouse inheriting than a child. Heck I’d marry one or all of my kids for the purpose of avoiding inheritance taxes.
This is true in several states that allow marriage between brother and sister as long as both are over 50. It was put in so that farms and ranches could stay in families without going through probate and inheritance taxes fro whci spouses are exempt as joint owners.
The death tax needs to be abolished. I am not going to inherit squat, but I find it perverse I need to consult a lawyer to pass on the meager assets I established to my wife and kids without the state fucking them over? What a country.
It is pretty amaxzing that a country that prides itself on being free charges for everything, even death.
You’ve been had.
I have no problem with plural marriage or incest between adults. No problems with homosexual, religious, BDSM or fetish or open marriages…..between adults. We let adults do as they wish, “pursue happiness” as it were and let them be them. But, animals, children cannot consent, and don’t restrict me if I don’t try to control you.
That argument is logically fallacious, and that’s more or less the point of the article: if your rationale for not regulating sexual relationships is “live and let live” and/or “why do you care? It’s not you”, then incest, zoophilia, polygamy, and paedophilia should all be allowed and legal. It’s not you; why do you care what happens between the sheets?
What are you so against the pursuit of happiness?
If we legalized zoophilia then millions of “where have all the good men gone?” werewhale spinsters can marry their true soulmates (male cats) and at long last be finally happy ever after just like in Disney movies.
Shhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiittttttt
Some PUAs are already offering courses in how to maintain a ploy amorous lifestyle.
Hear forth the churning of my guttural spew! Behold, the volcanic ejaculation of its liquid green chunks from my mouth into the face of the Great Whore. Zounds! Its time to put the pig in the wagon. Beat them with noodles, each and every whore! The mongrel whores spew crimson hellbile in the face of Mary mother of God. I swallow whores and digest them into Primeval Gutsfuck.
Fucking Twilight Zone
A take on incest.
http://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html
http://www.compellingtruth.org/incest-Bible.html
Hopefuly when pedophilia is on the table the average person will awake from their slumber and have a WTF epiphany but given how little resistance the rest of the degeneracy has gotten I dont know.
The standard under discussion pertains to consenting adults
Before gay marriage was legalized there were cases where the older male would legally adopt the younger male as his son in order to get family status under the law. This is door gays have opened. Get ready for the movie “Deliverance” to be remade by disney for alternative families.
those fags always find a backdoor.
Crafty butcher….. takes his meat I the backdoor….
I may be an optimist, but I think that the left and their LGBT scum pushing for incest and pedos will be the beginning of the end for them. The left overplayed their hand with the migrant invasion currently happening in Europe; Far right parties arose because of it. People are cool with the LGBT for now, but what happens when they see Incest pride parades in SF? Pedo right marches in Seattle? What about father daughter couples on their favorite TV shows… Time can only tell how people will react. Its easy to forget that Feminism once upon a time was extremely popular. Now? A large amount of people hate feminists, although they’d never admit it in public. The same can happen with the LGBT. Feminism went from woman’s right to vote to, well; what they are today. LGBT went from gay marriage to transgender toddlers and parents fucking their own children.
Lets see how people handle that.
I have heard of a case of an aging male farmer wanting to pass on his land to a far out relation, also male. To avoid a large tax bill they are discussing getting “married”. Unintended consequences eh? What are the government going to do? Send an inspector to the bedroom to see if the guy sticks his cock up the others shitepipe?
Marriage as an institution is now a complete joke. The homosexuals destroy everything they touch. They have now cracked the foundation of stable family life.
Not that I approve of – as the government wants to take half his life savings (that he already paid taxes on).
Eff the government this is brilliant.
Draw your own conclusions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgulDTdtvRw
And?
What’s it to you if 2 or more adult want to get married?
Hypothetical situation
Not really. Polygamy will be a reality in the not-to-distant future.
I mean the article
The answer to your question is that certain people think that certain things such as sex trade between 2 or more consenting adults (prostitution) and polygamy are detrimental to both their own self interest and to their ideals of how people should behave in their idealic society.
Not against prostitution nor polygamy myself but certainly against legalized robbery aka taxation.
Shhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiittttttt
Not sure if this is referring to group marriage, polyandry or polygyny.
For the very reason Polygyny, not polygamy, was made illegal, it will not be legalized.
Polyandry perhaps. Group marriage state sanctioned, maybe but doubtful.
polygamy? Its hard enough dealing with one woman…..
The punishment for polygamy is more than one wife.
That’s why there is no benefit to having multiple wives when you can already have as many women as you want with no troublesome legal entanglement. Living with a harem of women is currently a much safer option than even living with a single girlfriend
What happens in the woman-friendly courts when a polygamous shitpile decides to divorce? Is it a trivorce? Quidvorce? Pentivorce? How do they divide up what one woman gets versus the fact there’s at least one or more still left? Do they just let the wives and the ex(es) have an all-out catfight on the floor of the court to determine who gets the house and kids?
Poly wives rarely expat. If they do, they run away and change their name. Most problems are worked out over the dinner table with the other sisters. It isn’t a totally bullet proof union but the sisters all watch each other’s backs. A mono family is vulnerable with only one woman in the fortress if you could call it that. A single mono stressed wife is the one who deserts the place leaving the all famous note saying ”gone to my mother’s for awhile to have some ‘me’ time” and never returns but sends certified mail with orders to appear in court. It’s always a single mom who has her hand easily forced by the system to destroy the man. Poly families are already quasi illigetimate and avoid courts like the boogeyman. Sisters become extra tight and weary of outsiders and strangers knocking on the door. Socialist service kidnappers and women’s services troopers trying to rout the poly clans in the hills are like the Louisiana state guard trying to fight the Viet Cong (Southern Comfort). A mature poly clan with skilled teen males and nearby cousins for support is a very strong family structure. The best bet is to start a clan off the radar.
Here’s the thing: When you see childhood trannies, Olympic heroes going she-male, and teenage Miley Cyrus going full porno, it’s easy to assume the worst. I understand that. But I think there’s a rush to judgment that we’re all going to wake up one day and be eating babies for breakfast before we go to work where we ass-rape pet cats and come home to our wife who is an actual donkey. Let’s slow down.
As fucked up as our society is, are there really people wanting to marry their family member, but can’t because it’s illegal? Same with polygamy–it’s mostly a bunch of prairie dogs in Utah, and I’d wager the majority of them that want to live that way already do (the same way I assume the people who want to fornicate with their siblings already are–the social shame is much worse than whatever the government punishment is). So I don’t see these as real problems to worry about.
Yeah, shit is bad. But this isn’t really a mainstream thing, marrying your sister or having plural wives. And to the degree it ever was, it was mostly agriculture based societies like the Utah Mormons who did it. It just doesn’t work for entire societies.
Satan snears triumphantly at his minions.
Incest, if legal, I doubt will be very common. Most people are programmed by evolution to avoid incest. If anything it will happen for legal/financial reasons. Like marrying your son before you die to dodge the inheritance tax.
Polygamy in the modern world would be disastrous! The only reason it worked in ancient times was because of the high male mortality rate. There were excess women in the population, this allowed the wealthy to have harems without causing unrest in the general male population.
Now. Men don’t die as much in war/work/etc and the male/female ratio of the population is quite equal.
If polygamy it legal, the wealthy and powerful men will get traditional harems. It is the biological nature.
Only men on the bottom of the social ladder will accept the type of polygamy where one woman shares multiple husbands. And even then, due to human nature, only one husband in such a relationship would receive the majority emotional and sexual attention from the woman. The rest will simply be treated as worker drones.
Polygamy in the modern world would result in huge civil unrest among the general male population. (But perhaps the aging feminist harpies would be happy. They would get their alpha, if only it is 1/4 of an alpha.)
Regardless. The way the laws are now in the USA, polygamy should technically be legal. It is just a matter of people fighting it in the courts.
Actually a ‘dozen wives with concubines’ is a bit much and hypothetical in this day (two is more reasonable). Any red pill man on here though would do good to remove two quality intelligent women from their cubicles and line them up, butt cheek to butt cheek and pull the rip cord on that two stroke baby machine. ‘Three is a magic number’. Actually two wives makes raising a family 300% easier on everyone because compared to only two partners (man and wife) where there’s much lost down time and resources when one partner has to drop everything they’re doing to run over and catch a spot duty. Whining and ”I can’t do it” becomes the song of the monogamous mother. ‘Monogamy is monotany’ is what she said. With two extra helping woman hands at all times, projects get finished always. A 29 yo patriarch poly dad with two wives finishes his house and tweaks it. The homes are impressive and hand built, NOT mortgaged out the ass for a single entitled princess. Woman projects get done and dad actually finishes restoring a few cars and the tractor, whereas the suburban overworked mono dad gets bitched at to get the unfinished chevelle body out of the crammed grage after 10 yrs. Three legs make a table stand secure.
Yep! 2-3 wives is all 99% of us could realistically handle. I really only want 2, and I really only want an additional one because my wife is barren, and we’ve never had a good sex life. I’m working on manning up now, and will improve the sex life. But apart from a miracle, we will never have children (we may adopt).
In a culture practicing traditional polygamy, probably 70-80% of men would have one wife. Maybe 10-15% (the slackers and bums) wouldn’t get a wife. The remaining 10% would have two. Maybe one man in a hundred would have three. More than that would be exceedingly rare. Sure, King David had 18 or so, and Solomon had 1000.
Today, the “Bill Gates types” of the world might have a harem. But realistically, only kings, emperors, and titans of industry would have a harem.
Wealthy businessmen, doctors, and lawyers, would have 2-3 wives max.
DO NOT CONFUSE polygamy with polyandry. They are THE OPPOSITE.
POLYGAMY is pro breeding whereas polyandry is matriarchal scorched earth bitch inferno in a world where every man is a fag or a cuck. No alphas live in a world where every woman is a whore piece of pink meat in the center of the sausage link tray. Every ghetto and welfare area where ‘state husbandry’ is imposed becomes polyandrous where the ‘bitch queens’ or ‘project queens’ rule the roost over many competing ‘motherfuckers’. RED PILL MEN please don’t confuse polygamy with polyandry. POLYGAMY is a baby boom on steroids for ANY RACE that practices it whereas POLYANDROUS mothers EAT their young and burn society. Then the wild bitch mothers get hauled from the trailer park into the ER with an overdose of meth. Polyandry collapses culture whereas polygamy is growth hormone for any waning culture. State incentivised polygamy would save Germany and Sweden within one generation. It would be a shot in the arm and a second chance at life for those two terminally ill nations. Polyandry is BITCH DEATH whilst polygamy IS LIFE. Get the definitions straight.
The picture in the article has the caption ‘polygamy’ while portraying two men and one woman. The picture actually shows POLYANDRY which is the opposite of polygamy. Polygamy is ONE MAN with multiple wives and is defined as existing in cultures espousing ‘extreme’ patriarchy. Garden variety patriarchy is Ward Cleaver (one man/one woman) while ‘extreme’ patriarchy with polygamy plus concubines is biblical/Abrahamic in origin.
Some have argued that polygamy isn’t fair to the betas. Well just look at how feminism is wasting good young women by the millions per munite. ALPHAS HAD BETTER step up and grab as many good ones as you can. A beta will sit there on his hands while the good ones go to pot and get wasted. I’ll admit though, betas have a little more staying power with a crazy bitch than a player. This will have to change with the Alphas. If the state had perks to allow the alphas to put a fence around their carousel . . er . . ‘rotating susans’, then we’d see the return once again of many proud ‘little kings’ across the lands, each with their own personal loyal poly harems. Each harem being a jewel of the culture would be a baby factory at least from the wive’s eyes, and both the minor and major kings across the lands would all TOAST with a proud german army helmet ‘saloooot’. O’er their proud broods, the kings cry ”Hail the glorious patriarchy!”
We were put on this earth TO BREED. Gay/lesbian lifestyle is non procreational and is similar to abortion, tobacco, open war and covert peacetime purges. GAY IS POPULATION CONTROL. It is anti breeding.
INCEST on the other hand may be heterosexual, BUT it violates the no-mixing protocol of siblings within our hybrid species here on Earth. Second cousin relation is the absolute tolerable limit for staaving off junk DNA admixture (like baby Adam being born with the snout of a pig). Earthly man is hybrid extraterrestrial/native and cannot inbreed without defect.
Exactly right! Traditional polygamy supports and undergirds patriarchy. It is an important part of a stable and productive society. It encourages men to get off their asses and make something of themselves. The best men reproduce the most prolifically.
The deadbeats, slobs, and bums don’t get to reproduce.
If I knew that I could take a second (proper and legitimate wife), I work at least twice as hard, and be at least twice as productive.
There is a reason that the God of the Bible permitted traditional patriarchal polygamy, while prohibiting homosexuality and adultery upon pain of death.
Polygamy outlawed is the halfway mark to matriarchy or ‘state husbandry’. A ‘one woman per man’ cap imposed on marriage monetizes men and woman as equal in smv within marriage. It is SMV socialism and is futile to try to enforce. The man/woman pair bonding ratios are always in flux and dependent on the smv climate, wars, expansion periods and the meteorological climate itself. Nature is a stubborn mule and a bully. You can’t force the hand of nature, but nature always gets its way. Simply put, polygamy adds up. Mathematically it makes sense. Egg/sperm ratios, lifelong male fertility, the list goes on.
This is a really important article, and I agree fully with it. We must focus not only on the changes as they are happening, but also (and most dangerously) on the trends/the general direction they are slowly revealing.
When debates are made around legal abortion and gay marriage only on the grounds of traditional or religious versus “progressist”, and the assumption that these matters are merely ideological, we are falling prey of a liberal agenda. Fundamental concepts like “family”, “value of life” and even the structuring of future citizen’s personality and mentality are effectively being challenged.
The sense of “disgust”, the protective social censoring of adverse behaviours, is slowly being erased in common people’s minds. They talk about “disgust” as the same as hatred, in order to portray you as “evil”, if you oppose SJW speech. But no, you should truly be disgusted when you find these behaviours accepted. The moral compelling you is useful, beyond traditional. How will we have functioning societies if we have non-reproducing couples? They should be pressured to accomplish their social duty. You owe your nation, ancestors and culture, the birth of your children, and that those children are educated to be rightful inheritors of your legacy. This (and not “respect for diversity/ “choices” / equality”) should guide you, because this woill determine how you’ll live your senior years and how future generations will have to live their entire lives.
Actually, the plan is to make the keeping of harems by the very rich respectable again, allowing them to corner the market on those women at all suited for marriage and rearing their share of the oligarchs’ enormous families.
The rest of us will be left to fight over the damaged goods, the crippled, the feeble-minded and insane. If you think good women are hard to find now, wait for polygamist “liberation.”
Alphas and the very rich etc. already have harems of as many women as they want. They have nothing to gain by legalized polygamous marriage
Children in America already spend too much time with one or two (usually one b/c divorce rape) parents and are coddled. Three or more would be suffocating.
The day, shit like this is legalized…….I am leaving America.
Roosh, Let’s give Project Roosh Island a real kick-start.
A place where like-minded red-pillers can have stabilized family units.
There was a reason why all these things were abolished in history. They’re now being brought back b/c the standards keep being driven down and lines blurred. It is disgusting to me.
Polygamy signals the return to patriarchy. Throughout history, patriarchal societies have been polygamous. Women in polygamous families often have to compete for the man’s attention. Much like businesses competing for the customer. Thus, men are the winners in a polygamous setup.
Polygamy enforces man’s superiority over the woman. Though not without its setbacks, polygamy directly opposes feminism.
Exactly! Traditional polygamy supports patriarchy, and opposes feminism.
In a monogamous marriage, the woman has a “veto” vote of withholding sex from the man. In a culture accepting polygamy, the husband then has a “trump card” to overrule her. He can say, “then I’ll take another wife in addition to you”.
If you’re gonna argue against same-sex marriage because “tradition”, that’s fine.. but you may want to pick better examples than polygamy and incest.
Polygamy is a part is many of the world’s traditions, even to this day. That includes Judeo-Christian tradition.. Indeed it is supported in Scripture, and many of the Biblical Patriarchs had more than one wife.
Incest is also part of many traditions, again even in the West, notably among the great royal houses as late as the 19th century. First-cousin marriage was considered quite normal in the West among the plebs until relatively recently, especially in remote regions where there isn’t a lot of mate choices. Cousin marriages only fell out of vogue on the (questionable) grounds of co-sanguinity.
Q: What’s the penalty for bigamy?
A: Two mothers in-law!
.
In Canada there are two relevant laws in the Criminal Code. The first is the offence of bigamy which is having more than one legal spouse. The other is the offence of polygamy which is “any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time” whether legal or not.
.
In the wake of the gay marriage ruling, crown attorneys have not tried to prosecute the polygamist FLDS group in Bountiful – much as they want to – because they know the law is now unconstitutional and it would get shot down. As far as I know, the bigamy law hasn’t been challenged and polygamists are careful not to register their second, third or whatever marriage.
.
The difference is that legal marriage comes with a few state-recognized rights and entitlements (but not many) in comparison to common law marriages, or which are supposed to be exclusive and indivisible, and I guess the legal community figures that is enough to hang their hat on in enforcing the one legal spouse rule. However, I can conceive of a time when that too will get shot down.
.
As it is, the law already recognizes that you can have two wives: if you are in a drawn-out divorce you can still have your legal wife while being common law with your new squeeze.
.
Plus, while I have not seen any legal decisions to this effect, if a polygamist breaks up with one or more of his common law wives, or perhaps dies intestate, I don’t think any judge would have a problem with declaring that the guy had multiple wives as an excuse to give them all a bite at the apple in terms of alimony or inheritance. I can’t see a judge sifting through a mound of evidence to figure out which woman was primus inter pares and declaring them the one and only wife, despite the fact that the money the women would get amounts to being proceeds of crime.
You have your reasoning backwards. Its not because of women working that prices rose. Women began working because prices rose. Inflation.
Also, its a bit daft to assume some sudden change in human behaviour (Netflix binges etc.). The average person has always been fascinated by cheap entertainment. Netflix is replacing TV (remember that?) as TV replaced pulp cinema and pulp cinema replaced pulp plays. There has always been junk and plenty of people to consume it.
Don’t kid yourself that there was some magical time when everyone was civilized.
Don’t think bestiality isn’t on the table. There are already people agitating to have ‘marriages’ to their horses or dogs recognized. And they are all ‘left wing’.
http://nypost.com/2014/04/10/more-young-women-choosing-dogs-over-motherhood/
If it weren’t for normal human emotions like jealously and fear, a ‘group’ marriage could conceivably work. Imagine, say, 2 men and 4 women. As each woman gets pregnant, she stays home and looks after the kids and the house (if there’s a lot of kids, maybe 2 women do that). After the kids have reached school age (i.e. don’t need diapers changed, can feed themselves, etc.), the women might rotate in and out of jobs, or the least skilled woman becomes the housekeeper, and the other 5 work to support the extended family. Say each woman has two kids (big house needed!). The kids grow up in a family of 13, so no one can be the ‘special snowflake’; there just isn’t enough time to put up with that BS. With 5 wage earners, someone’s going to be doing better than average ($50k), so say you have one person earning $80k and 4 at $50k; that’s $280k gross. The men have their choice of 4 different women for sex, so they probably won’t get bored. The women aren’t needed for sex daily, so they probably appreciate it more when they do get it. In theory, it could work. Of course, if wife “B” is much hotter than wife “D”, then, as noted earlier, jealousy and fear get involved.
And of course, that’s if everything is going well. What happens when one person wants to leave? The custody issues would be staggering!
The fact that polygamy(single male) and gays is utterly ridiculous. Polygamy is a widely practiced and completely normal as long has you have the patience to deal with several emotional murders at a single point of time.
“Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want if they’re not hurting anyone.”
That is true. The real problem is here:
“they want legal recognition in the form of marriage”
The problem is the state, government. In a free society consenting adults could do whatever they want among themselves but nobody else would be compelled to associate with them and recognize their relationships or anything else.
The government got the power over marriage and it isn’t going to give it up. But the people who are running government are getting different ideas about how to use that power. If marriage had remained in the area of private contract then political forces would be powerless to redefine it. They would have had to establish their own private social institutions to do their own forms of marriage and nobody else would have to recognize it.
Incest is f’d up no doubt, but I don’t really see a problem with polygamy. It’s like spinning plates/having a harem but taking it to the next level.
” Incest between opposite sex family members can be shot down by citing biological deformities that can occur in their offspring.”
This is the only major flaw in your otherwise decent article. The statement is not based on science but instead is an old form of social engineering. The first step away from the core family unit and towards the empire. Only the top of the pyramid is allowed to do it.
Polygamy is good as long as it is the man who has many wifes and many, many children.
Polygamy is the real way of men
Polygamy is the feminist marriage structure. A woman would rather share a wealthy, powerful man than have an average guy to herself. A stable society however requires the one-man-one-woman structure, or it decays into all sorts of nastiness.
Do you find today’s Western society stable or sustainable, where people date incessantly and never reproduce? The barbarians are at the gate (Islam and other immigrants who actually have kids).
Polygamy is the holy grail of “game”. Let the average guys have spectator sports and virtual reality dating. Real alphas deserve multiple girls with which to sire the next generation. It has gone on throughout history, and it still goes on among the animal kingdom.
Dating a bunch of girls without impregnating them is biologically useless.
So, if there is a plural marriage with multiple wives and husbands, and one of the wives files for divorce, will all of the other spouses, male and female, be forced to pay her alimony and child support?
Realizing that we live in an enforced matriarchy where a set of self-chosen elite women are the queen bees, there is really only one thing that will determine if polygamy is the next step.
That thing is: Will it advance the power of the enforced, Queen Bee controlled matriarchy
Obviously, according to feminist theory and law, and the cultural/social/legal nexus feminists have created, it is the logical progression. But logic, moral reason, even direction are never determinate for them. They abandon stated core principles all of the time and formulate new “theories” to keep the formation of Queen Bee controlled matriarchy on track.
Women and their mangina defenders follow along without nary a thought to the contradictors and misdirection. Because feminism makes women psychotic, they literally can’t process it, only accept it.
If the Queen Bee’s decide polygamy is in their interests, we will get it. If they decide it is only in their interest in some weird configuration of polygamy, then we will get that. If they decide it cannot serve their interest, we will not get polygamy.
The only time this principle does not hold is when the haram masters, the self-chosen elite men of the self chosen queen bees, decide otherwise. They and they alone have veto power. So far, they have not exercised it that I can tell, content to let the queen bees drive western civilization off the cliff culturally, while the men apply their efforts toward the dystopian goal in other venues.
But they might. Polygamy is after all just another version of a haram. A more costly one for sure, but offering advantages to the haram master for the price.
One thing is certain. If the Queen Bee’s decide polygamy works for their matriarchy, it will become an evangelical Christian value within a decade.
Everything you guys say is very funny…until you imagine that it could be your daughter’s destiny…I mean not that you are going to marry your own daughter but the fact your daughter will end up with someone who treats her like Shit and makes her compite not even for love but out of inhumanity just to entertain brainless fucks …#sad
And where will next step get us?