ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, August 31, 2012

That didn't take long

The advocates of homosexual "marriage" have been proven to be completely wrong, as the push for polygamous marriage has gotten rolling before homogamy has even been made legal in most states.
Three Brazilians in love have their nation up in arms over whether their relationship, now enshrined in a three-way marriage, is legal. The public notary who conducted their marriage says there's no reason the threesome – or "thruple", as the internet has charmingly labelled it – shouldn't enjoy the same kinds of rights imparted upon two people who get hitched.... This is not about the advocacy of patriarchal polygamy that regards wives as unequal to, or property of, their husbands. But if three, or four, or 17 people want to marry each other simultaneously and equally, why should they not be granted the same status as two people who want to become a legal family?
As I pointed out, correctly, once you start messing around with the nouns in "one man + one woman", you eliminate all the grounds for not messing around with the numbers too. Besides, the multiculti idiots have no choice but to support polygamy, since their precious third-worlders both practice and demand it.

Thus feminism dies, the victim of its own political success. And thus conservatives learn the bitter lesson of how turning to the state to defend your values is short-sighted and counterproductive.

Labels:

124 Comments:

Anonymous The other skeptic August 31, 2012 9:57 AM  

Next up, marrying your dog, your horse, or your goat

Anonymous Daniel August 31, 2012 10:07 AM  

Next up, marrying your dog, your horse, or your goat

That will never happen until consent can be determined, which would be extremely difficult. I mean, you'd have to somehow witness the animal in natural relations with another animal of its kind, and then make sure the animal's response to the human was the same...

The real frontier is marrying a corpse. I mean, if she doesn't say "no," how can you be sure it isn't what she wants, especially since we are talking about love between two, here!

Blogger A August 31, 2012 10:09 AM  

I'm still awaiting the first case of a schizophrenic person marrying a different personality of him/herself (unless it has already happened).

Anonymous willneverpostagain August 31, 2012 10:13 AM  

So if five people get married, is that a "quibble"?

Blogger Scott August 31, 2012 10:13 AM  

So how long will it take for the middle and lower classes who can't get women to take up arms and start a war? Or will it just be internet porn and real dolls for the foreseeable future? I really don't understand how people fail to see that this won't end well.

Blogger Joshua_D August 31, 2012 10:18 AM  

The other skeptic August 31, 2012 9:57 AM

Next up, marrying your dog, your horse, or your goat


What kind of tax credits are we talking here?

Anonymous Remir August 31, 2012 10:21 AM  

That will never happen until consent can be determined, which would be extremely difficult.

Only if the animal rights activists beat out the anti-marriagers, which I very much doubt. For animals, consent will be unnecessary. They're your property, after all.

Anonymous Salt August 31, 2012 10:23 AM  

That will never happen until consent can be determined, which would be extremely difficult.

Ever have a dog want to hump your leg?

Anonymous Daniel August 31, 2012 10:28 AM  

Huh. My sarcasm's usually not that subtle, but I think you missed it. Animals tend to be extremely and overtly consenting when it comes to sex.

Blogger IM2L844 August 31, 2012 10:28 AM  

This could add a whole new dimension to team sports.

Anonymous Daniel August 31, 2012 10:30 AM  

Vox has already married the Vikings, possibly without their consent. I think it happened on a boat.

Anonymous darrenl August 31, 2012 10:30 AM  

"That will never happen until consent can be determined, which would be extremely difficult."

This is easily fixed by passing a civil law that marriage to an animal no longer requires consent. You lean on government to screw around with one definition, then there no reason you can't for others.

Anonymous SlackAttack August 31, 2012 10:32 AM  

Half, Thirds, or a Quarter of Prince Charming's castle, or all of Mr. Beta's hovel?

Decisions, decisions.

Anonymous Toby Temple August 31, 2012 10:32 AM  

Slipped through the slope!

Anonymous zeonxavier August 31, 2012 10:32 AM  

"What kind of tax credits are we talking here?"

As far as I know, tax credits work best with alpacas. Don't tell me how that works out for you. I don't really want to know.

Anonymous Roundtine August 31, 2012 10:34 AM  

One you break tradition, it is completely broken.

I had this exact debate with a liberal once. She said the definition is 1+1, not 1 man 1 woman, but I asked her why she was bigoted against polygamous people. Their whole gay marriage argument boils down to: throw out the traditional definition of marriage for a new definition that the majority of society wants and will defend secure in its majoritarian bigotry! See, if 51% are bigots, it's ok, they're not like the mouth-breathing people and dinosaurs together Christians who defend some old boring, uncool definition.

Anonymous alexamenos August 31, 2012 10:34 AM  

there's no reason the threesome ... shouldn't enjoy the same kinds of rights imparted upon two people who get hitched...

What rights are are imparted upon married couples, anyway?

A slightly different tax bracket, maybe? A little different treatment by your insurance company???? Maybe you don't have to go to the trouble of leaving a will so long as your the first to die?

Seriously, what's the fuss about?

Anonymous Roundtine August 31, 2012 10:36 AM  

Ladies of the world, I am now accepting bids for green card marriages.

Anonymous Daniel August 31, 2012 10:37 AM  

"Alpaca" is a derogatory slur for that class of marriagables. They prefer to be called "Fluffoids" now.

Anonymous Salt August 31, 2012 10:39 AM  

I guess Clint would be all for it.

Anonymous Toby Temple August 31, 2012 10:43 AM  

Those who are dying to marry their sisters, brothers, daughters, sons, even their parents are next in line!

That is going to slip through the slope soon!

Anonymous Beau August 31, 2012 10:54 AM  

I'm still awaiting the first case of a schizophrenic person marrying a different personality of him/herself (unless it has already happened).

Dennis Rodman

Blogger tz August 31, 2012 11:07 AM  

The definition was changed much earlier, in the 1960s between divorce and the pill (contraception goes back to 1930), so Marriage was turned into a weak contract. It is easier to get rid of a spouse than credit card debt. Even that was broken when the church - who originally recorded births and baptisms, often in the family bible gave that and the definition of marriage up to the state.

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Calling it marriage when it is a temporary and sterile institution is a farce, even when the state requires it to be registered. It used to be called "living in sin", but now it is like buying on the internet and not paying sales tax.

The churches used to take care of the family and the poor. But "The Great Society" sounded good, but now the state takes care of single mothers with children. The government schools that banned prayer worked well

Anonymous Stilicho August 31, 2012 11:07 AM  

Who in their right mind would marry multiple women given today's court system? Concubinage, now that's a different story...it's consenting adults all the way down, right?

Besides, regardless of legal status, de facto harems are the growing trend.

Anonymous Daniel August 31, 2012 11:26 AM  

I think the "right minds" ship sailed into the West many moons ago.

Anonymous yukonyon August 31, 2012 11:26 AM  

Maybe I need to take up a new vocation: custom bed manufacturing.

Anonymous Noah B. August 31, 2012 11:28 AM  

What a clusterfuck.

Anonymous yukonyon August 31, 2012 11:29 AM  

So if five people get married, is that a "quibble"?

No, but if nine get married, it is most definitely a nipple

Anonymous Toby Temple August 31, 2012 11:34 AM  

No, but if nine get married, it is most definitely a nipple

I approve this!

Anonymous yukonyon August 31, 2012 11:38 AM  

Maybe polygamy will stifle divorce. It's much less appealling to walk away with a tenth, than with half.

Anonymous Mr Green Man August 31, 2012 11:52 AM  

This from the tartlet's write-up:

Is it possible that if we allowed more people to marry simultaneously that more marriages might be successful? Fewer breakups over infidelity might occur, for example, if those who found themselves in love with more than one person didn't have to choose or conceal their feelings.

Oh, how quickly the term Mormon Line Marriage comes to mind!

Anonymous Stickwick August 31, 2012 11:55 AM  

The argument over legalized polygamy has been raging in Canada for a while now. The polygamists have rightly pointed out that since homogamy is now legal, it's just bigotry to forbid polygamy. So, how are Canadians justifying that bigotry? Bask in the warm glow of hypocrisy:

In his ruling, [Chief Justice Robert] Bauman said while the law does infringe on religious freedom, it is justified given the harm polygamy causes to children, women and society. ...

[Bauman sez] “More specifically, Parliament’s reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.”


It's interesting that this post coincides with Vox's post on scientific evidence for a woman's rationalization hamster over at AG. The female decision-making process is not limited to women -- it also applies to feminized men. Canadian authorities have made their decision based entirely on emotion, and they justify it by retrofitting "logic" to it, completely oblivious to the fact that the very same argument completely destroys their support for homogamy.

Anonymous anon123 August 31, 2012 11:55 AM  

Roundtine, you had better preface that with "wealthy".

Anonymous Stilicho August 31, 2012 12:02 PM  

Stickwick, why don't the Canucks simply legalize female polygamy? Just think how wonderful it would be for the women and children having multiple bases of financial support. Just think how wonderful it would be for the women to be able to ride the carousel and demand support from each pony...Why, society would enter a golden age...

Anonymous Hildebrandt August 31, 2012 12:03 PM  

I predicted this some years ago when they start pushing gay marriage agenda. I also predicted that soon zoophiliac marriages will be possible in some countries.

Blogger James Dixon August 31, 2012 12:24 PM  

> Next up, marrying your dog, your horse, or your goat.

You can probably add marrying your sexbot to the list.

Anonymous Stickwick August 31, 2012 12:29 PM  

Stilicho, I think women would be hesitant to implement polyandry, because it would restrict their freedom to a higher degree. For one thing, it'd be tedious to keep denying sex and affection to more than one man. Far worse, if a woman ever decides she needs out of her marriages, she'll have to come up with N x more justifications for ripping the family apart. It's easy enough to justify tossing one husband overboard, but two? three? Unless they're all conspiring to thwart her fulfilledness, that is.

Blogger Rev. Right August 31, 2012 12:47 PM  

And thus conservatives learn the bitter lesson of how turning to the state to defend your values is short-sighted and counterproductive.

Well, as long as you control the state it works, and you may as well. It is when you do not control the state that the depths of one's convictions becomes evident.

In any event, all of this nonsense is a direct and inevitable result of the 19th ammendment, and there is no turning back in the short term. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Anonymous Theological discourse August 31, 2012 12:52 PM  

Not hard. Instead of one man and one woman the law can just simply read one adult with animal/inanimate object. The real question is, why is it ok to modify the law to support gay rights but not modify it to support man/animal rights or man/inanimate object rights, or polygamy?

Anonymous Jack Amok August 31, 2012 1:06 PM  

Thus feminism dies, the victim of its own political success. And thus conservatives learn the bitter lesson of how turning to the state to defend your values is short-sighted and counterproductive.

Who says Vox isn't an optimist!

I really don't understand how people fail to see that this won't end well.

The answer to the question is that the people pushing all these disasters aren't even contemplating how it ends. That's someone elses job. The hardwiring in their brains assumes actual leaders are in charge and all their histrionics are ulitmately just for show.

That's the real reason letting women vote is a disater. Yes, they're selfish, but even worse, subconsciously, they assume someone else will make it all work.

Anonymous JI August 31, 2012 1:13 PM  

Why would marriages such as this lead to the death of feminism? I can't see how two guys and a woman being married would threaten feminism.

Anonymous ivvenalis August 31, 2012 1:15 PM  

What's next on the agenda after fashionable transgenderism? I think it's clearly either zoophilia or incest--pedophilia is a bridge too far right now. On the one hand, incest has the "two consenting adults who love each other!" argument, plus you can always start with first cousins to get your foot in the door. On the other hand, incest still has associations with rednecks--definitely a buzzkill if you're trying to mark your high status. And the sheer ludicrousness of zoophilia means plenty of opportunity for insane ideological shibboleths.

Blogger Beefy Levinson August 31, 2012 1:19 PM  

The essence of government is to tell people what to do, and tell them good and hard. If you accept the peculiar modern notion that government's top priority is ensuring equality for all, then there must be - existentially there must always be - an oppressor class to overcome. The liberal übermensch, self created through his own reason and will, must always do battle against the untermensch who is bound by the chains of nature, tradition, and the commandments of God.

The battle for polygamy is joined before the fight for homogamy has even ended. The next fight will be for the crazy cat ladies. Why should they be forbidden from marrying their loved ones, wink wink.

Blogger Gx1080 August 31, 2012 1:22 PM  

No-fault -> Polygamy -> Incest -> Crazy town.

I don't see many societies going to Polygamy without descending into a Middle-East style shithole, so w/e.

Anonymous Jack Amok August 31, 2012 1:26 PM  

Well, as long as you control the state it works, and you may as well. It is when you do not control the state that the depths of one's convictions becomes evident.

No, even when, perhaps especially when, you control the State, it is a disaster to put it in charge of morality. It shifts morality from a personal decision to a "rule", and limits discussion of morality to a handful of high priests who debate each other instead of teaching the people. Both are ruinous.

Moral choices are always made at the individual level. No matter how many rules there are, ultimately it comes down to each man and woman choosing what they're going to do. If they have an innate understanding of morality, they're going to be far less prone to fall for some charismatic snake than if all they have are rules someone else made and never explained the reasoning behind.

If you have to constantly recruit people to voluntarily sign onto your vision of morality, you develop and maintain a strong notion of it, and the ability to explain it, justify it, and to convince people of the value in it. And one of the people you are able to convince of it is... yourself.

On the other hand, if you think you can simply order the peons to obey, you get sloppy and lose track of why it's important. You can't explain the reasoning, you can't justify the conclusions, not even to yourself. Eventually you start casting away principles that you no longer understand because they get in the way of some fleeting lust, and eventually you have nothing but a hollow shell.


Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim August 31, 2012 1:35 PM  

What's next on the agenda after fashionable transgenderism?

Well.

- Pedophilia is already being pushed by multiple groups. Mostly, it's being regarded as acceptable between grown women and underaged boys, and Kinsey didn't help matters with his "studies". Full-scale acceptance of pedophilia is likely to be a matter of nickel-and-dime through age-of-consent laws. Polygamy's tendency for older and wealthier men snatching up increasingly younger girls (and boys, if homogamy applies there as well) will probably hasten this process.

- Zoophilia is already making inroads via the "furry" kink and wereseals.

- Incest will probably be longest resisted on grounds of genetics, unless and until sterilization comes heavily into play. At that point, the resistance will go the way of all other.

Just my speculations.

Anonymous Poopraker August 31, 2012 1:36 PM  

I wanna marry myself.

Anonymous Stickwick August 31, 2012 1:42 PM  

Zoophilia is already making inroads via the "furry" kink and wereseals.

Check this out. Somebody on Breitbart commented that this commercial is not just a benign attempt at gross-out humor, but part of a larger movement to mainstream sexual depravity.

Blogger Joshua_D August 31, 2012 2:02 PM  

Hey, what's so different between an 18 year old and 17? 17 and 16? 16 and 15? 15 and 14? 14 and 13? 13 and 12? 12 and 11? 11 and 10? 10 and nine?

See, how easy that is?

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim August 31, 2012 2:08 PM  

I wanna marry myself.

Been there done that.

Blogger Doom August 31, 2012 2:35 PM  

Hmm, rather than "It takes a village", how about "It takes one man to MAKE a village"? Hehehe Never mind.

Oh, you know there are some places where people are pushing to marry animals, trees, and all kinds of things. Where was that, Burmese, The Solomon Islands, California... somewhere recently like that.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim August 31, 2012 2:47 PM  

Hey, what's so different between an 18 year old and 17? 17 and 16? 16 and 15? 15 and 14? 14 and 13? 13 and 12? 12 and 11? 11 and 10? 10 and nine?

See, how easy that is?


Well, if it's good enough for Mohammed...

Anonymous Jim August 31, 2012 2:58 PM  

"Thus feminism dies, the victim of its own political success. And thus conservatives learn the bitter lesson of how turning to the state to defend your values is short-sighted and counterproductive."

What is long-sighted? I don't get your argument. Wouldn't polygamy be the bitter lesson of feminism? To conservatives, it proves the folly of feminism, thus conservatives are proven right.

The state must be constrained by the majority who don't believe such crap. If we had to take a vote, gay marriage wouldn't be in any state. We wouldn't get to this point without the interference of the judges, and then the legislatures who lack the strength to refute the powerful minority voices.

If polygamy succeeds, it will only help to advance gay marriage much more quickly. These things go hand in hand.

Anonymous joe doakes August 31, 2012 3:26 PM  

If you justify tossing one-man-one-woman marriage on the grounds of "they love each other" and "it is practiced in other places and times" and "they've been denied in the past" then you have just supplied the logical bases for gay marriage but also child marriage (Islam), plural marriage (Morman) and cousin marriage (Western European royalty) at which point there's no reasonable basis for government to be in the business anymore.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera August 31, 2012 3:26 PM  

Roundtine said: Ladies of the world, I am now accepting bids for green card marriages.

Not a bad idea. You could make a lot of money for slightly hastening the demise of a doomed country.

It's like pulling the plug on your morally and sexually depraved grandparent and saving the medical expenses.

Theological Discourse said: Not hard.

On the contrary, all this discussion about animals and inanimate objects has been stimulating. Intellectually.

Anonymous Rally August 31, 2012 3:30 PM  

I can't imagine that option would be very popular. One man and several women has more historical examples. Really comes down to simple biology. Only one man is needed to impregnate a woman. But one man can impregnate many women.

Anonymous FNG August 31, 2012 3:38 PM  

It would be a feminist's wet dream. Marry her feminine girlfriend as well as her supplicating manginas and white knights, while denying access, so she could be supported in the manner to which she has aspired.

Blogger Doom August 31, 2012 4:01 PM  

FNG,

While there are some queendoms, they are... not very successful. Only really seen in African tribal areas, and rarely at that. Oh, I hear about QElizabeth, QMary, and all that. But those were just kingdoms temporarily bereft of kings. And usually went rather police state, as the queens had no real power, just pomp, while the thieves that held her in place used her power to do as they wished, as bureaucrats do... Well, I mean, I don't think it will fair as you suggest for feminists. Save that there are always outliers.

Blogger Bob Wallace August 31, 2012 4:05 PM  

If Peter Singer had his way we'd be able to marry the higher primates.

Blogger David O August 31, 2012 4:30 PM  

And remember, Mormons originally encouraged polygamy and only under pressure from Washington did they officially renounce it

Anonymous Daniel August 31, 2012 4:34 PM  

I think if a dead rabbit can take the blame for the death of dozens of South Africans, then I'll Have Another can consent to having another.

Blogger Nate August 31, 2012 4:37 PM  

I see the part where God calls homosexual union abomination...

I don't see anything in the Book about Him declaring polygamy evil... or even bad.

oh no right...

That wasn't God... that was Constantine.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Cornell University Ecology August 31, 2012 5:03 PM  

It's the damn r-selection versus K-selection again.

Monogamy with a few children raised in a stable two-parent environment vs. polygamy with a harem and huge amounts of children. Also see r-selection in any inner city ghetto with single mothers. We are moving rapidly towards r at a faster and faster rate as the economic decline continues. It's basically never been a better time to just screw around.

Now, I know that ecologists are moving away from the r/K paradigm and replacing it with more modern models, but it's still a good general framework to catagorize these things.

The r/K model has two major problems:

- There is no real consensus on the precise definition of what an r-organism is, and what a K-organism is. Sometimes they can flip based on environmental factors. More along the lines of "I know it when I see it" instead of precision.
- A lot of species combine both r and K traits. Trees sometimes. Take King Solomon for instance. Clearly r-selection with 700 wives and 300 concubines, but also K-selection since King Solomon had some amazing genes with only three children.

Anonymous MendoScot August 31, 2012 5:33 PM  

That wasn't God... that was Constantine.

Or was it Theodora?

Anonymous Gen. Kong August 31, 2012 5:37 PM  

VD: Besides, the multiculti idiots have no choice but to support polygamy, since their precious third-worlders both practice and demand it.

While it is true that they will logically have no choice, multicultis aren't exactly noted for their rigorous application of logic, since the whole multiculti ideology itself is a fever-swamp of incoherent contradictions - much like its kissin' cousin feminism. The interesting thing to watch will be the justifications the usual suspects will come up with to outlaw polygamy for ice people (FLDS Mormons, for example) while making it fully legal for the various rainbow hues of sun-people colonizing the carcass of the west. My bet is that there will be some "science" generated to "prove" that ice people represent a clear and present danger to the health and well-being of snail-darters and whales (with the inevitable exceptions for certain folks with squid DNA and their most loyal lackeys) while sun-people, by contrast, will be discovered to have always been extremely beneficial to mother earth. Sounds like a great new environmental and social justice curriculum for your friendly neighborhood government edjumacation center, no? Timmy Wise and Alex Pareen would no doubt approve.

Anonymous MendoScot August 31, 2012 5:39 PM  

Ignore. Friday afternoon brainfart.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box August 31, 2012 5:58 PM  

*LMAO!!!*
You'll be able to marry your fuckin dog or cat, pretty soon!
Just more proof that what so many call the "social order", or "common good" or "civilization" is just an apron of figleaves sewn together over the nakedness of animal barbarism & stupidity.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein August 31, 2012 5:58 PM  

James Dixon:
You can probably add marrying your sexbot to the list.

Oh HELL no!
We all know that, after marriage, a sexbot would turn into just a regular bot!

Anonymous DT August 31, 2012 6:05 PM  

Who in their right mind would marry multiple women given today's court system?

An Alpha among Alphas.

Or a Mormon.

Anonymous tinlaw August 31, 2012 6:17 PM  

Polygamists favor legalization because they can actually be locked up in some states for the practice, even if they don't attempt to get marriage licenses for all of the marriages. Additionally, their families are in continual danger of being torn apart by the state in the form of social workers/do-gooders working for CPS.

Nate: good point. Keep saying it. (as if you need encouragement)

Anonymous Jack Amok August 31, 2012 6:42 PM  

Additionally, their families are in continual danger of being torn apart by the state in the form of social workers/do-gooders working for CPS.

Yeah, so how is that any different than a normal family with a husband and wife? We're all in danger of that.

Anonymous end of times August 31, 2012 7:12 PM  

"The definition was changed much earlier, in the 1960s between divorce and the pill (contraception goes back to 1930), so Marriage was turned into a weak contract. It is easier to get rid of a spouse than credit card debt. "

Even earlier, consider feme sole and feme covert. And the undermining of default father custody and the charade of 'cruelty'

Now that they have made it a farce, means it has to be made a complete farce.

Anonymous Godfrey August 31, 2012 7:27 PM  

This will be an excellent test of the supposition that wealthy elites – in part through the use of well-funded foundations, media manipulation, legislation and judicial activism – have been waging a coordinated decades old cultural war to reduce population levels. It is my belief that the quick succession of contraception, abortion, feminism and homosexuality rammed down the throats of the masses is no mere happenstance.

If I’m right, then I would expect polygamy to remain an issue ignored by the corporate MSM since it’s a procreative lifestyle that leads to numerous offspring. I expect you’ll see no poster-boy for polygamy. There will be no “Ellen” for the polygamist cause on television and on every-other magazine cover (or advertisement) in the grocery store.

Anonymous map August 31, 2012 8:43 PM  

Here is a more interesting problem. What happens if a spouse in a monogamous marriage wants to "marry" someone else without a divorce, forcing the other spouse to accept this polygamous arrangement? How destructive would that be?

The purpose of homosexual marriage was to introduce polygamy into heterosexual marriages. The purpose of introducing polygamy is to reduce the money-costs for cheating on your male spouse. While divorce is no-fault as far as separating from a spouse, it is not no-fault when it comes to money. Polygamy allows a woman to legally "cheat" on her husband without the cheating being grounds for losing any money if the man wants divorce. This will further destroy any incentive to marry.

It gets worse.

Gay marriage followed by polygamy will destroy any biological-basis in parenting. Under polygamy, courts would be able to tell a biological father that he is not the true father of his children and assign "fatherhood" to any possible entity: another man; another woman; the state, etc.

This is all-out war.

Anonymous The other skeptic August 31, 2012 9:48 PM  

While the elites who want to have multiple wives are figuring out how to destroy the divorce laws so they do not apply to them, take a look at this pure evil

Anonymous jay c August 31, 2012 9:55 PM  

The only real problem I see with this is that the government will claim increasing authority over every one of these relationships. Liberals will beg to give it to them.

Anonymous The other skeptic August 31, 2012 9:56 PM  

With supermodels seeing increased competition from computers they will probably agree to plural marriages.

Anonymous AnonH August 31, 2012 10:25 PM  

For those of you who think that a man marrying 2 women is a good thing (which is the case of the Brazilian triple), you should know that all polygamous societies are *extremely* dangerous ones.

There are about 105 men per 100 women, on average. 1 man with 2 women means 50 married men, 100 married women, and 55 men losers.

In order for those 55 losers to have sex, they must resort to some type of violence, either rape or murder. It doesn't exactly make for stable societies.

Anonymous jay c August 31, 2012 10:48 PM  

AnonH, I dont disagree that most polygamous societies are dangerous, but your reasoning is incorrect. In almost every polygamist society that has ever existed most men had only 1 wife. War and more hazardous non technological professions dramatically reduced the number of men. The end result is that there weren't nearly as many single men as you might think.

Blogger Good Will August 31, 2012 10:55 PM  

VD: And thus conservatives learn the bitter lesson of how turning to the state to defend your values is short-sighted and counterproductive.

You make it sound like polygamy's a bad thing.

Anonymous E. PERLINE August 31, 2012 11:01 PM  

All having multiple partners means is that we are saying to the state--here, take my money for a license for three--Oh!you say, I need a license that will cost five times more because it's for an odd number? That's OK. And remember, in case of divorce you've assigned all legal power to the state to have its say in any decision you make thereafter.

Blogger Good Will August 31, 2012 11:15 PM  

David O August 31, 2012 4:30 PM
And remember, Mormons originally encouraged polygamy and only under pressure from Washington did they officially renounce it


For clarification, Mormons renounced the practice of polygamy, not the doctrine. "Marriage" is ordained of God. It is a divine institution. Whether God ordains that one man marry one woman -- or a hundred women -- is God's prerogative.

The Biblical narrative reveals multiple times when God's servants have righteously practiced polygamy -- apparently with divine approbation. The doctrine (and practice) is not well understood either by the world or by the church, neither Judeo nor Christian.

The concept of "what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" applies both to monogamous and polygamous associations. That which God joins together is approved. That which man joins together -- in all its forms, including monogamous and polygamous associations -- by contrast is often carnal, certainly temporal and, perhaps, even sinful.

Polygamy, when not ordained of God, is nothing more than man-made, legalized adultery.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza August 31, 2012 11:33 PM  

Thruples? Just what the world needs!

I'm marrying my bottle of hair conditioner.

Anonymous Idle Spectator August 31, 2012 11:37 PM  

Polygamy worked wonderfully for the Mormons for a time. It both increased their numbers quickly in the 1800s, and also promoted good qualities.

Wealthy and powerful Mormons were encouraged to enter into Celestial Marriage with many children, while the lower ranking ones were not. Notice this is the exact opposite of the idiocy promoted in America today. The dregs have huge amounts of children while the SWPLs and the educated classes have one or none.

Anonymous Idle Spectator August 31, 2012 11:57 PM  

A interesting thing is that Judaism and Mormonism have something in common: both are religions AND ethnicities.

The Mormons are obsessed with tracking genealogy. It explains the Donny Osmond effect: a lot of Mormons actually are genetically related. They try to track themselves back to both the Mormon Trail Exodus to Salt Lake City and also the original European country they immigrated from. You marry into a Mormon family like you would marry into a Jewish family.

Anonymous The other skeptic September 01, 2012 12:39 AM  

There are about 105 men per 100 women, on average. 1 man with 2 women means 50 married men, 100 married women, and 55 men losers.

In order for those 55 losers to have sex, they must resort to some type of violence, either rape or murder. It doesn't exactly make for stable societies.


Those are the at-birth ratios for whites. They probably are different for other races.

In addition, since boys kill them selves at a greater rate than girls, and since the male homosexual rate seems to be higher than the female homosexual rate (2% vs 1% or something like that), the numbers are pretty even during the 20s, although women outnumber men by the fifties or earlier ...

Anonymous Scintan September 01, 2012 1:55 AM  

This was inevitable. With conventional marriage as a baseline, polygamy has always been more defensible than homosexual marriage.

Blogger R. Bradley Andrews September 01, 2012 2:44 AM  

God never encouraged polygamy. He tolerated it, but didn't encourage it.

Jesus clearly reinforced the idea that one man with one woman is the best idea....

Anonymous FREEDOM LOVER! Om Shanti Om September 01, 2012 2:49 AM  

Ironic isn't it that Democracy is the reason why gay marriage is not legal. Democracy is majority rule. If the majority decides to make gay marriage illegal, the minority of gay folks who want to marry will lose out.

Why do so many people think democracy is a good idea?

Anonymous FREEDOM LOVER! Om Shanti Om September 01, 2012 2:53 AM  

"A interesting thing is that Judaism and Mormonism have something in common: both are religions AND ethnicities.

The Mormons are obsessed with tracking genealogy. It explains the Donny Osmond effect: a lot of Mormons actually are genetically related. They try to track themselves back to both the Mormon Trail Exodus to Salt Lake City and also the original European country they immigrated from. You marry into a Mormon family like you would marry into a Jewish family."

Mormonism, like most Christian sects, considers itself "universal" (ahem, cough) and therefore sends missionaries even into foreign countries to (ahem, cough) "convert heathens". Unlike Jews who are cool enough to leave us alone.

So nope, Mormonism is not genetic like Judaism, though it would be great if ALL Abrahamic religions were genetic and dropped their obnoxious conversion fetishes.

Anonymous FREEDOM LOVER! Om Shanti Om September 01, 2012 3:07 AM  



And its hilarious to watch them. One year the Catholics will come in and convert. Next year the Baptists. Next year Seventh Day Adventists. Next year the Mormons will come through. Next year the Methodists. Next year the Presbytarians. Each one tells the new converts that the previous sect was bogus and they should now convert to this new one, the "real" Christianity. In 7 years I think I've seen the locals convert to as many Christian sects!!!!

Now the locals are starting to wise up and return to their own original indigenous religions.

Anonymous Idle Spectator September 01, 2012 4:00 AM  

Mormonism, like most Christian sects, considers itself "universal" (ahem, cough) and therefore sends missionaries even into foreign countries to (ahem, cough) "convert heathens". Unlike Jews who are cool enough to leave us alone.

I don't care what they "consider" themselves, or if they consider that the moon is made of cheese. A great proportion of them are an ethnicity due to something called the Founder Effect, from the original Mormons that immigrated to the Great Salt Lake Basin from Nauvoo, Illnois. They were apart from the rest of America in geographic isolation for so long this took place. Blacks in the priesthood were not even allowed in Mormonism until the 1970s.

It's similar to how everyone in Iceland is related somehow, and descended from Vikings. Now it's possible if Mormonism opens enough again (exogamy) they could dilute themselves effectively.

The common gene pool leads to that. To quote Jon Stewart, it's just physics!

So nope, Mormonism is not genetic like Judaism, though it would be great if ALL Abrahamic religions were genetic and dropped their obnoxious conversion fetishes.

It takes stringent requirements to convert into Judaism, and also to convert into Mormonism. Mormons are encouraged to marry other Mormons (the endogamy rate is >90%), and infact you need to in order to get a Temple Recommend, which is required for a temple marriage. Then the children are considered Mormon through "sealing" the family together in eternity.

Anonymous Jebus himself September 01, 2012 5:56 AM  

"When my brainwashed followers start killing all the homo's, as my daddy says to in the Old Testament, would you do me a favor? Please knock off Kirk Cameron and Pat Robertson too. Goddamn, but they embarrass the fuck out of me"--Jesus H. Christ, in Uranus.

Anonymous thus a higher smv September 01, 2012 6:18 AM  

"Ironic isn't it that Democracy is the reason why gay marriage is not legal."

Ironic is when the reason is common sense and you don't have any.

"Democracy is majority rule."

where have you been living for the past 50 years?

"In addition, since boys kill them selves at a greater rate than girls, and since the male homosexual rate seems to be higher than the female homosexual rate (2% vs 1% or something like that), the numbers are pretty even during the 20s, "

Those factors don't change things much, and men marry younger women, so a declining population means the ratio is further skewed.

Anonymous CaptDMO September 01, 2012 9:21 AM  

"While the elites who want to have multiple wives are figuring out how to destroy the divorce laws so they do not apply to them,..."
Oh no, not destroy them, just..."reform"" them. And reformation is ALWAYS good, right?

Actually, if folks simply form a "union" WITHOUT
seeking official "recognition" by the State, then the State has nothing to say about it's dissolution...right?

Oh, wait.....

"Jesus said..."
"God said..."
Is it true that the (long time) Japanese symbol for "trouble" is equivelent to two women under the same roof (in the same house)?

Roundtine:" Ladies of the world, I am now accepting bids for green card marriages."

Oooo...you may want to review the NEW (fuuuh-ugly) lesbian "feminist" written "Mail order bride" rules, championed by Biden,Pelosi, Reid, et al., before you put THAT ad in Emily's List, or E-Bay. There MAY be some Title IX restrictions on THAT "class"/sport as well. Youd probably be safe with an *international- invitation-to-bid-on-access-to-economic-diversity toward "gay" men though.

* (too many code-speak dog whistles in one place for "irony" quotes)

Anonymous bw September 01, 2012 9:43 AM  

"Progressives" have always loved their cheating, abusing "First Men". JFK. Clinton. BrokeBackMountain.
Fems are more used than a toilet seat - and they love it.
The contradiction has been there all along. In their ignorance and self-loathing, they continually "elect" their abuser.

Anonymous The other skeptic September 01, 2012 10:04 AM  

Actually, if folks simply form a "union" WITHOUT
seeking official "recognition" by the State, then the State has nothing to say about it's dissolution...right?


Not true. I suspect that in CA, for example, co-habitation for 10 years leads to the woman having a claim on the man's property and wealth.

Anonymous The other skeptic September 01, 2012 10:12 AM  

and men marry younger women

Well, yes they do, mainly because women select men who are older than them.

If your claim is that the a large number of unattached males will lead to violence, that seems only to happen among NAMs, not among whites or East Asians. It seems to take the addition of a charismatic leader to get whites and East Asians on the road to violence. I have long surmised that the elites look out for such people and eliminate them before they get a following. (Eg, Waco, etc.)

Anonymous The other skeptic September 01, 2012 10:24 AM  

In other news, a kind woman now knows how they repay her kindness

Status seeking is good, but you need to avoid the inevitable consequences.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 01, 2012 12:07 PM  

"Actually, if folks simply form a "union" WITHOUT
seeking official "recognition" by the State, then the State has nothing to say about it's dissolution...right?"

Not true. I suspect that in CA, for example, co-habitation for 10 years leads to the woman having a claim on the man's property and wealth.


Even more so in Texas. All you have to do is cohabit and refer to each other as spouses, and it's a done deal. (And then you stand to get in trouble if your alleged marriage doesn't fall within the one-man-one-woman limitations.)

Blogger Doom September 01, 2012 12:48 PM  

Something I should add though... polygamy was never banned by God, to my reading. Jews right through and past Christ's time were allowed to have several wives, especially but not limited to the problem of one woman not being able to produce heirs. Actually, most wives would find a woman who could bear young in such a case, out of social and moral courtesy to her husband. And the early Church did limit marriage to one woman but did nothing about... other women. I have never seen that stricken, save by the state, more for social or economic reasons I would guess?

Gay marriage though? Never. Some like to think Rome was gay, it was quite unfriendly to homosexuals, if their elites seemed to... enjoy being "bad boys" and whatnot. And perhaps in the final decadent decay(s). It wasn't socially acceptable. At least at one time a man could have lost his citizenship over actual sodomy, a huge penalty for a Roman. No, gay has never been allowed, save by the queer bastards who seem to climb the ranks somehow. *cough* Barney *cough*

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 01, 2012 2:49 PM  

Under the Old Order, the STATE did enforce Catholic morality! The whole of the so-called "Enlightenment" was about breaking the relationship between Church and State. Church and State go hand in hand. Now, it is Marxism and State.

For the longest time, Vox, the "State" enforced anti-miscegenation laws, blue laws, all religious in character!

Anonymous Sheila September 01, 2012 2:52 PM  

Vox - off topic, but have you seen this video from Ann Barnhardt's site? It is the most perfect illustration of churchianity I have seen in a long time and deserves to be widely distributed and promoted.

Anonymous willneverpostagain September 01, 2012 5:34 PM  

"Under the Old Order, the STATE did enforce Catholic morality! The whole of the so-called "Enlightenment" was about breaking the relationship between Church and State. Church and State go hand in hand. Now, it is Marxism and State.

For the longest time, Vox, the "State" enforced anti-miscegenation laws, blue laws, all religious in character!"

WLW, are you referring to the Borgia's??

Blogger Dr. Kenneth Noisewater September 01, 2012 7:54 PM  

Why the f--k should any govt entity be involved with marriage in any capacity besides that of being an arbiter of wills and contracts? Get govt out of marriage, except in that capacity, so that its civil component is merely a contract akin to a living will or power of attorney between/among the consenting adults involved. By the same token, don't force religious orgs to perform or recognize them, so that the legal and moral entities are bifurcated as they should be.

Blogger IM2L844 September 01, 2012 8:04 PM  

Sorry. OT, but I thought this anagram from Maverick Philosopher might make a few people smile a little.

malcontent liberal : abnormal intellect

But, of course, malcontent must be another racist code word for "black".

Anonymous Anonymous September 01, 2012 8:52 PM  

The hippies want to two things: to freely exist as base animals, free from all constraints; and they want biblical Christianity destroyed, or corrupted if that cannot be done at the present moment. The last is what their master, the devil, demands of them.

As part of both the above goals, they are working at taking over 'marriage' via the legal system, and will then seek to unmake it (more), in whatever manner is practicable at that moment.
What should then follow, after the additional corrosive that is polygamy, perhaps a strong focus on the unmaking of masculinity & femininity will follow.

In the West the legacies of Christianity are still too strong for the hippies to start corn-holing their pets. Above all, the pretense of the moral superiority of atheists must be maintained so as to oppose the mirror that the salt is supposed to be: until such time as the the hippies think they can deliver the killing blow to all Christians. The last thing they want is for the hypnotized peasants to wake up smell the hippie-shit clothing them.

-CB

Anonymous FREEDOM LOVER! Om Shanti Om September 01, 2012 10:10 PM  

"It's similar to how everyone in Iceland is related somehow, and descended from Vikings. Now it's possible if Mormonism opens enough again (exogamy) they could dilute themselves effectively."

Idle Spectator, how could we convince Mormons and other Christians to stop prosyletizing and remain or become endogamous?

Do you think the race angle would work? The problem is that Christianity sees itself as a universal religion, nay, THE universal religion. If it was confined to one ethnic group I'd have no problem with it.

How can we make it happen?

Blogger Jamie-R September 01, 2012 10:24 PM  

After this election, America needs a movie about Lincoln and the divisions he created by keeping the Union. California is its own entity, and the North-East is still yankee territory. The heartland of America should be its own nation, it can't cope with all the bullshit and western Euro socialism from the North-East. America needs to separate to save its political soul. That needs to be discussed this election. Otherwise a civil war again, is likely. I'm Aussie and I fucking can't stand your lefties. Send em to France!

Blogger Jamie-R September 01, 2012 10:28 PM  

The French gave you the Statue of Liberty, the British gave you the limits of government, the Scots-Irish gave you the South. It's beautiful.

Blogger Jamie-R September 01, 2012 10:30 PM  

I like how the French left God for equality, but they gave America a message, to strive for equality under God. That shouldn't be a government message or a Federal anything! The last Christian outpost has to survive! We have no one else left!

Anonymous Stilicho September 01, 2012 11:06 PM  

The French gave you the Statue of Liberty, the British gave you the limits of government, the Scots-Irish gave you the South. It's beautiful.

Well, two out of three ain't bad and we can sell the copper for scrap. If there were just a way to send those huddled masses to France.

Anonymous tiredofitall September 01, 2012 11:40 PM  

"Three Brazilians in love have their nation up in arms over whether their relationship, now enshrined in a three-way marriage, is legal."

When reached for a comment, Obama sat quietly for a moment before leaning over towards an adviser and asking, "How many is a brazilian again?"

Blogger Jamie-R September 01, 2012 11:51 PM  

Well, two out of three ain't bad and we can sell the copper for scrap. If there were just a way to send those huddled masses to France.

Well played.

Anonymous Luke September 02, 2012 12:07 AM  

"Freedom Lover" wrote:

"Idle Spectator, how could we convince Mormons and other Christians to stop prosyletizing and remain or become endogamous?"

Why TF do you think that Mormons are Christian?

Blogger Jamie-R September 02, 2012 12:12 AM  

I couldn't care less about Mormons, fucking Americans.... But praise American Christians!! 17 centuries later. Last ones left. After you we're all lost.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Ethnologist September 02, 2012 1:11 AM  

Why TF do you think that Mormons are Christian?

Because they are. If you are Catholic I bet you would think that the Protestants were a bunch of heretics led astray by Martin Luther, and if you are Protestant you would think the Catholics are a bunch of papists led by Rome. I laughed out loud when I saw this blog comparing Mormonism to Scientology.

Which "religion" thinks ancient aliens dropped hydrogen bombs into volcanoes, and dead souls of aliens called Body Thetans are still attached to people's psyches causing problems to the present day?
a) Mormonism
b) Scientology
c) If you pick option c or a, you are a fucking idiot. I'm hungry.

Idle Spectator, how could we convince Mormons and other Christians to stop prosyletizing and remain or become endogamous?

Do you think the race angle would work? The problem is that Christianity sees itself as a universal religion, nay, THE universal religion. If it was confined to one ethnic group I'd have no problem with it.


Nothing wrong with proselytizing. Yes Mormons on bicycles and Jehovah's Witnesses spreading the good news are annoying, but missionaries also translated texts, perserved languages and spread science and human knowledge.

The race angle is a very, very, bad idea, because then you end up with Hinduism and a caste system. Endogamy leads to things like Orthodox Judaism and Zoroastrians, which can be very bad due to insularity. The Zoroastrians are dying out. That's why Christianity is far superior, because it CAN adapt to any situation. Islam is still stuck in the stone age with a "convert, or die" which has not happened in Christiandom since the Middle Ages. Egypt and Pakistan went BACKWARDS in growth. Grow the hell up Islam, else you ain't getting the car keys. Or a modern society.

Anonymous Luke September 02, 2012 2:18 AM  

Dr. Idle S.:

Sigh. Mormons are Christian when Christians can be Mormon while rejecting what Joe "the Thief" Smith and Brigand "Pedo" Young had to say, e.g., the Book of Mormon, Inc. (ideally an early version). To begin your education on this subject, scroll down to the first chart at this link:
http://mormoncult.org/mormonism-vs-christianity.html

Anonymous Tom O September 02, 2012 4:57 PM  

Because they are [Christian].

Mormons believe that Jesus is the brother of Satan. Is this in any way the same Jesus that appeared in the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation? If it isn't, then it doesn't make much sense to call them "Christian".

Catholicism is largely a different interpretation of the same core texts as protestants, so it makes perfect sense to call it Christian. Mormons, however, believe in a new revelation.

Do you think the race angle would work? The problem is that Christianity sees itself as a universal religion, nay, THE universal religion. If it was confined to one ethnic group I'd have no problem with it.

The reason Christianity sees itself as a universal religion is because sometimes ideas can actually be correct. So if you believe that Christianity is true, you're basically saying that people should be forbidden from believing true statements because they are of the improper racial group.

Of course, if you believe that Christianity is fiction that can be manipulated for conservative political purposes, then this view makes perfect sense.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Ethnologist September 03, 2012 12:08 AM  

Sigh. Mormons are Christian when Christians can be Mormon while rejecting what Joe "the Thief" Smith and Brigand "Pedo" Young had to say, e.g., the Book of Mormon, Inc. (ideally an early version). To begin your education on this subject, scroll down to the first chart at this link:
http://mormoncult.org/mormonism-vs-christianity.html


It's Brigham. And that doesn't even make sense. That is like saying basketball players can be hockey players when hockey players can be basketball players while rejecting a hoop. They're all sports players though in a larger set, rather than ballet dancers (different religion set).

Do you really think I waded through all that painful Tom Cruisic miasma on Scientology, and then didn't even bother to pick up a copy of the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, or the Doctrines and Covenants? C'mon.

C'monnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

I've seen that website before actually. I know all about that table. And Blood Atonement. And Kolob. And Exhaltation. And the accusation of the three Degrees of Glory (Celestial, Telestial, Terrestrial) in Heaven being borrowed from Swedenborgian Christianity.

Mormons believe that Jesus is the brother of Satan. Is this in any way the same Jesus that appeared in the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation? If it isn't, then it doesn't make much sense to call them "Christian".

I've seen this one floating around for a long time. They are brothers in the sense that God created both of them as a spirit child from a Heavenly Father aspect, not literal brothers of equal standing. How many times have I read this one? Google is your friend!

Catholicism is largely a different interpretation of the same core texts as protestants, so it makes perfect sense to call it Christian. Mormons, however, believe in a new revelation.

That's because Joseph Smith thought both Catholics AND Protestants got it wrong by adding in to much additional theology after Jesus' death (Nicene Creed, ect). He's kinduh got a point...



See, now we're not even arguing if Mormons are Christian. We are arguing whether they are "good" Christians or "bad" Christians. Insert blasphemous, mislead, heretical, non-mainstream, for bad if you want.

Anonymous oregon mouse September 03, 2012 1:16 AM  

I'm kind of wondering what insentive FLDS Moromons would have to register all their marriage partners with the state. It would seem to compromise the massive amount of welfare fraud it takes to support hordes of children by one father and multiple unemployed mothers (who all claim single parent status).
For my part, marriage is hard enough with one person. I can't imagine why a straying spouse would rather own than rent.

Blogger Markku September 03, 2012 10:42 AM  

Future liberal definition of marriage:

Union of one or more entities with no fixed rules apart from that if one of the entities is a heterosexual male, his rights must come last.

Anonymous FREEDOM LOVER! Om Shanti Om September 06, 2012 1:36 AM  

"The race angle is a very, very, bad idea, because then you end up with Hinduism and a caste system. "

Caste is not based on race.

Tom O, I don't think Christianity is true or untrue. I don't think much of it at all in fact. Its another religion in a sea of religions we can choose from, with some good ideas and some bad, like all of them.

However due to its exclusionary nature it has proved problematic over the several centuries it has been in existence. Its more of a political movement than a religion.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Ethnologist September 07, 2012 5:20 PM  

Caste is not based on race.

Not always, but usually. And in Hinduism the caste system is embedded in the very theology itself.
See also here: The Caste System and
the Stages of Life in Hinduism


I point out Hinduism since we are talking about over 1/6th of the world's population being affected by this reality. It may not start out as race, but over time intermarriage in one's caste forms divided racial groups like in India.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts