In fact, you could argue that there is an even better argument for polygamy than for same sex marriage. For one thing, there\u2019s a long tradition (just look at the heroes of the Old Testament.) It\u2019s also intimately tied to religious practice, which means that by prohibiting polygamy, we might also be undermining the \u201cfree exercise thereof.\u201d<\/p>\n
Now, you might say that there is historical evidence to support the fact that polygamy is bad for women and children. This is sophistry. The truth is that right now about half of all marriages end in divorce, and lots of kids are already struggling, so it\u2019s not like traditional marriage is a panacea. Besides, nobody is forcing you to be a polygamist. This is a choice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And unlike gay marriage, which is entirely a modern Western social construct, Polygamy has occurrred througout human history, including our own.\u00a0<\/p>\n
There are practical reasons, too. It\u2019s harder and harder these days to make ends meet. As a man, I can only imagine how much more efficient it would be to have one wife in the workforce and another wife at home with the kids. This would be much better for the children than shipping them off to some nursery school. And having three parents is a lot better than having just one \u2026 or none.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Yesterday’s SCOTUS decision, and last fall’s election in Minnesota, had clear-ish verdicts; “marriage” is “about love” and “civil rights”.<\/p>\n
So what – legally <\/em>– is the difference between a monogamous and polyamorous family unit, since those are the standards?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"One of the least useful arguments against gay marriage was “so it’s about love?\u00a0 So if you love your goat, or a child, you could marry them?” Neither goats nor children (age of consent laws notwithstanding)\u00a0have standing to sign contracts, of course.\u00a0 It’s kind of a strawman. But the other, inevitable part of the argument […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,27,82],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36984","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-family-law","category-men-and-women","category-scotus"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36984","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=36984"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36984\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":36986,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36984\/revisions\/36986"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=36984"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=36984"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=36984"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}