Friday, April 24, 2009

Gay Marriage and Polygamy



Winston Blackmore is a polygamist in Canada who has a case headed for the Canadian Supreme Court. Blackmore is arguing that if it is OK for gays to marry, why should polygamy be illegal? After all, the argument in support of gay marriage is that what consenting adults do sexually should not be regulated by the government. Based on this logic, there is no reason that polygamy should be illegal.

Polygamy is the norm in primitive societies. So a return to polygamy would in many ways be a return to the jungle. The top status males would horde most of the women. This would result in many men without a partner and a family. In such situations, these men tend to turn feral and not support civilization.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Life/inevitable+courts+will+legalize+polygamy/1479077/story.html

5 comments:

  1. Thanks for making this video!

    It is interesting how things which are seemingly unrelated are linked ... or can be linked fairly easily over the course of even a short period of time.

    Since the demolition of the marriage laws in the 70s, it took 30+ years for same sex marriage to become a reality, even if that is only in a few states still. Canada legalized same sex marriage in 2005, and it has only taken 4 years for a full-blown legal challenge to the ban on polygamy to take shape.

    The pace of change is speeding up, and the direction of that change is troubling: away from civilization and towards primitivism. It's rather ironic that the progressives are the ones who are leading the charge towards a degeneration of society into primitive mores, but life is filled with ironies, big and small.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As we discussed, the societies that embrace polygamy aren’t exactly female friendly. In such societies the women are pretty much treated as property.

    It is only through civilization that women have been treated with dignity. The irony is that the feminists are destroying the institution that maintains civilization. Once marriage is destroyed, we will return back to the jungle.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "It's rather ironic that the progressives are the ones who are leading the charge towards a degeneration of society into primitive mores,"

    Very true---and it's something that I've noticed as well. Feminists, and their counterparts, cry for benevolent sexism (despite their criticism of it) because it is one of the last vestiges of the chivalry they sneered at with "patriarchy;" it is one of the few governors left on male behavior, which is something they are ever interested in controlling.

    More irony, indeed. In fact, I've always said that the men wary of the laws and polices are the ones that will apprehensively heed them out of self-perservation, leaving the the more aggressive and brute of men to seek out, constrain, and use women.

    "As we discussed, the societies that embrace polygamy aren’t exactly female friendly."

    With all the talk of liberating women, it's an ever-veering quest to send us into a matriarchal ghetto. This type of cultural situation breeds---literally and figuratively---men quite the opposite hoped for. Instead of The New Age Sensitive Man, it's feral kids, dropouts, so-called deadbeat dads, thugs, players, and, of course, the darker side of women that reflect that output. Not pretty, and not the feminist utopia envisioned by the white upper crust women that were so bored in their "prisons" (a la Betty Friedan) that they had to stir the maelstrom up.

    Hypergamy is alive and well for those willing to see it. Nothing new of course, but Western civilization offered an alternative to short term gain through empty hedonism and (occasionally) truly savage competition.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As we discussed, the societies that embrace polygamy aren’t exactly female friendly. In such societies the women are pretty much treated as property.

    It is only through civilization that women have been treated with dignity. The irony is that the feminists are destroying the institution that maintains civilization. Once marriage is destroyed, we will return back to the jungle.
    Indeed, that's the core irony.

    It's based on the fallacy of the noble savage -- this idea that if we just peel away all of civilization, we'll get back to an idyllic "natural state". Such hogwash. In a true polygynous system, women are generally treated like property, as you say.

    This is why I think that they actually put the brakes on destroying marriage outright. What they did instead was preserve the male responsibility aspects of monomamous marriage, while deleting all of the female responsibility aspects of monogamous marriage. This preserves the "benefits" of the institutions of "patriarchal male obligation" for women, while relieving women of the matching obligations that applied to them. So it's a win-win for women, and avoids slipping directly into polygamy, which I think women know will not be in their interest.

    I expect what we will see in the years ahead is not a wholesale abandonment of marriage by women -- it's still quite beneficial for a woman to get married, even if many of them do not like *being* married. But I think that the divorce rate is not going to change, and, if anything, there will be increasing pressure on marriage to downplay or delete altogether the monogamy expectation, at least for women.

    The main wildcard is what the men will do. Will men continue to support marriage by getting married, even though this is typically against their own self-interest? Will the marriage strike actually gain momentum, or will it always be a small phenomenon? Will men sign up to be betas to their wives in open marriages where their wives take other lovers more or less openly?

    There are a lot of questions as to how male behavior will develop in the next few decades, and the direction that men go will have an impact on how this all unfolds.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting--I simply think men are going to delay marriage as long as humanly possible. It is amusing to see all the 30-year-old ladies getting desperate.

    The polygamy-is-bad-for-men argument I first saw from Steve Sailer (and I agree with him). It is amusing that whenever I bring up polygamy, men always think it's a good idea until I point out what you point out--alphas hogging all the ladies. American optimism?

    ReplyDelete