Polygamy regulation

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 13
Topic's author
#1
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
I think polygamy should be regulated in the US.  BoP rests on those who wish to take people's freedom away.

The justification:

-It is religious freedom since some people's religion allows them to marry multiple people.  Some non religious people would also do it because they want to.
-It is not for everybody, but it is for some people.
-It enables smarter people to marry more people, and as a result, they can produce smarter kids, making a better society not just from genetics, but because smarter people raise smarter kids by teaching them how to become smart.
-It can solve the STD epidemic in the US if we require polygamous people to get their STDs treated before they go polygamous.  From there, if it greatly reduces STDs, then there would be less STDs as well as a huge creation of jobs because people would be treating the STDs.
-It requires the enthusiastic consent of all spouses.

Now onto rebuttals that I thought of:

-The claim that it would cause crime rates to go up.  In societies where the crime rate is higher, this is because of poverty and not the legalization of polygamy.  Moreover, Ethiopia, where polygamy is banned, has a comparable murder rate to the average of it's neighbors which have legalized polygamy.  In western Africa, countries that banned polygamy have a higher murder rate than countries that legalized it.

Sources:

#2
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Alec
I have no issue with polygamy. As long as everyone involved is aware the relationship is going to be polygamist and is ok with that, then it is fine.

But I would have a problem with someone marrying under the assumption that relationship is monogamous, then marrying again without the consent of their 1st partner. 
Topic's author
#3
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
But I would have a problem with someone marrying under the assumption that relationship is monogamous, then marrying again without the consent of their 1st partner. 
I agree.  Consent is key.

#4
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Alec
-It enables smarter people to marry more people, and as a result, they can produce smarter kids, making a better society not just from genetics, but because smarter people raise smarter kids by teaching them how to become smart.

First children usually have the highest IQ because the parents are able to pay more attention to them and aid their development. Also, you believe genetics affect intelligence levels and you want smarter people. Does that mean you want less dumb people having kids? Wouldn't just encouraging smart people to donate their gametes be a good substitute?

-It can solve the STD epidemic in the US if we require polygamous people to get their STDs treated before they go polygamous.  From there, if it greatly reduces STDs, then there would be less STDs as well as a huge creation of jobs because people would be treating the STDs.
I don't see how this is any more effective than just making monogamous people get their STDs treated. Unless you can somehow prevent monogamously married people from cheating on their spouse, this won't really solve anything.





I don't see how polygamy could lead to crime. I could see it leading to poverty (providing for more spouses and children), which could then lead to crime. You would have to further elaborate on your statistics. Just because polygamy is legalized doesn't mean that a lot of people are even engaging in polygamous marriages.
#5
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,266
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Alec
Polygamy is among the most barbaric institutions ever practiced by the human race. It made women into "prizes" for wealthy men to accumulate and hoard, it made poor men desperate enough to commit murder and rape as ways of life. Christianity accomplished the will of the "invisible hand" of progress in abolishing the practice and then in exporting strict monogamy to much of the rest of the world.
#6
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,266
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Look at lions. Mating is a free-for-all. Pretty chill, right?

Roaming bands of single males attack/rape hitched females in a desperate bid to pass on their genes in a system stacked against them. If one of them succeeds in killing the alpha male, he will then murder the female's children that she had with the previous alpha so that she'll devote all her attention to mating with him and siring his children. Of course, now he's the alpha so now another group of foreign males is going to eventually come along and do the exact same thing.

^This used to be us. Yes, the human race. You wanna force average men to choose between dying alone and becoming cold-blooded rapists? Be my guest. At least you'll have succeeded in giving the finger to those Christian meanies who're out to spoil everyone's fun for no reason.
#7
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Alec
it should not be regulated, consenting adults do not need and should not be regulated.
Topic's author
#8
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
I could see it leading to poverty (providing for more spouses and children)
People know their limits.  If your barely struggling to provide for children (the wife would probably help too), then you wouldn't take on more children.

Also, you believe genetics affect intelligence levels and you want smarter people.
I think the main reason why smarter people produce smarter kids is because of how they are raised.  A smart person raising 4 kids would be produce better offspring than a smart person raising 2 kids and a dumb person raising 2 kids because smart people can raise them better.

I don´t know how many people would be polygamous if it were allowed.

I don't see how this is any more effective than just making monogamous people get their STDs treated.
I want this and making polygamous people get their STDs treated.  I don´t think you should have sex unless you are free of STDs.
Topic's author
#9
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Swagnarok
 It made women into "prizes" for wealthy men to accumulate and hoard, it made poor men desperate enough to commit murder and rape as ways of life.
Poor men don´t rape and murder in order to acquire women. 

In societies where the crime rate is higher, this is because of poverty and not the legalization of polygamy.  Moreover, Ethiopia, where polygamy is banned, has a comparable murder rate to the average of it's neighbors which have legalized polygamy.  In western Africa, countries that banned polygamy have a higher murder rate than countries that legalized it.  I don´t think rapes get reported enough worldwide to provide an accurate statistic on rape rates.

Sources:


You wanna force average men to choose between dying alone and becoming cold-blooded rapists?
The ladder almost never happens, otherwise rape rates would be through the roof in countries where polygamy is legal and common.  Dying alone isin´t super different from dying with a partner, so a more accurate comparison would be choosing celibacy over being a rapist.  If you don´t have a wife or GF, people choose celibacy.

At least you'll have succeeded in giving the finger to those Christian meanies who're out to spoil everyone's fun for no reason.
The bible has many examples of polygamy that God didn't punish, so polygamy is bible backed.  Even if it wasn´t, we have separation of Church and state, so we can´t use bible law.
#10
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Alec
People know their limits.  If your barely struggling to provide for children (the wife would probably help too), then you wouldn't take on more children.

That's just not true. People on welfare in the US continuously have kids, even when they don't get extra benefits for doing so.

I think the main reason why smarter people produce smarter kids is because of how they are raised.  A smart person raising 4 kids would be produce better offspring than a smart person raising 2 kids and a dumb person raising 2 kids because smart people can raise them better.

I don´t know how many people would be polygamous if it were allowed.
Well, rich people have less kids than poor people. Rich people are generally smarter than poor people, so I am not sure this will encourage them to have more kids.

I want this and making polygamous people get their STDs treated.  I don´t think you should have sex unless you are free of STDs.

Yeah, but who pays for it?
Topic's author
#11
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
That's just not true. People on welfare in the US continuously have kids, even when they don't get extra benefits for doing so.
I don't think this is true.  Otherwise, people on welfare would have like a dozen kids.  They may have 3 which isn't too much but if they continuously made kids just for fun, they would have like a dozen kids, which very few people do.

Well, rich people have less kids than poor people. Rich people are generally smarter than poor people, so I am not sure this will encourage them to have more kids.
Rich people produce less kids, but they adopt more kids, since most people like having kids around.  These foster kids would be raised by rich people and would end up being successful themselves.  My logic is:

If having only 1 parent is bad for kids because it´s hard for 1 parent

And if having 2 parents is good for kids

Then wouldn´t having 3+ parents be even better for the kid because they have more parents?

Yeah, but who pays for it?
The people getting the STDs treated should pay for their own STD treatment.  I don´t think it´s too expensive.
#12
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Alec
I don't think this is true.  Otherwise, people on welfare would have like a dozen kids.  They may have 3 which isn't too much but if they continuously made kids just for fun, they would have like a dozen kids, which very few people do.

35.5% of households receive government assistance.
51.7% of kids in 2017 lived in housing receiving government assistance. 

So, no. Poor people have a lot more kids. They don't have to have a dozen. They just have like 5 or 6 while rich people have none or 1.

Rich people produce less kids, but they adopt more kids, since most people like having kids around.  These foster kids would be raised by rich people and would end up being successful themselves.  My logic is:

If having only 1 parent is bad for kids because it´s hard for 1 parent

And if having 2 parents is good for kids

Then wouldn´t having 3+ parents be even better for the kid because they have more parents?
A few things:
Rich people adopt more kids because they are able to. Your financial situation is considered before they let you adopt a kid.

You wanted people with smart genes raising kids, but these rich and smart people are adopting instead. Would there be less kids adopted with polygamy or would nothing change and they continue to adopt?

Are we assuming that they are all cohabitating? Because the father would have to divide his time among his different wives and children. Won't the mothers be distracted by caring for their own child, anyway? How would it be 3 parents in that case?

13 days later

Topic's author
#13
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
Sorry for not responding in a while.  Life gets in the way.

35.5% of households receive government assistance.
51.7% of kids in 2017 lived in housing receiving government assistance. 

So, no. Poor people have a lot more kids. They don't have to have a dozen. They just have like 5 or 6 while rich people have none or 1.

We ban welfare, show low income people where to get better jobs so they won't have to depend on welfare, and then poverty/welfare dependency is drastically reduced.  Then people, once they realize welfare isn't an option, wouldn't have more kids than they can afford.

You wanted people with smart genes raising kids, but these rich and smart people are adopting instead.
The reason why rich people tend to raise better offspring has little to do with their genes and more to do with how they were raised.  Teach a kid about stock and investing; they will be better off when they are an adult.  Teach a kid discipline and the values of education, he will do better.  Steve Job's biological Mom probably wasn't the brightest, but he was raised well by his adopted parents so he managed to create good stuff.

Are we assuming that they are all cohabitating?
Yes.  It would make more sense to do that.  I don't see why they wouldn't cohabit.  They would need bigger houses for this, which would grow the economy since there would be bigger houses which are worth more.