There is yet another controversial topic which I have been holding between my lips and that is the question of plural marriage. Now notice I did not say polygamy, which means poly-wives, which means one husband with many wives, as when I say "plural marriage", this is what most people automatically assume.
However, the stigma of polygamy being the only form of plural marriage is fading as we see more and more plural relationships which exhibit all kinds of gender arrangements and polyandry (many husbands) has been known to exist for centuries. Politically, the question of polyamory and plural marriage sits between the right and the left, who as usual cannot unite for a common cause.
First we obviously have the dreaded Mormon sects who still practice non-legal polygamy and who would obviously support the legalization of plural marriage, and so would many fundamentalist Muslims living in the United States. Than we have the radical paganish right who believe that polygamy is natural as some men are meant to breed more than others.
But then we have the left who are attracted to the idea of free love and complex living arrangements. We have recently seen the legalization of gay marriage, and if love is love, why can't love be between two or three or four people. Many women live in with two boyfriends and of course we have more liberal forms of polygamy and bisexual/homosexual polygamy as well. The idea is people should be able to live as they please.
So we have two opposite sides of the spectrum who can at least agree on at least the legalization of plural marriage, just perhaps not its personal application. But are there any other benefits to plural marriage other than desired living arrangements? As usual my vision of these things is unusually mystical and scientific and social than what the general idea is.
I've written on this blog often about eugenics, the belief in guiding human reproduction so as to produce humans with expected traits, hoping to produce a human population who is healthier, happier and who have amplified abilities over what we have today. People argue over whether or not we humans have the ability to predict which traits are best for the future, but we can at least make some logical guesses as to which traits now enhance performance.
Under a plural marriage system, it is most likely obvious that the vast majority of the arrangements would be polygamy, where one husband takes many wives. There is a theory that polygamy is actually best for the gene pool as it takes the most successful and charismatic men who are able to maintain many wives and spreads their genes, more so than the average man who would only be able to attract one wife if that.
However, the system has incentives for the other halves and quarters and eights of societies, the monogamous, the unmarried, and the homosexuals. We are born more or less in ratios of 50/50 when it comes to the sexes. Under monogamy, if everyone is going to live under the universal system, we all must more or less marry each other in order to keep the system running and for everyone to find a mate. It is this sort of social pressure which perhaps makes it difficult for many to accept those who wish to go unmarried or be homosexual in large numbers as this robs many desiring persons of marital relations and the provision of the society with children.
When large portions of the male population become bachelors or homosexuals, than there are too many women for two few men, and it is women who get the short end of the stick. By allowing a few men to take many wives (who wish to do so), they even back out the genders and make up for those men who refuse to breed or marry and those men who wish to be homosexuals. Now heterosexual men and women are more evenly distributed. This makes it possible for each woman to find a husband and the monogamous men are not put at a disadvantage by a female population who has to many options. It should also be noted the problem of female over population can also be helped by lesbianism.
So we have two opposite sides of the spectrum who can at least agree on at least the legalization of plural marriage, just perhaps not its personal application. But are there any other benefits to plural marriage other than desired living arrangements? As usual my vision of these things is unusually mystical and scientific and social than what the general idea is.
I've written on this blog often about eugenics, the belief in guiding human reproduction so as to produce humans with expected traits, hoping to produce a human population who is healthier, happier and who have amplified abilities over what we have today. People argue over whether or not we humans have the ability to predict which traits are best for the future, but we can at least make some logical guesses as to which traits now enhance performance.
Under a plural marriage system, it is most likely obvious that the vast majority of the arrangements would be polygamy, where one husband takes many wives. There is a theory that polygamy is actually best for the gene pool as it takes the most successful and charismatic men who are able to maintain many wives and spreads their genes, more so than the average man who would only be able to attract one wife if that.
However, the system has incentives for the other halves and quarters and eights of societies, the monogamous, the unmarried, and the homosexuals. We are born more or less in ratios of 50/50 when it comes to the sexes. Under monogamy, if everyone is going to live under the universal system, we all must more or less marry each other in order to keep the system running and for everyone to find a mate. It is this sort of social pressure which perhaps makes it difficult for many to accept those who wish to go unmarried or be homosexual in large numbers as this robs many desiring persons of marital relations and the provision of the society with children.
When large portions of the male population become bachelors or homosexuals, than there are too many women for two few men, and it is women who get the short end of the stick. By allowing a few men to take many wives (who wish to do so), they even back out the genders and make up for those men who refuse to breed or marry and those men who wish to be homosexuals. Now heterosexual men and women are more evenly distributed. This makes it possible for each woman to find a husband and the monogamous men are not put at a disadvantage by a female population who has to many options. It should also be noted the problem of female over population can also be helped by lesbianism.
So what could plural marriage help us accomplish? Men of good health and exceptional abilities could be encouraged to take more wives in order to spread his genes more so than the average population. This would at first create an surplus of men looking for wives, but this could be remedied through the social acceptance of bachelorhood and homosexuality who would then not compete with males looking for monogamous marriages, and heterosexual monogamists are more even distributed. So it would seem that under plural marriage we would all be satiated as to our mating desires, and the system's population could be maintained and improved over time. Thus the right and the left should unite for plural marriage.
