"Baby daddies" v polygamists... which is worse?

Yes. Which is why government has no business in the marriage business.

Total agreement here.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. Which is why government has no business in the marriage business.

Total agreement here.

 

It's apples and oranges; they are both bad, but in different ways. Personally I'd say baby daddies, but a good case can be made for the polygamists, especially when they live in a polygamist community.

 

How is it exactly apples and oranges? We're talking about one man making babies with several women in both cases. Babydaddyism is a drain on society, no doubt. But polygamy? How are you harmed?

 

Most states now have pretty severe penalties for deadbeat dads. In a way, it's partly responsible for the low employment rate among black men. The government is taking all they make because they've fathered eight kids. That's real talk.

 

Why would they get thrown in jail? As far as I'm aware, living with multiple romantic/sexual partners in itself isn't illegal. They'd only get a legal problem if they lie in sworn documents in the process of trying to establish a legal marriage to more than one individual at a time.

Obviously, though I wouldn't say polygamists are automatically good or even that men who have children with multiple women are automatically bad.

Do you think there should be any practical consequence of this observation?

 

In an absolute sense, the polygamist life style is probably better for the kids than babydaddyism, for the reason you mentioned, there's a father taking care of his kids in the home. It's marriage type that actually has a track record and history and used to be fairly common. I prefer that it be kept illegal though since it's hard to disassociate women being kept in a fairly servile state as opposed to societies with just couple marriages/

Babydaddyism isn't self supporting. It wouldn't exist without our extensive social services and would collapse if it were taken away.

 

My understanding is the way the state gets them is by prosecuting them only after they have achieved common-law status with the 2nd, 3rd, etc.. So, the man legally marries the first wife, then takes a more women into the home and after seven years, he is technically legally married to more than one woman. At least that's how the Sister Wives guy was prosecuted if the (*)(*)(*)(*)-poor news reporting is accurate.

 

We agree on babydaddyism. But in the case of polygamy, don't you think consenting adults should be free to make their own decisions about how they want to live their lives?

 

WRONG. The polygamists take advantage of the welfare system too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ygamy-welfare-benefits-insidious-silence.html

 

Well I guess I was talking about the U.S.. What happens in GB is not my concern. Also, your correlation is a bit of a non sequitur: Are some polygamists welfare cheats? Sure. Is welfare cheating a requirement for polygamy? No. Are some monogamists welfare cheats? Sure. Is welfare cheating a requirement for monogamy? No. Fail.

 

The polygamists in Utah also suck off the welfare system. That is because it is not possible for any but the wealthiest of men to support more than one wife and her children.

 

Correlation is not causation. You are referring specifically to Christian fundamentalists in Utah who break the law in many many ways. But the practice of polygamy prima facia as referenced in my OP does not qualify for the argument you have brought forth. In fact, if you watch Sister Wives, you see one man supporting four women and over a dozen children. This, in stark contrast to baby daddies who may sire several offspring with several women and then leave them all high and dry for the taxpayers to support.

 

Sister Wives is not reality, its a fantasy. These people are paid millions of dollars to be on a TV show, so they can afford the polygamist lifestyle. Most men have enough on their plate supporting ONE FAMILY. A man should not divide his time and resources to more than one family. He will always favor one wife and her children over the others. It's not fair to anyone.

 

That is a great comparison. Truly!

I think people attack polygamy for impractical reasons. They just tend to be biased against it, in particular for religious and cultural reasons. All the while, though, it remains quite the norm for men to run around and have sex with lots of women. They still sing the praises of the men and the act, in fact. Isn't that what a lot of rap music is about these days?

Yes, very interesting.

 

Assuming a man can afford the polygamist lifestyle on his own, would you then agree that polygamy is preferable to babydaddyism? In other words, let's actually discuss the topic: the practice of polygamy on its own vs. the practice of babydaddyism on its own.

Why is it any business of yours how others choose to live?

 

Polygamy was a bigger deal in the distant past, back before the industrial revolution when people lived by producing for themselves rather than slaving for a pittance to spend on necessities. The kids got put to work, and of course those stay-at-home moms did as well.

So, yeah. It's old fashioned in this day and age, as is having a lot of kids with just one wife. The modern economic model just doesn't favor it.

 

True. Most rap is either about gattin' Gs or bangin' hos.

 

If I am a young man in a polygamist community, I can't get married unless I marry a widow or find an outsider. The young women get snapped up by the established males of the community. Blue balls is definitely harm.

 

If by free to make their own decisions, do I favor a legal status for polygamy, then the answer is no. Polygamous societies just aren't compatible with a modern society with our economy and our political culture. And our social culture come to think of it. Polygamous societies have all sorts of problems. [MENTION=71]skeptic-f[/MENTION] mentioned one. Having a lot of young single guys who have limited possibilities of getting married has not been a benefit to the Arab world. That anger and sexual tension has to go somewhere. But I think from our societies perspective, Polygamous societies tend to treat women like property. I don't know of one that has anything like the status women enjoy in the West.

As for your consenting adults complaint. Get one legal wife and have as many gals as you can get live with you. It used to be, nobody wanted a piece of paper to prove their love. Now they want a piece of paper for doggone everything!

 

You are referencing the fundamentalist Christian/cultist paradigm. Polygamy on its own simply means more than one spouse.

 

You are referencing the fundamentalist Christian/cultist paradigm. I am simply talking about polygamy on its own--having more than one spouse: consenting adults making their own choices.

 

From a strict Biblical view point there is no difference.

 

They would not be thrown in jail. Not unless they legally marry multiple times. There is nothing illegal about polygamist lifestyle, just dont seek any papers from the government.

Instead of expanding legal marriage and making it into a complicated mess, Id prefer the abolitionist route, with no legal marriage existing.

 

The State of Utah apparently tried to prosecute the Sister Wives folks even though the man was only legally-married to the first wife. What they did was wait until the common law marriage was in effect with the other wives.

Agree completely. Always have.

 

Neither group is inherently more responsible for their children, but I think it's stupid to ban polygamy. I don't understand what the big deal is.

There is a 1% difference in views on polygamy between the two parties. Statistically insignificant, but go on crying about democrats spewing "venom" at you poor, white Christians.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/22915/republicans-democrats-differ-what-morally-acceptable.aspx

It's pretty pathetic when some of you are SO desperate to make everything partisan that you have to make up imaginary scenarios in order to do so.