The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
How Will the Polygamy Camel Get Its Nose in the Tent?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

There has been discussion for years of how polygamy might follow gay marriage, although that seems like an overly literal interpretation of what’s been going on: gay marriage isn’t really about marriage, so World War G has given less momentum to plural marriage than it’s given to World War T.

Various vectors have been proposed for how polygamy would become lawful in America:

– Fundamentalist Mormons almost certainly won’t be the entry point for obvious reasons (whiteness, patriarchalism, Mormon Republicanism, fly-overness, etc.)

– Arab Muslims are a better possibility. You wouldn’t want to be Islamophobic, now would you? But there remain plenty of Jews and Jewish-led Christians who keep their eye on Arab Muslims.

– African immigrants have long struck me as the most likely candidates. They are Africans and they are immigrants. Polygamy isn’t necessarily some anti-Semitic Muslim thing with them, it’s just blacks doing what comes naturally. How can some straight white man dare tell a strong, beautiful black woman she can’t join her twelve sister brides in marriage to a Big Man? The immigration system must become sensitive to family reunification of polygamous families. If one wife legally immigrates to America, then all the other wives should get to come to so the family can be reunified.

Still, the notion of a man having more than one woman married to him seems kind of anti-feminist.

– So, maybe some Tibetan refugees who engage in chain marriage or where one woman is married to three brothers will get legal privilege first, opening the doors for the others.

But, today’s news got me thinking about a wholly different dimension than religion/ethnicity, one with a very strong track record recently. From the Daily Mail:

Oregon gets America’s first openly bisexual governor as Oregon’s embattled John Kitzhaber Resigns over scandal involving fiancee’s consulting contracts

Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown rushed back from a conference in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday to succeed John Kitzhaber, only to be told he was staying

But he admitted on Friday that ‘I have become a liability,’ and quit

Brown will be America’s first openly bisexual governor

By DAVID MARTOSKO, US POLITICAL EDITOR
PUBLISHED: 15:05 EST, 13 February 2015 | UPDATED: 16:25 EST, 13 February 2015

Oregon’s new governor will be the first open bisexual to serve as a state’s chief executive when Secretary of State Kate Brown steps in for resigning Gov. John Kitzhaber on Friday.

The embattled now-former Democratic governor Kitzhaber, 67, has resigned his office amid allegations his fiancee used her relationship with him to enrich herself with contracts for her environmental consulting business.

‘I am announcing today that I will resign as Governor of the State of Oregon,’ he wrote in a media statement Friday afternoon. …

[Kate] Brown is married to a man but has made no secret about her sexual orientation – and has been embraced for it in one of America’s bluest states whose largest city has adopted the slogan ‘Keep Portland weird.’

– Look at this poor bisexual woman, the new governor, who is discriminated against by law from gay-marrying a woman, just because she’s already married to a man. That’s bigoted prejudice against bisexuals.

Clearly, Oregon’s marriage law is on the wrong side of history.

 
Hide 173 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:

    Hm. Interesting but I just don’t think so.

    I nominate the breakaway Mormons who live in very rural parts of northern AZ and the wilder parts of Utah. I think it’s only a matter of time when one brings a lawsuit and wins.

    I’m still waiting for you to comment on the CA law that allows multiple parents. Isn’t this in effect a back-door to plural marriage?

    https://verdict.justia.com/2013/10/15/california-allows-children-two-legal-parents

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @WhatEvvs


    I nominate the breakaway Mormons who live in very rural parts of northern AZ and the wilder parts of Utah. I think it’s only a matter of time when one brings a lawsuit and wins.
     
    I think that Steve is right in thinking that the Mormons are too White and patriarchal to be the thin edge of the wedge.

    But a bisexual woman who wants to marry both a man and a woman....That would go over really well with the feminist brigade.Extra points, of course, if she's a black transwoman.

    Replies: @WhatEvvs

    , @Lugash
    @WhatEvvs

    I don't think it will be Utah or Arizona. The Mormon power brokers(particularly in Utah) would love nothing more than to see the polygamist/FLDS drop into a black hole. Arizona's state government really doesn't like the shenanigans going on Colorado City.

    Of course, if it gets to the federal level who knows what the Nutty Ninth would do?

    I think that we may see the push coming from white, religious, pseudo-core America. Pushing polygamist Africans might be a little too much.

    Speaking of politicians and polygamy, I think the combination will be pretty common. There's the obvious reasons(outgoing, high social standing men attracting a lot of women) and the less obvious financial reasons... imagine if Obama had two or three wives pulling in ~$300K/year from a Chicago hospital.

    , @anon
    @WhatEvvs

    Breakaway Mormons are conservative whites so will get not political traction.
    In CA we'll see if the coastal elites can keep forcing legalized perversion upon the socially conservative voting (not behaving) NAM's. They've gotten away with it since Prop 187 in 1994. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187

  2. Polyamorists come across too much like the creepy, middle-aged swingers from late night HBO reality shows. They also set off a lot of feminist alarms by making women think the movement is basically guys pushing their partners into situations that make them uncomfortable (like Barack Obama’s first Senate opponent Jack Ryan taking his Star Trek actress wife to sex clubs.)

    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    @Earl Lemongrab

    Funny how back in the seventies polyamory was being touted as the wave of the future by the Cultural Marxist Media. I think I first read about it in my copy of Newsweek back in 1977, you know the one that proclaimed that cocaine was no more addicting than chocolate.

    There were documentaries on the swinger scene in Marin County CA including lots of refugees from Manhattan's notorious Plato's Retreat from when it got shut down by the board of health.

    Then every decade or so HBO or Showtime would do a follow up on the polyamory set. Mostly the same dudes only much older, balding and heavier, some of the same women, and a few younger recruits mostly women....

    Really weird and creepy.

    Polyamory what could possibly go wrong???

    , @Anonymous
    @Earl Lemongrab

    What if they are...lesbian polyamorists?

    http://offbeatbride.com/2013/11/massachusetts-lesbian-poly-wedding

    Look at the beautiful, uh triple? How could one dare to deny them the right to legitimize their love in the eyes of the State?

    , @ben tillman
    @Earl Lemongrab


    Polyamorists come across too much like the creepy, middle-aged swingers from late night HBO reality shows. They also set off a lot of feminist alarms by making women think the movement is basically guys pushing their partners into situations that make them uncomfortable (like Barack Obama’s first Senate opponent Jack Ryan taking his Star Trek actress wife to sex clubs.)
     
    None of which matters, since what the people want is entirely irrelevant to what the people get.

    I think what Steve said makes sense.

  3. It will be drippy bisexual nerds who are raising children together and can’t go on another day in a world where a kid can’t have three or four different parents sign his permission slips. Drippy white nerds can move mountains with a good sob story.

  4. “How Will the Polygamy Camel Get Its Nose in the Tent?”

    “But, today’s news got me thinking about a wholly different dimension than religion/ethnicity…Look at this poor bisexual woman”

    Heh. I see what you did there.

  5. “Fly-overness”?

    Love it.

  6. I think that the African immigrants have been mostly Christian until recently. The Muslim fraction is likely increasing. The details are probably out there somewhere.

    Don’t under estimate the renegade splinter Mormon groups as the lead in for legalized polygamy.

    • Replies: @Karl
    @iffen

    >> Don’t under estimate the renegade splinter Mormon groups

    You want to know what teflon is? Look at the special-exemptions that the "Amish" get.

    , @NickG
    @iffen

    The South African State President - Jacob Zuma - has 4 wives. He undertook a state visit to the UK in 2010, including being feted at a reception with Liz, all be it with only one of his wives - which you have to admit is a bit racist.

    Apparently he has 20 kids.

    In Darwinian term, as well as materiel terms, he is way more successful than most of us.

    , @Prof. Woland
    @iffen

    The Mormons might end up getting their revenge after all using polygamy the same way liberals have used gay marriage and Jews have used immigration. The game is still early.

  7. I think the end to ban on polygamy is all but certain. This is an article dated August 29, 2014 from International Business Times via http://www.archive.today

    https://archive.today/lhKSn

    “Part of Utah’s ban on polygamy was struck down Wednesday after a federal judge ruled that the law violated both the First and Fourteenth amendments.

    While the ruling does not allow a Utah resident to legally marry multiple people, an individual may marry one person and live with others they consider to be spouses,

    • Replies: @Mike Street Station
    @shk12344

    A Utah judge struck down the state ban on polygamy the same week that a North Dakota judge allowed a man in a same sex marriage to also marry a woman.

    So yes it's coming, and by the time it gets here, we'll barely notice since the changes are coming so fast and furious.

  8. @WhatEvvs
    Hm. Interesting but I just don't think so.

    I nominate the breakaway Mormons who live in very rural parts of northern AZ and the wilder parts of Utah. I think it's only a matter of time when one brings a lawsuit and wins.

    I'm still waiting for you to comment on the CA law that allows multiple parents. Isn't this in effect a back-door to plural marriage?

    https://verdict.justia.com/2013/10/15/california-allows-children-two-legal-parents

    Replies: @syonredux, @Lugash, @anon

    I nominate the breakaway Mormons who live in very rural parts of northern AZ and the wilder parts of Utah. I think it’s only a matter of time when one brings a lawsuit and wins.

    I think that Steve is right in thinking that the Mormons are too White and patriarchal to be the thin edge of the wedge.

    But a bisexual woman who wants to marry both a man and a woman….That would go over really well with the feminist brigade.Extra points, of course, if she’s a black transwoman.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    @syonredux

    Please do some more research and stop paying too much attention to Steve's veneration of whiteness as the repository of everything good and beautiful. There are more than a few "out there" dissident Mormons living it the wilder regions of Northern AZ/Utah who are spoiling for a fight.

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/237935982/Polygamy-ruling-in-Utah

    Did you read the Justia article on plural parents? After plural parents comes plural spouses.

    It will be both.

    Replies: @syonredux, @tomv

  9. It’s already gotten it’s nose under the tent using quite-white looking people as the Trojan Horse. “Sister Wives” has been running for awhile now on television, working to desensitize the public to the idea and using light-haired people as their front. After getting people used to the idea slowly, grinding away, and getting them to discuss the why or why nots of the subject the screw gets turned another notch by introducing slightly sketchier situations and then letting that be the boundary line for the time being; meanwhile the old situation now seems to be the moderate one. And so on. Behind this is the reality of tens of millions of the darker races for whom polygamy is common practice and perfectly legal. ‘After all, who are we to deny people their culture when all cultures are equal?’ the smart set will tell us. People may think I’m being alarmist but large trees grow from small seeds.

  10. Polygamy is already here, and perfectly legal. As soon as you decriminalize adultery, polygamous marriages are entirely possible and cannot be prosecuted. Fundamentalist Mormons have been taking asvantage of this for decades. Anyone can do it.

    Just because the state recognizes this marriage and not that one doesn’t make it so. Take gay “marriage” for example. If an Imam says a man and woman are married even if the man already has a wife, it is more valid than if California says that two men are married in my opinion, and probably most other people’s, too.

    Eventually it will be legalized because of common law. If it’s a fact in the community, then eventually judges will be forced to sanction it somehow. So it will happen because, say, some Somali woman shows up in court saying she’s married and demands community property. But it turns out she’s a second wife. What does the judge do? Throw her out with nothing? He’ll make the guy pay her some alimony (as is sanctioned in Muslim law), and it will set the precedent.

  11. Polygamy is eugenic. Therefore, it will not be promoted by the hostile elites. Their strategy is to promote dysgenic practices among potential rival groups such as people of Northern European descent. The objective is to weaken such groups’ gene pools.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    @Anonymous

    If it was eugenic, the world would be Muslim.

    Polygamy destroys incentives for the bottom 80% of males.

    Replies: @Anonymous 1 am

    , @27 year old
    @Anonymous

    how has "eugenic" polygamy worked out so far for the arab world, or for africa?

    what a joke...

    Replies: @Anonymous 1 am

    , @syonredux
    @Anonymous


    Polygamy is eugenic
     
    Actually polygamy is dysgenic. It favors older males, and older fathers equal mutations.

    You might also want to bear in mind that Black Africa has high rates of polygamy.Last time I checked, Black Africa is not exactly known for its human capital .....

    And let's not even bring up the damage to social cohesion caused by elite males hoarding women

    Replies: @Melendwyr, @Anonymous 1 am

  12. What about line marriages, a la The Moon is a Harsh Mistress? I’ve always thought they were Heinlein’s most subversive speculation, much more so than the universal public nudism of The Puppet Masters.

    We already disposed of ‘traditional’ marriage when we permitted easy, no-fault divorce. There’s no need for the camel to enter a tent – there *is* no more tent. We’ve become conditioned to act as though it’s there, though, and that conditioning is breaking down with time.

  13. @WhatEvvs
    Hm. Interesting but I just don't think so.

    I nominate the breakaway Mormons who live in very rural parts of northern AZ and the wilder parts of Utah. I think it's only a matter of time when one brings a lawsuit and wins.

    I'm still waiting for you to comment on the CA law that allows multiple parents. Isn't this in effect a back-door to plural marriage?

    https://verdict.justia.com/2013/10/15/california-allows-children-two-legal-parents

    Replies: @syonredux, @Lugash, @anon

    I don’t think it will be Utah or Arizona. The Mormon power brokers(particularly in Utah) would love nothing more than to see the polygamist/FLDS drop into a black hole. Arizona’s state government really doesn’t like the shenanigans going on Colorado City.

    Of course, if it gets to the federal level who knows what the Nutty Ninth would do?

    I think that we may see the push coming from white, religious, pseudo-core America. Pushing polygamist Africans might be a little too much.

    Speaking of politicians and polygamy, I think the combination will be pretty common. There’s the obvious reasons(outgoing, high social standing men attracting a lot of women) and the less obvious financial reasons… imagine if Obama had two or three wives pulling in ~$300K/year from a Chicago hospital.

  14. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    What happens if Judge Roy Moore fights to the bitter end?

  15. Steve is right to point out that World War G was not about marriage. Like World War T, it is essentially an effort to normalize unusual sexual orientations. But I don’t think either outcome is in the cards.

    The vast majority of people I know support gay marriage and they support it basically because they don’t like to see gays crying on TV. Literally. So let them get married if it means so much to them. Same applies to transgenderism. Most people have a “Hey, you know what, go do your thing.”

    Polygamy is different. The women I know who eyes well up with tears when they read some story on the internet about some gay guy who wasn’t able to marry his boyfriend, and as a result went into a downward spiral of prostitution and drug abuse are the same women who find polygamy disgusting, exploitative, and cheapening of the marriage contract. And, while millenial women might be different, most women I know take marriage — and the sexual exclusivity associated with it — very seriously.

    By the same token, straight men aren’t going to be attracted to polygamy, by and large. Because unless you are a master manipulator most men would be worn out by the demands multiple wives would make on him (not sexual ones, of course.)

    Therefore I don’t think there will ever be a groundswell for legalized polygamy. On the other hand, de facto polygamy already exists, and so does serial monogamy, which, when you think of it, is something like polygamy, especially for the people who marry 5-6 times in ten years.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @SPMoore8

    Therefore I don’t think there will ever be a groundswell for legalized polygamy. On the other hand, de facto polygamy already exists, and so does serial monogamy, which, when you think of it, is something like polygamy, especially for the people who marry 5-6 times in ten years.

    The correct term is "serial polygyny," not "serial monogamy." Western men are polygynous over time, with a series of women.

    , @Priss Factor
    @SPMoore8

    "By the same token, straight men aren’t going to be attracted to polygamy, by and large. "

    It has nothing to do with that kind of attraction. In fact, most people aren't attracted to homosexuality. I mean how many millennial males who support 'gay marriage' are attracted to homosexuality itself? They'd freak out if someone suggested they BEND OVER.

    They support 'gay marriage' because they see homos as some holy victim-victor group. People love victim-victors in America. If people are only victims, they are too sappy and pathetic. If they are only victors, they are overly 'privileged'. But if you're a victim-victor, it follows the American myth of the underdog reaching the top due to merit and overcoming tragedy.

    So, even if most men don't wanna be polygamous, if the polygamous community is made 'cool' and 'fashionable', people may come to support it not for themselves but because the brand has a positive ring to it. It's like most Americans don't give a crap about Tibetan Buddhism per se but love supporting the Dalai Lama because he has the proper cachet as an international guru and star. It's not about 'what we want for us' but 'what we acknowledge as cool'.

  16. I disagree, I think an attempt to placate Muslims will include legalizing and supporting through welfare Polygamy, and various other things: restricting use/possession of alcohol, pork, dogs, immodestly (whatever Muslims define it as) dressed women, and so on.

    This has been the response to Black mob violence since the 1960s, and the general response here and elsewhere to Muslim terrorism (lacking numbers they tend to move towards terrorism). Clearly there was a sea change in White leadership from around the 1930s, to the 1950s where opposite reactions show a big change in how political leaders react. Most likely IMHO a function of the new leadership depending on non-White votes.

    I don’t see any reason why more terrorism would not result in an attempt to buy off Muslims by legalizing polygamy and supporting said polygamists with welfare money. It is not as if ordinary people have much say. I also think Feminists will applaud this — their real enemy is the ordinary, non-Alpha straight White guy. What better way to stick it to them?

  17. They are the kind of consultants who borrow your watch to tell you the time and then walk off with the watch. Russia is led by people who walk off with the Super Bowl ring and tell you they are a superpower. Have a bowl of soup.

  18. I actually think the next step in “fringier than thou” politics is a split within World War T. Most Ts are men who pretend to be women, so this leaves women who pretend to be men as the fringe within the fringe, who will start complaining about the “establishment” transgender community of men-T-women discriminating against the women-T-men.

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    @countenance

    THe fringier it gets, the more the MSM with fawn over it. It's the same reflex as obsessing over music micro-genres.

  19. Reading about yet another adult being sentenced for kiddie sex or kiddie porn or something last week, it occurred to me: Why would anybody risk it? If that’s really your bag, just wait another couple of decades or so and it will all be legal. Polygamy, incest, bestiality, whatever. It will all be accepted.

    Future hipsters will screen episodes of “To Catch A Predator” and laugh with the same kind of snarkiness you see today with “Reefer Madness.” NAMBLA will eventually get its own edition of those hagiographic documentaries they’re always making these days making about the “early pioneers” of the LGBTQ-whatever else lifestyle, complete with tons of silly old film clips from back in the Dark Ages when everybody thought these people were — gasp! — a danger to children!

    “Regular” gay rights always seemed to me like a natural end point to sexual liberation. I figured things would get there, then stop, or at least slow down, for a long, long time. But now that it’s clear we’re going to push way beyond that, I don’t see any other natural stopping points, short of snuff porn or hard-core strongarm rape. Every other deviancy can be massaged into legitimacy if you can just find the right sympathetic “victims.”

    And I now actively disbelieve people who claim “X won’t lead to Y” — David Axelrod’s claim this past week that Obama just flat-out lied about his opposition to gay marriage, and the fact that nobody on the Left really got worked up about it, just nailed it shut for me: These folks will just do whatever they have to do to get past the goalposts, then move them again. There’s no endpoint. (I mean, yeah, I knew Obama was lying, but I figured that was something that would come out 3o or 40 years from now, when the issue had been settled for a generation and the only people who would care would be historians. The fact that Axelrod just brazenly admitted it now, when the issue is still very much alive, seemed to confirm that they think victory is in sight.)

    • Replies: @jimbojones
    @Mr. Blank

    People watch kiddie porn due to addiction and compulsion. It's a sad sickness. The ones who never touch kids but just watch the filth are particularly pathetic. Impossible not to pity them, imo.

    An intelligent person close to me recently made the following argument in favor of legalizing kiddie porn: 1) Watching (as opposed to making) kiddie porn harms no one (except, arguably, the viewer). 2) Behaviors that harm no one except the acting agent, and bring pleasure to that agent, should be legal. (I.e. pure utilitarianism.) 3) Therefore kiddie porn should be legal.

    Now, under pure utilitarianism (the one that goes after minimaxing the sum utility of individual agents and refuses to recognize the State or God as valid entities), one CAN NOT argue against my friend's argument. I also think that one can not argue against "gay marriage" under pure utilitarianism. I mean, under pure utilitarianism, the argument pro-SSM goes like this: 1) "Marriage" is a meaningless abstraction that mostly has to do with sex; 2) People should have all the sex they want as long as it is consentual and all parties involved have reached the age of consent; 3) Therefore SSM should be as legal as anything else (definitely including polygamous marriage; necrophiliac and bestial marriage might be a bridge too far though).
    Under hardcore utilitarianism, that argument is watertight.

    So one has to reject utilitarianism, or at least argue for a weaker version of it. IMO the strongest secular (and no other kind is permitted officially) argument against SSM is the argument from the public health/ the good of the State. The idea is that homosexuality is bad for the State and bad for public health (both well-established facts, by the way). And therefore SSM should be frowned upon as a promotion of homosexual behavior.
    But nowadays many put the individual far above the State. OK - so here the argument against SSM goes as follows: 1) Homosexual/trans-sexual/whatever behavior has been scientifically shown to be extremely harmful to the practicing agent; 2) Sane/healthy/adult people have the duty and obligation to prevent crazy/sick/minor people from harming themselves through addiction/stupidity/ignorance; 3) Therefore homosexuals, pedophiles, etc should be treated as sick wards of the public (which was the view until the '70s).
    Since (2) is enshrined in our society, people on the pro-SSM side usually blindly reject (1) without bothering to study the vast literature on the subject, literature that goes back to the ancient world.

    One wonders if child porno will be the trigger which forces the progressive folks to see their delusion and the reductio ad absurdum that has been hanging above their necks from the beginning.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @anon

    , @unpc downunder
    @Mr. Blank

    Liberalism 101: bestiality and pedophilia violate liberal autonomy theory. Liberalism is about permitting anything as long as its consensual. Children and animals can't provide consent. When it comes to non-consensual sex liberals are more puritanical than most conservative societies - hence the obsession with date rape.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @dfordoom
    @Mr. Blank

    Polygamy, incest, bestiality, whatever. It will all be accepted.

    Incest is likely to be next on the agenda. They'll start with brother-sister incest since that's less threatening. Then slowly they'll introduce the idea of parent-child incest but only if the child is over the age of consent. Once that's accepted it won't be difficult to gradually extend the idea to children who are just a little under the age of consent. It will be done one step at a time.

    Once incest is normalised it becomes inevitable that paedophilia will be next.

    The big plus to incest and paedophilia is that they're incredibly destructive to what little remains of family life, and destroying the family is what it's all about.

    Replies: @Lot, @anon, @Priss Factor

  20. Isn’t polygamy basically decriminalized now? Multiple spouses cannot be registered at the court house, but beyond that the gov seems ok with it. And there are tv shows featuring them and people doing it openly. As far as I can see they can even get welfare benefits.

    The big issue I have with gay marriage is I want to know how it affects pension and welfare benefits including social security. Oddly the financial costs of gay marriage are never discussed. So if a man has 6 wives, do they get social security based on the man’s salary. How is it calculated? See my problem?

  21. I tend to agree with Bemused. Heck, look at that show “Sister Wives” on TLC. It’s been on multiple seasons. I think eventually some of the more normal looking MoMo polygamists who don’t wear ankle length skirts and buns will bring suit, a few of their sister wives and older kids will sob and plead on TV to be mainstreamed and accepted and some judge will let polygamy go through.

  22. Did you catch the announcement of new Gov. Tom Wolfe’s choice as Pennsylvania’s Surgeon General?

    http://www.phillymag.com/g-philly/2015/01/18/tom-wolf-names-transgender-woman-physician-general/

    Even more amusing than her picture is the comment police being enforced by Philly Magazine. Basically, we welcome all viewpoints we agree with.

    • Replies: @Jean Cocteausten
    @tony_k

    Here is something I don't understand. Why is it not considered offensive to refer to TG 'women' as transgender? I thought the whole idea was that they are supposed to be real women, exactly the same as if they had two X chromosomes. The TG terminology calls attention to the fact that they're different from real women, which is one of those classic Steve Sailer "things you aren't supposed to notice."

    Replies: @Glaivester

    , @Tom Regan
    @tony_k

    Rachel Levine? Well, at least s/he chose a Jewish/Biblical first name, so clearly a stickler for tradition.
    Is it just me, or is the term 'transgender woman' a contradiction. One of the other isn't it? Ovaries and a womb maketh the woman, not make-up and 'identification'. If I identify as an Eskimo, that doesn't make me an Eskimo.

  23. Arab Muslims are unlikely to be the vanguard of polygamy in the United States. While Islam allows a man to have up to four wives, so long as he can support them, as a practical matter polygamy is very rare in Arab countries, generally under 1% of all marriages.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @prosa123

    Right. Polygamy is not actually not very common in many Arab countries. Monogamy is the norm.

    In fact the US today may be effectively more polygamous if you consider that it's not uncommon for wealthy men to marry several times throughout their lives and that fornication and adultery are more common than in Arab countries.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Art Deco

  24. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @syonredux
    @WhatEvvs


    I nominate the breakaway Mormons who live in very rural parts of northern AZ and the wilder parts of Utah. I think it’s only a matter of time when one brings a lawsuit and wins.
     
    I think that Steve is right in thinking that the Mormons are too White and patriarchal to be the thin edge of the wedge.

    But a bisexual woman who wants to marry both a man and a woman....That would go over really well with the feminist brigade.Extra points, of course, if she's a black transwoman.

    Replies: @WhatEvvs

    Please do some more research and stop paying too much attention to Steve’s veneration of whiteness as the repository of everything good and beautiful. There are more than a few “out there” dissident Mormons living it the wilder regions of Northern AZ/Utah who are spoiling for a fight.

    Did you read the Justia article on plural parents? After plural parents comes plural spouses.

    It will be both.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @WhatEvvs


    Please do some more research and stop paying too much attention to Steve’s veneration of whiteness as the repository of everything good and beautiful.
     
    When has Steve ever said that "whiteness [is] the repository of everything good and beautiful," dear fellow? It seems to me that he comments quite often on White venality.

    There are more than a few “out there” dissident Mormons living it the wilder regions of Northern AZ/Utah who are spoiling for a fight.
     
    Of course there are, dear fellow.But the question that Steve raised involved what kind of polygamist would be most worthy of receiving the imprimatur of the White Liberal Elite. Fundamentalist Mormon nutjobs? Probably not.

    Replies: @Bill P, @WhatEvvs

    , @tomv
    @WhatEvvs

    Steve's invocation of "whiteness, patriarchalism, Mormon Republicanism, fly-overness" is not meant to imply the "repository of everything good and beautiful," but rather the opposite of that in the eye of the powers that be. That is why they would not win, even if they were spoiling for a fight.

    On this blog, it's the smart-alecky commenters who are the densest.

  25. Look at it this way: the target is the straight white, married male and the object is to humiliate and browbeat him, to dominate him and to disabuse him of any thoughts that he might be in any way superior.

    So hit him with gay marriage. Why are you against gay marriage? It’s because you are a hater, like the rest of the white, male AmeriKKKan Rethuglicans. We will teach you not to hate!

    Then you hit him with World War T. Why are you repressing the sexuality of the other? It is because repression and oppression are what white, male heteronormatives are all about. Your repressing days are over!

    Then you hit him with plural marriages: three lesbians together together or three gay males together. Why do you object, Mr. Monagamy-Normative? Is it because you think your way is the only good way and everybody else’s way is bad? We’ll teach you how wrong your prejudices are!

    A Mormon-style, patriarchial polygamous family will never fly. Down with the patriarchy! But how about three lesbians, who dominate the family using an anarcho-syndicalist style of family government, partnered with a beta male who services them and mows the lawn?

    So I see it starting with three lesbians or three gay guys, and then moving on to lesbians who want to include a male. After that, three gays might partner with a female babysitter.

  26. @Earl Lemongrab
    Polyamorists come across too much like the creepy, middle-aged swingers from late night HBO reality shows. They also set off a lot of feminist alarms by making women think the movement is basically guys pushing their partners into situations that make them uncomfortable (like Barack Obama's first Senate opponent Jack Ryan taking his Star Trek actress wife to sex clubs.)

    Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist, @Anonymous, @ben tillman

    Funny how back in the seventies polyamory was being touted as the wave of the future by the Cultural Marxist Media. I think I first read about it in my copy of Newsweek back in 1977, you know the one that proclaimed that cocaine was no more addicting than chocolate.

    There were documentaries on the swinger scene in Marin County CA including lots of refugees from Manhattan’s notorious Plato’s Retreat from when it got shut down by the board of health.

    Then every decade or so HBO or Showtime would do a follow up on the polyamory set. Mostly the same dudes only much older, balding and heavier, some of the same women, and a few younger recruits mostly women….

    Really weird and creepy.

    Polyamory what could possibly go wrong???

  27. @Mr. Blank
    Reading about yet another adult being sentenced for kiddie sex or kiddie porn or something last week, it occurred to me: Why would anybody risk it? If that's really your bag, just wait another couple of decades or so and it will all be legal. Polygamy, incest, bestiality, whatever. It will all be accepted.

    Future hipsters will screen episodes of "To Catch A Predator" and laugh with the same kind of snarkiness you see today with "Reefer Madness." NAMBLA will eventually get its own edition of those hagiographic documentaries they're always making these days making about the "early pioneers" of the LGBTQ-whatever else lifestyle, complete with tons of silly old film clips from back in the Dark Ages when everybody thought these people were — gasp! — a danger to children!

    "Regular" gay rights always seemed to me like a natural end point to sexual liberation. I figured things would get there, then stop, or at least slow down, for a long, long time. But now that it's clear we're going to push way beyond that, I don't see any other natural stopping points, short of snuff porn or hard-core strongarm rape. Every other deviancy can be massaged into legitimacy if you can just find the right sympathetic "victims."

    And I now actively disbelieve people who claim "X won't lead to Y" — David Axelrod's claim this past week that Obama just flat-out lied about his opposition to gay marriage, and the fact that nobody on the Left really got worked up about it, just nailed it shut for me: These folks will just do whatever they have to do to get past the goalposts, then move them again. There's no endpoint. (I mean, yeah, I knew Obama was lying, but I figured that was something that would come out 3o or 40 years from now, when the issue had been settled for a generation and the only people who would care would be historians. The fact that Axelrod just brazenly admitted it now, when the issue is still very much alive, seemed to confirm that they think victory is in sight.)

    Replies: @jimbojones, @unpc downunder, @dfordoom

    People watch kiddie porn due to addiction and compulsion. It’s a sad sickness. The ones who never touch kids but just watch the filth are particularly pathetic. Impossible not to pity them, imo.

    An intelligent person close to me recently made the following argument in favor of legalizing kiddie porn: 1) Watching (as opposed to making) kiddie porn harms no one (except, arguably, the viewer). 2) Behaviors that harm no one except the acting agent, and bring pleasure to that agent, should be legal. (I.e. pure utilitarianism.) 3) Therefore kiddie porn should be legal.

    Now, under pure utilitarianism (the one that goes after minimaxing the sum utility of individual agents and refuses to recognize the State or God as valid entities), one CAN NOT argue against my friend’s argument. I also think that one can not argue against “gay marriage” under pure utilitarianism. I mean, under pure utilitarianism, the argument pro-SSM goes like this: 1) “Marriage” is a meaningless abstraction that mostly has to do with sex; 2) People should have all the sex they want as long as it is consentual and all parties involved have reached the age of consent; 3) Therefore SSM should be as legal as anything else (definitely including polygamous marriage; necrophiliac and bestial marriage might be a bridge too far though).
    Under hardcore utilitarianism, that argument is watertight.

    So one has to reject utilitarianism, or at least argue for a weaker version of it. IMO the strongest secular (and no other kind is permitted officially) argument against SSM is the argument from the public health/ the good of the State. The idea is that homosexuality is bad for the State and bad for public health (both well-established facts, by the way). And therefore SSM should be frowned upon as a promotion of homosexual behavior.
    But nowadays many put the individual far above the State. OK – so here the argument against SSM goes as follows: 1) Homosexual/trans-sexual/whatever behavior has been scientifically shown to be extremely harmful to the practicing agent; 2) Sane/healthy/adult people have the duty and obligation to prevent crazy/sick/minor people from harming themselves through addiction/stupidity/ignorance; 3) Therefore homosexuals, pedophiles, etc should be treated as sick wards of the public (which was the view until the ’70s).
    Since (2) is enshrined in our society, people on the pro-SSM side usually blindly reject (1) without bothering to study the vast literature on the subject, literature that goes back to the ancient world.

    One wonders if child porno will be the trigger which forces the progressive folks to see their delusion and the reductio ad absurdum that has been hanging above their necks from the beginning.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    @jimbojones

    I have already seen a few articles in recent years arguing that sexual attraction to children is innate, like all sexual attractions. Therefore, while it is a crime, it requires understanding and tolerance of those who were so born.

    Of course the end of the road here would be to argue that all tendencies -- including violent ones -- are also innate, and thus cannot be changed, and must be treated with understanding and respect (prison as conversion therapy for violent offenders? How unjust!) It's interesting that on the one hand we are insisting that everyone can do whatever they want (which I suppose is a maximal libertarian position) and on the other hand people are insisting that everything anyone wants to do was genetically determined. I guess the only word I can think of at this point is -- "Diversity."

    From my perspective these are simply games society is playing because we have the wealth and comfort to play them. By the same token, the sometimes absurd laxity of our current moral climate and the absurd "look at me" aspect of so much activism will not wind down until people begin to feel a pinch in their own personal lives. Hasn't happened yet.

    BTW, I don't think the games we are playing socially are due to some conspiracy. People can work hard in the world to this day, they can have children and raise them, and focus on their own lives. And people like that really don't spend too much time worrying about "innate sexuality".

    Replies: @Tracy

    , @anon
    @jimbojones

    How about the children forced to act in the films? That's why we warehouse those pervs.

  28. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SPMoore8
    Steve is right to point out that World War G was not about marriage. Like World War T, it is essentially an effort to normalize unusual sexual orientations. But I don't think either outcome is in the cards.

    The vast majority of people I know support gay marriage and they support it basically because they don't like to see gays crying on TV. Literally. So let them get married if it means so much to them. Same applies to transgenderism. Most people have a "Hey, you know what, go do your thing."

    Polygamy is different. The women I know who eyes well up with tears when they read some story on the internet about some gay guy who wasn't able to marry his boyfriend, and as a result went into a downward spiral of prostitution and drug abuse are the same women who find polygamy disgusting, exploitative, and cheapening of the marriage contract. And, while millenial women might be different, most women I know take marriage -- and the sexual exclusivity associated with it -- very seriously.

    By the same token, straight men aren't going to be attracted to polygamy, by and large. Because unless you are a master manipulator most men would be worn out by the demands multiple wives would make on him (not sexual ones, of course.)

    Therefore I don't think there will ever be a groundswell for legalized polygamy. On the other hand, de facto polygamy already exists, and so does serial monogamy, which, when you think of it, is something like polygamy, especially for the people who marry 5-6 times in ten years.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Priss Factor

    Therefore I don’t think there will ever be a groundswell for legalized polygamy. On the other hand, de facto polygamy already exists, and so does serial monogamy, which, when you think of it, is something like polygamy, especially for the people who marry 5-6 times in ten years.

    The correct term is “serial polygyny,” not “serial monogamy.” Western men are polygynous over time, with a series of women.

  29. So Oregon has America’s first openly gay/bisexual governor???

    Really are Arizonans that clueless that they twice elected Janet Napolitano not realizing she was as gay as a women’s softball team.

    • Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    "Really are Arizonans that clueless that they twice elected Janet Napolitano not realizing she was as gay as a women’s softball team."

    No less clueless than South Carolinians that keep electing Lindsey Graham.

    , @Anonymous
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    Lesbians aren't gay - haven't you read the seminal works of Mr Steven Sailer?

    Replies: @Anonymous Nephew

  30. @jimbojones
    @Mr. Blank

    People watch kiddie porn due to addiction and compulsion. It's a sad sickness. The ones who never touch kids but just watch the filth are particularly pathetic. Impossible not to pity them, imo.

    An intelligent person close to me recently made the following argument in favor of legalizing kiddie porn: 1) Watching (as opposed to making) kiddie porn harms no one (except, arguably, the viewer). 2) Behaviors that harm no one except the acting agent, and bring pleasure to that agent, should be legal. (I.e. pure utilitarianism.) 3) Therefore kiddie porn should be legal.

    Now, under pure utilitarianism (the one that goes after minimaxing the sum utility of individual agents and refuses to recognize the State or God as valid entities), one CAN NOT argue against my friend's argument. I also think that one can not argue against "gay marriage" under pure utilitarianism. I mean, under pure utilitarianism, the argument pro-SSM goes like this: 1) "Marriage" is a meaningless abstraction that mostly has to do with sex; 2) People should have all the sex they want as long as it is consentual and all parties involved have reached the age of consent; 3) Therefore SSM should be as legal as anything else (definitely including polygamous marriage; necrophiliac and bestial marriage might be a bridge too far though).
    Under hardcore utilitarianism, that argument is watertight.

    So one has to reject utilitarianism, or at least argue for a weaker version of it. IMO the strongest secular (and no other kind is permitted officially) argument against SSM is the argument from the public health/ the good of the State. The idea is that homosexuality is bad for the State and bad for public health (both well-established facts, by the way). And therefore SSM should be frowned upon as a promotion of homosexual behavior.
    But nowadays many put the individual far above the State. OK - so here the argument against SSM goes as follows: 1) Homosexual/trans-sexual/whatever behavior has been scientifically shown to be extremely harmful to the practicing agent; 2) Sane/healthy/adult people have the duty and obligation to prevent crazy/sick/minor people from harming themselves through addiction/stupidity/ignorance; 3) Therefore homosexuals, pedophiles, etc should be treated as sick wards of the public (which was the view until the '70s).
    Since (2) is enshrined in our society, people on the pro-SSM side usually blindly reject (1) without bothering to study the vast literature on the subject, literature that goes back to the ancient world.

    One wonders if child porno will be the trigger which forces the progressive folks to see their delusion and the reductio ad absurdum that has been hanging above their necks from the beginning.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @anon

    I have already seen a few articles in recent years arguing that sexual attraction to children is innate, like all sexual attractions. Therefore, while it is a crime, it requires understanding and tolerance of those who were so born.

    Of course the end of the road here would be to argue that all tendencies — including violent ones — are also innate, and thus cannot be changed, and must be treated with understanding and respect (prison as conversion therapy for violent offenders? How unjust!) It’s interesting that on the one hand we are insisting that everyone can do whatever they want (which I suppose is a maximal libertarian position) and on the other hand people are insisting that everything anyone wants to do was genetically determined. I guess the only word I can think of at this point is — “Diversity.”

    From my perspective these are simply games society is playing because we have the wealth and comfort to play them. By the same token, the sometimes absurd laxity of our current moral climate and the absurd “look at me” aspect of so much activism will not wind down until people begin to feel a pinch in their own personal lives. Hasn’t happened yet.

    BTW, I don’t think the games we are playing socially are due to some conspiracy. People can work hard in the world to this day, they can have children and raise them, and focus on their own lives. And people like that really don’t spend too much time worrying about “innate sexuality”.

    • Replies: @Tracy
    @SPMoore8


    I have already seen a few articles in recent years arguing that sexual attraction to children is innate, like all sexual attractions. Therefore, while it is a crime, it requires understanding and tolerance of those who were so born.

    Of course the end of the road here would be to argue that all tendencies — including violent ones — are also innate, and thus cannot be changed, and must be treated with understanding and respect (prison as conversion therapy for violent offenders? How unjust!)
     
    I can't imagine anyone saying it's "innate." But I don't think pedophiles choose their perverse inclination any more than homosexuals choose theirs. I see homosexuality and pedophilia in the same way -- as disorders that people don't choose, but can't morally act on, with acting on pedophilia also being a crime and a major evil, one of the worst things a person could possibly do. But there are pedophiles who don't act on their desires, who know it'd be evil to do so, and I think they should be treated with understanding -- even as they're kept far, far from children.

    I think people too often talk about both homosexuality and pedophilia using really sloppy language. For ex., you said that some people have said about pedophilia that "while it is a crime, it requires understanding." But pedophilia isn't a crime. Acting on those desires is. Same with homosexuality. Some of my co-religionists (trad Catholics) say things like "homosexuality is sinful." But it isn't. Acting on homosexual desires is. Using language loosely like that is a way to make sure that people who have disordered desires and want help for them won't seek help, but will see themselves as innately bad and "unredeemable." Not cool. (and not Christian).
  31. Speaking of Camel’s noses under the skirt, oops I mean tent.

    Is the situation in Oregon with the first openly gay/bisexual female governor calculated to clear the way for 2016 when Hillary runs.

    As Jim Goad asked Does it Matter if Hillary Clinton Is a Carpet-Muncher?

    http://takimag.com/article/does_it_matter_if_hillary_clinton_is_a_carpet_muncher_jim_goad1/print#ixzz3RgVCbaIQ

    When asked in 2013 about the rumors that Clinton and Abedin may be engaging in mutual pearl-diving, longtime Bill Clinton mistress Gennifer Flowers told MailOnline:

    I don’t know Huma or the Weiners. I just know what Bill told me and that was that he was aware that Hillary was bisexual and he didn’t care. He should know. He said Hillary had eaten more p***y than he had.

    Because I can just see where in 2016 when questions about Hillary and Huma come up the Cultural Marxist Media will be flocking to Oregon to interview the Governor, her Husband and the kids asking “What’s the big deal, hasn’t this been going on for a while now and is more common than one would think? Doesn’t it look like the only folks who seem to fret about these things are those silly xtians in flyover country? Don’t you agree?”

  32. In one sense we have polygamy now, it is just that rather than the biological father footing the cost of the children Uncle Sam is. If welfare were to be totally cut off, it would rebind the baby mommas to the baby daddies for sustenance. this would mean that the men who have resources would now be back in demand and the dead beats would be skulking around picking up the left overs.

  33. @Anonymous
    Polygamy is eugenic. Therefore, it will not be promoted by the hostile elites. Their strategy is to promote dysgenic practices among potential rival groups such as people of Northern European descent. The objective is to weaken such groups' gene pools.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @27 year old, @syonredux

    If it was eugenic, the world would be Muslim.

    Polygamy destroys incentives for the bottom 80% of males.

    • Replies: @Anonymous 1 am
    @Maj. Kong

    If it was eugenic, the world would be Muslim.

    You incorrectly assume that polygyny is widespread in the Muslim world. It isn't. In fact, it is fair to say it is more widely practiced--in the form of multiple sexual partners (de facto polygyny) or even multiple wives (serial polygyny)--in the West.

    Polygamy destroys incentives for the bottom 80% of males.

    Only if every single female is unequivocally reserved for only 20% of the males. Of course, that isn't the case anywhere. (Even if it were, your statement incorrectly assumes that men can only motivated by actual real marriage prospects.)

    If anything, a degree of polygyny should create more incentives for the bottom 80% to work. Unlike in a purely monogamous society, where each man is in theory entitled to a wife quota, with polygyny a man faces a greater risk of being left out in the cold altogether. Just like in a capitalist or free market economic system, greater competition increases incentives to work.

    Replies: @Wilkey

  34. @Anonymous
    Polygamy is eugenic. Therefore, it will not be promoted by the hostile elites. Their strategy is to promote dysgenic practices among potential rival groups such as people of Northern European descent. The objective is to weaken such groups' gene pools.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @27 year old, @syonredux

    how has “eugenic” polygamy worked out so far for the arab world, or for africa?

    what a joke…

    • Replies: @Anonymous 1 am
    @27 year old

    how has “eugenic” polygamy worked out so far for the arab world, or for africa?

    what a joke…

    Fact is, it isn't widely practiced in those regions. Even if it were--and setting aside your controversial claim that people in the West are demonstrating greater success than those from the Arab world and Africe (have you compared TFRs, population growth, territorial expansion recently?), how would you account for other factors (other cultural and legal mores, natural resources, climate, genes)?

    You should ask horse and other animal breeders, female clients of sperm banks, mistresses the world over how polygyny is working out for them. Quite well, judging by the choices they make.

    The joke's on you, Jack.

  35. Polygamy would kill family reunification immigration. The last thing aging feminists want is younger tighter competition. I would be all in favor of a compromise where men could have multiple wife’s but in return for a cap on number of legal immigrants. Huzzah!

  36. Somebody or other (Mark Steyn maybe) said polygamy has a larger natural constituency than same sex marriage.

  37. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:

    I gave a link from Scribd to the actual decision legalizing polygamy in Utah. No one read it, so here is a link from a news report:

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894145-78/utah-polygamy-waddoups-ruling.html.csp

    A U.S. District Court judge has sided with the polgyamous Brown family, ruling that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional.

    Judge Clark Waddoups’ 91-page ruling, issued Friday, sets a new legal precedent in Utah, effectively decriminalizing polygamy. It is the latest development in a lawsuit filed by the family of Kody Brown, who became famous while starring in cable TV channel TLC’s reality series “Sister Wives.” The show entered a fourth season at the end of the summer.

    It’s already here, it’s already happened. No one noticed. Perhaps we are in such a state of stunned disbelief that we can no longer register shock?

    Myself, I think the CA law legalizing multiple parents is equally as groundbreaking. But no one here cares to read that. They just love foaming at the mouth, and quoting Kevin MacDonald.

    • Replies: @Tracy
    @WhatEvvs


    Myself, I think the CA law legalizing multiple parents is equally as groundbreaking. But no one here cares to read that. They just love foaming at the mouth, and quoting Kevin MacDonald.
     
    Man, what an ass. "Bemused" sounds about right; seems you haven't figured out that it doesn't make sense to not like a place but hang out there anyway.
  38. I must say, those fringe Mormons are quite something. There is a group of them in Canada too. They sent them to both Canada and Mexico when the main Mormon church banned it.

    I’ve read about them. They leave the Muslims in the dust. As has been pointed out, Muslims can only have four, and they must be able to support them. In practice these means a few rich guys.

    The fringe Mormons can have as many as they want. If the guy is high status, he can ex-communicate another man and take wife (and kids). This lifestyle could not exist for a whole society: it’s destructive. They end up with too many male children born to them. A large number are effectively kicked out so a few higher status guys can have many wives.

    They get kicked out into the general society. If the whole society was like that, the males would be fighting with each other like crazy.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Frau Katze

    Right. Polygamous Mormons leech off the taxpayers. If they show up in your state, do like the Texans did a few years ago and make up some legal pretext and boot them out.

    Replies: @George

  39. Jonathan Turley, the lawyer for the Browns in the Utah polygamy case:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley

    “In USA Today in October 2004, he famously argued for the legalization of polygamy,[23] provoking responses from writers such as Stanley Kurtz.[24][25]”

    No idea what he thinks about gay rights, gay marriage.

  40. @Frau Katze
    I must say, those fringe Mormons are quite something. There is a group of them in Canada too. They sent them to both Canada and Mexico when the main Mormon church banned it.

    I've read about them. They leave the Muslims in the dust. As has been pointed out, Muslims can only have four, and they must be able to support them. In practice these means a few rich guys.

    The fringe Mormons can have as many as they want. If the guy is high status, he can ex-communicate another man and take wife (and kids). This lifestyle could not exist for a whole society: it's destructive. They end up with too many male children born to them. A large number are effectively kicked out so a few higher status guys can have many wives.

    They get kicked out into the general society. If the whole society was like that, the males would be fighting with each other like crazy.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Right. Polygamous Mormons leech off the taxpayers. If they show up in your state, do like the Texans did a few years ago and make up some legal pretext and boot them out.

    • Replies: @George
    @Steve Sailer

    The leech off the state aspect is interesting. Unlike the usual welfare cases it seems the FLDS polygamists many sons leave home early and get more or less menial jobs and work their way up. So in the FLDS case the argument that welfare is a societal investment in the future workforce that will pay for itself may actually be true. Needless to say it will never happen but a generational study of FLDS welfare dependency and criminality would be interesting.

    The leeching of the state accusation is also made against Orthodox Jews.

    Replies: @Brutusale

  41. It will start with camel-toe! As you can see here – http://www.vh1.com/celebrity/2014-11-16/celebrity-camel-toe/

    Anyway, soon enough it’s going to be just baby mommas and baby daddies. Even the rich and traditional are giving it up these days.

  42. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @prosa123
    Arab Muslims are unlikely to be the vanguard of polygamy in the United States. While Islam allows a man to have up to four wives, so long as he can support them, as a practical matter polygamy is very rare in Arab countries, generally under 1% of all marriages.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Right. Polygamy is not actually not very common in many Arab countries. Monogamy is the norm.

    In fact the US today may be effectively more polygamous if you consider that it’s not uncommon for wealthy men to marry several times throughout their lives and that fornication and adultery are more common than in Arab countries.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    That should be "Polygamy is not actually very common..."

    , @Art Deco
    @Anonymous

    that it’s not uncommon for wealthy men to marry several times throughout their lives

    As a rule, the propensity to divorce is and has been for five decades or more inversely associated with social stratum (though that might not apply to every substratum). Small town patricians are not Hollywood.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  43. @Anonymous
    @prosa123

    Right. Polygamy is not actually not very common in many Arab countries. Monogamy is the norm.

    In fact the US today may be effectively more polygamous if you consider that it's not uncommon for wealthy men to marry several times throughout their lives and that fornication and adultery are more common than in Arab countries.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Art Deco

    That should be “Polygamy is not actually very common…”

  44. There is a basketball player named Lou Williams who flaunts his long-term relationship with two women, who both are perfectly fine with it, if their public statements are to be believed.

    Hilarious that he can live with them and have kids with them, but gets to tell them with a straight face “cant marry you two, its illegal!”

  45. @Steve Sailer
    @Frau Katze

    Right. Polygamous Mormons leech off the taxpayers. If they show up in your state, do like the Texans did a few years ago and make up some legal pretext and boot them out.

    Replies: @George

    The leech off the state aspect is interesting. Unlike the usual welfare cases it seems the FLDS polygamists many sons leave home early and get more or less menial jobs and work their way up. So in the FLDS case the argument that welfare is a societal investment in the future workforce that will pay for itself may actually be true. Needless to say it will never happen but a generational study of FLDS welfare dependency and criminality would be interesting.

    The leeching of the state accusation is also made against Orthodox Jews.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @George

    It's been a while since I read Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, which touched on LDS polygamy in the Arizona Strip, but I seem to recall them being among the largest recipients of welfare for a white population.

    At least they're not flamboyant about their leeching off the government like the Muslims in England.

  46. @Anonymous
    Polygamy is eugenic. Therefore, it will not be promoted by the hostile elites. Their strategy is to promote dysgenic practices among potential rival groups such as people of Northern European descent. The objective is to weaken such groups' gene pools.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @27 year old, @syonredux

    Polygamy is eugenic

    Actually polygamy is dysgenic. It favors older males, and older fathers equal mutations.

    You might also want to bear in mind that Black Africa has high rates of polygamy.Last time I checked, Black Africa is not exactly known for its human capital …..

    And let’s not even bring up the damage to social cohesion caused by elite males hoarding women

    • Replies: @Melendwyr
    @syonredux


    Actually polygamy is dysgenic. It favors older males, and older fathers equal mutations.
     
    Mutations aren't in themselves dysgenic. Artificially preventing variation to be winnowed down by selection, however...

    Replies: @syonredux, @Lot, @Anonymous 1 am

    , @Anonymous 1 am
    @syonredux

    Actually polygamy is dysgenic. It favors older males, and older fathers equal mutations.

    Actually, it doesn't. If favors superior males. It gives women more choice in who they mate with. If they happen to choose older men in a free market, that is as good an indicator as any of quality.

    Even if it did favor older men (and granting for the sake of argument your controversial claim that older fathers have greater net negative mutations in any really significant sense), an older man can be a proxy for some other important qualities: survival ability.

    Polygyny + Female Hypergamy = Eugenics

  47. @WhatEvvs
    @syonredux

    Please do some more research and stop paying too much attention to Steve's veneration of whiteness as the repository of everything good and beautiful. There are more than a few "out there" dissident Mormons living it the wilder regions of Northern AZ/Utah who are spoiling for a fight.

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/237935982/Polygamy-ruling-in-Utah

    Did you read the Justia article on plural parents? After plural parents comes plural spouses.

    It will be both.

    Replies: @syonredux, @tomv

    Please do some more research and stop paying too much attention to Steve’s veneration of whiteness as the repository of everything good and beautiful.

    When has Steve ever said that “whiteness [is] the repository of everything good and beautiful,” dear fellow? It seems to me that he comments quite often on White venality.

    There are more than a few “out there” dissident Mormons living it the wilder regions of Northern AZ/Utah who are spoiling for a fight.

    Of course there are, dear fellow.But the question that Steve raised involved what kind of polygamist would be most worthy of receiving the imprimatur of the White Liberal Elite. Fundamentalist Mormon nutjobs? Probably not.

    • Replies: @Bill P
    @syonredux


    But the question that Steve raised involved what kind of polygamist would be most worthy of receiving the imprimatur of the White Liberal Elite. Fundamentalist Mormon nutjobs? Probably not.

    -Syon
     
    Like I said, it will probably be Somalis (or some other black African Muslims). And it will probably first happen because judges don't want to let the Big Man off the hook on alimony/community property issues, and polygamy will then be recognized as a matter of precedent. Pushing the issue will be feminists who are arguing for "social justice," "cultural sensitivity," and women's empowerment (if people don't think feminists would support recognizing polygamy "for the women" they haven't been paying attention).
    , @WhatEvvs
    @syonredux


    Of course there are, dear fellow.But the question that Steve raised involved what kind of polygamist would be most worthy of receiving the imprimatur of the White Liberal Elite. Fundamentalist Mormon nutjobs? Probably not.
     
    That's not what he wrote. He wrote:

    Various vectors have been proposed for how polygamy would become lawful in America:

     

    And gave ludicrous, speculative examples. Really, the idea that polygamy introduced by African immigrants (who are not all Muslim, by the way) is going to be the "vector" to make polygamy legal, or (in your interpretation) acceptance by the elites, is beyond silly. The Yankee Protestant elites has been the group most resistant to any influence by immigrants. Their downfall is purely idiopathic, unless you take your marching orders from the insane Kevin MacDonald. Which I think you do.

    Anyway, I gave an actual example from an actual sitting judge. A legal decision rendered by a Republican judge in....Utah. (Where else?)

    And also, an article in Justia about a law passed in California.

    Since most of the people here don't like to read dull things like legal decisions and laws, preferring to dwell on the mossy interiors of their paranoid little brains, it went nowhere. I realize that reading a legal decision isn't as colorful as reading a Conan the Barbarian story, but if you want to argue about marriage and family law, you ought to get into the habit.

  48. @tony_k
    Did you catch the announcement of new Gov. Tom Wolfe's choice as Pennsylvania's Surgeon General?

    http://www.phillymag.com/g-philly/2015/01/18/tom-wolf-names-transgender-woman-physician-general/

    Even more amusing than her picture is the comment police being enforced by Philly Magazine. Basically, we welcome all viewpoints we agree with.

    Replies: @Jean Cocteausten, @Tom Regan

    Here is something I don’t understand. Why is it not considered offensive to refer to TG ‘women’ as transgender? I thought the whole idea was that they are supposed to be real women, exactly the same as if they had two X chromosomes. The TG terminology calls attention to the fact that they’re different from real women, which is one of those classic Steve Sailer “things you aren’t supposed to notice.”

    • Replies: @Glaivester
    @Jean Cocteausten

    Here is something I don’t understand. Why is it not considered offensive to refer to TG ‘women’ as transgender? I thought the whole idea was that they are supposed to be real women, exactly the same as if they had two X chromosomes. The TG terminology calls attention to the fact that they’re different from real women,

    According to the latest terminology, "transgender" means that they identify as a different gender than the one they were originally "assigned." This terminology is designed to obfuscate the fact that their gender does not match their sex organs, and to allow them to continue the fiction that sex organs are irrelevant to gender, as if the real issue were that the doctor checked the wrong box on the form.

  49. @tony_k
    Did you catch the announcement of new Gov. Tom Wolfe's choice as Pennsylvania's Surgeon General?

    http://www.phillymag.com/g-philly/2015/01/18/tom-wolf-names-transgender-woman-physician-general/

    Even more amusing than her picture is the comment police being enforced by Philly Magazine. Basically, we welcome all viewpoints we agree with.

    Replies: @Jean Cocteausten, @Tom Regan

    Rachel Levine? Well, at least s/he chose a Jewish/Biblical first name, so clearly a stickler for tradition.
    Is it just me, or is the term ‘transgender woman’ a contradiction. One of the other isn’t it? Ovaries and a womb maketh the woman, not make-up and ‘identification’. If I identify as an Eskimo, that doesn’t make me an Eskimo.

  50. @syonredux
    @WhatEvvs


    Please do some more research and stop paying too much attention to Steve’s veneration of whiteness as the repository of everything good and beautiful.
     
    When has Steve ever said that "whiteness [is] the repository of everything good and beautiful," dear fellow? It seems to me that he comments quite often on White venality.

    There are more than a few “out there” dissident Mormons living it the wilder regions of Northern AZ/Utah who are spoiling for a fight.
     
    Of course there are, dear fellow.But the question that Steve raised involved what kind of polygamist would be most worthy of receiving the imprimatur of the White Liberal Elite. Fundamentalist Mormon nutjobs? Probably not.

    Replies: @Bill P, @WhatEvvs

    But the question that Steve raised involved what kind of polygamist would be most worthy of receiving the imprimatur of the White Liberal Elite. Fundamentalist Mormon nutjobs? Probably not.

    -Syon

    Like I said, it will probably be Somalis (or some other black African Muslims). And it will probably first happen because judges don’t want to let the Big Man off the hook on alimony/community property issues, and polygamy will then be recognized as a matter of precedent. Pushing the issue will be feminists who are arguing for “social justice,” “cultural sensitivity,” and women’s empowerment (if people don’t think feminists would support recognizing polygamy “for the women” they haven’t been paying attention).

  51. @iffen
    I think that the African immigrants have been mostly Christian until recently. The Muslim fraction is likely increasing. The details are probably out there somewhere.

    Don't under estimate the renegade splinter Mormon groups as the lead in for legalized polygamy.

    Replies: @Karl, @NickG, @Prof. Woland

    >> Don’t under estimate the renegade splinter Mormon groups

    You want to know what teflon is? Look at the special-exemptions that the “Amish” get.

  52. Steve makes a good point. Since gays can get married, it seems that bisexuals will be able to get bisexual marriage whereby they can marry a man and a woman at the same time and institute polygamy by default.

  53. @Mr. Blank
    Reading about yet another adult being sentenced for kiddie sex or kiddie porn or something last week, it occurred to me: Why would anybody risk it? If that's really your bag, just wait another couple of decades or so and it will all be legal. Polygamy, incest, bestiality, whatever. It will all be accepted.

    Future hipsters will screen episodes of "To Catch A Predator" and laugh with the same kind of snarkiness you see today with "Reefer Madness." NAMBLA will eventually get its own edition of those hagiographic documentaries they're always making these days making about the "early pioneers" of the LGBTQ-whatever else lifestyle, complete with tons of silly old film clips from back in the Dark Ages when everybody thought these people were — gasp! — a danger to children!

    "Regular" gay rights always seemed to me like a natural end point to sexual liberation. I figured things would get there, then stop, or at least slow down, for a long, long time. But now that it's clear we're going to push way beyond that, I don't see any other natural stopping points, short of snuff porn or hard-core strongarm rape. Every other deviancy can be massaged into legitimacy if you can just find the right sympathetic "victims."

    And I now actively disbelieve people who claim "X won't lead to Y" — David Axelrod's claim this past week that Obama just flat-out lied about his opposition to gay marriage, and the fact that nobody on the Left really got worked up about it, just nailed it shut for me: These folks will just do whatever they have to do to get past the goalposts, then move them again. There's no endpoint. (I mean, yeah, I knew Obama was lying, but I figured that was something that would come out 3o or 40 years from now, when the issue had been settled for a generation and the only people who would care would be historians. The fact that Axelrod just brazenly admitted it now, when the issue is still very much alive, seemed to confirm that they think victory is in sight.)

    Replies: @jimbojones, @unpc downunder, @dfordoom

    Liberalism 101: bestiality and pedophilia violate liberal autonomy theory. Liberalism is about permitting anything as long as its consensual. Children and animals can’t provide consent. When it comes to non-consensual sex liberals are more puritanical than most conservative societies – hence the obsession with date rape.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @unpc downunder


    Children and animals can’t provide consent.
     
    Animals don't consent to being slaughtered, eaten and worn, either. They might actually prefer being laid, to that.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  54. @syonredux
    @Anonymous


    Polygamy is eugenic
     
    Actually polygamy is dysgenic. It favors older males, and older fathers equal mutations.

    You might also want to bear in mind that Black Africa has high rates of polygamy.Last time I checked, Black Africa is not exactly known for its human capital .....

    And let's not even bring up the damage to social cohesion caused by elite males hoarding women

    Replies: @Melendwyr, @Anonymous 1 am

    Actually polygamy is dysgenic. It favors older males, and older fathers equal mutations.

    Mutations aren’t in themselves dysgenic. Artificially preventing variation to be winnowed down by selection, however…

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Melendwyr


    Actually polygamy is dysgenic. It favors older males, and older fathers equal mutations.

    Mutations aren’t in themselves dysgenic.Artificially preventing variation to be winnowed down by selection, however….
     

    Sure, but society isn't going to start ruthlessly applying the breeder's equation* anytime soon. And the empirical evidence strongly indicates that younger fathers produce healthier offspring.Polygamy strongly favors older fathers.Hence, from a genetic standpoint, it's not a good idea.

    *
    "In selective breeding of plants and animals, the expected response to selection of a trait with known narrow-sense heritability h can be estimated using the breeder's equation:[13]

    R = h^2 S

    In this equation, the Response to Selection (R) is defined as the realized average difference between the parent generation and the next generation, and the Selection Differential (S) is defined as the average difference between the parent generation and the selected parents.

    For example, imagine that a plant breeder is involved in a selective breeding project with the aim of increasing the number of kernels per ear of corn. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the average ear of corn in the parent generation has 100 kernels. Let us also assume that the selected parents produce corn with an average of 120 kernels per ear. If h2 equals 0.5, then the next generation will produce corn with an average of 0.5(120-100) = 10 additional kernels per ear. Therefore, the total number of kernels per ear of corn will equal, on average, 110.

    Note that heritability in the above equation is equal to the ratio \mathrm{Var}(A)/\mathrm{Var}(P) only if the genotype and the environmental noise follow Gaussian distributions ."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability#Response_to_selection

    , @Lot
    @Melendwyr


    Mutations aren’t in themselves dysgenic.
     
    About 99.9% of the time they are dysgenic or have no effect at all.
    , @Anonymous 1 am
    @Melendwyr

    Mutations aren’t in themselves dysgenic. Artificially preventing variation to be winnowed down by selection, however…

    Monogamy actually represents the artificial (via human legal conventions) prevention of winnowing down by natural selection. Polygyny essentially just means a free sexual market. It gives women a greater variety in their choice of mate. It is more like capitalism, free trade. Monogamy is more akin to a quota system: affirmative action or communism.

    polygyny + female hypergamy = eugenics

    Replies: @Glaivester

  55. @unpc downunder
    @Mr. Blank

    Liberalism 101: bestiality and pedophilia violate liberal autonomy theory. Liberalism is about permitting anything as long as its consensual. Children and animals can't provide consent. When it comes to non-consensual sex liberals are more puritanical than most conservative societies - hence the obsession with date rape.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Children and animals can’t provide consent.

    Animals don’t consent to being slaughtered, eaten and worn, either. They might actually prefer being laid, to that.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Reg Cæsar

    That's actually a good point. I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense. I'm surprised zoophiles haven't used that argument yet. It's crazy enough to work.

    It doesn't seem that far fetched that there might be a liberal regime in the future where meat consumption is illegal while sex and marriage with animals is not.

  56. @iffen
    I think that the African immigrants have been mostly Christian until recently. The Muslim fraction is likely increasing. The details are probably out there somewhere.

    Don't under estimate the renegade splinter Mormon groups as the lead in for legalized polygamy.

    Replies: @Karl, @NickG, @Prof. Woland

    The South African State President – Jacob Zuma – has 4 wives. He undertook a state visit to the UK in 2010, including being feted at a reception with Liz, all be it with only one of his wives – which you have to admit is a bit racist.

    Apparently he has 20 kids.

    In Darwinian term, as well as materiel terms, he is way more successful than most of us.

  57. Applying polygamy and consanguinity statutes to same-sex unions is already indefensible. The rationale for such bans is entirely heteronormative. Indeed, child-based.

    What reason does the state have to tell identical triplets they can’t marry, other than that they’re of the same sex? You can’t block the exercise of a right on trivial grounds.

    Well, you say, we don’t let a man marry his two sisters, even if all three are in their sixties. But there’s no secular defense for that policy, is there? Not if marriage is a right. (Who ever heard of a right you can’t exercise with your sister?)

    So, the point is not that “gay marriage” could lead to bigamy and blood-kin marriage. It’s that any gay marriage policy that doesn’t allow for those is by definition illegitimate.

  58. 1. The judge in Utah only said that the state cannot criminally prosecute three people engaged in de facto plural marriage. That didn’t legalize polygamy, unless you consider it already legal the 40+ other states that don’t criminally prosecute it.

    2. The fundamentalist Mormons engage it plain old welfare/disability/medicaid fraud in high numbers. It doesn’t have to do with the polygamy directly, just that they are very poor but well organized and insular.

    3. The standard bisexual ideology is that bisexuals can be satisfied in monogamous relationships. Poly-ams are a separate and mostly non overlapping group.

  59. I didn’t know that Nancy Kulp was still alive.

  60. @Earl Lemongrab
    Polyamorists come across too much like the creepy, middle-aged swingers from late night HBO reality shows. They also set off a lot of feminist alarms by making women think the movement is basically guys pushing their partners into situations that make them uncomfortable (like Barack Obama's first Senate opponent Jack Ryan taking his Star Trek actress wife to sex clubs.)

    Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist, @Anonymous, @ben tillman

    What if they are…lesbian polyamorists?

    http://offbeatbride.com/2013/11/massachusetts-lesbian-poly-wedding

    Look at the beautiful, uh triple? How could one dare to deny them the right to legitimize their love in the eyes of the State?

  61. “Fundamentalist Mormons almost certainly won’t be the entry point for obvious reasons (whiteness, patriarchalism, Mormon Republicanism, fly-overness, etc.)”

    There are already a couple of reality TV shows about Mormon polygamists. What is it they say – there is no such thing as bad publicity? The media-led normalization campaign for polygamy is well underway. It doesn’t have all the money and media resources that big-homo could bring to bear, but it will no-doubt arrive one way or another.

  62. “syon says:

    “”Polygamy is eugenic””

    Actually polygamy is dysgenic. It favors older males, and older fathers equal mutations.”

    A very good point.

  63. I am not having a particularly good day today as a married man.

    So I kind of have to think that any law that would permit a man to have one than one wife would have to be invalidated by the American legal tradition against “Cruel and Unusual Punishment.”

    And it kind of permits a variation on old vaudeville joke.

    A guy is talking to a second man says he is had it and he is running off to South America:

    He says “I sold my house, my business, my car.”

    The second asks, “What about your wives?”

    The first guy responds, “I tried. I couldn’t get a thing for them.”

  64. “unpc downunder

    Liberalism 101: bestiality and pedophilia violate liberal autonomy theory. Liberalism is about permitting anything as long as its consensual.”

    Yeah,…….right. I never consented to Obamacare, or illegal immigration, or affirmative action, or to paying taxes to support welfare recipients, NPR, or ACORN.

    Liberalism is about liberals imposing their will on the rest of us.

  65. @iffen
    I think that the African immigrants have been mostly Christian until recently. The Muslim fraction is likely increasing. The details are probably out there somewhere.

    Don't under estimate the renegade splinter Mormon groups as the lead in for legalized polygamy.

    Replies: @Karl, @NickG, @Prof. Woland

    The Mormons might end up getting their revenge after all using polygamy the same way liberals have used gay marriage and Jews have used immigration. The game is still early.

  66. I really do think that, despite the commies’ efforts, we’ll see a backlash culture that will start clamping down on this nonsense.

    What will probably spark it will be a legal argument: either a return to natural law (long rejected since the 19th C.) or a careful, non-natural law argument that morality CAN and SHOULD be legislated.

    Why natural law? Simple: America’s existence depends on it. The entire rationale for splitting with England—aka the Declaration of Independence—is based on natural law. In order to argue that any American law is valid, therefore, we need to acknowledge that it does not violate the natural law precepts in the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, if you say natural law doesn’t matter, than our entire independence from Britain is invalid and every law passed by our governments (state and federal) is invalid as illegally made (because the British did not approve it, as we should legally be their subjects). Should some legal scholars turn our attention that way, a lot of lefties will have a hard time parsing natural law and lefty morality—which will provide the legal basis for challenging wacky retard marriage laws.

    In the vent the turn doesn’t happen, some smart scholars can start pushing REALLY hard how the failure to legislate morality has hurt blacks the most. Just keep harping on the harm to BLACKs due to the Great Society and Divorce Culture, and the gays and feminists will lose any counter-arguments. Grab the liberal theology Catholics if you can to back it.

    Those are our two camel noses.

    • Replies: @Melendwyr
    @whorefinder

    Don't be ridiculous. We didn't break with Britain because of legal arguments. We broke with Britain because we wanted to. Arguments are just pretexts, constructed after-the-fact; desire is the motivation.

    As has long been noted by historians on both sides on the Pond, the charges laid in the Declaration of Independence are exaggerated at best. Indeed, if the government of George III had been a bit more diplomatic, it's likely that we wouldn't have revolted.

    Replies: @whorefinder

    , @Lot
    @whorefinder


    Why natural law? Simple: America’s existence depends on it. The entire rationale for splitting with England—aka the Declaration of Independence—is based on natural law. In order to argue that any American law is valid, therefore, we need to acknowledge that it does not violate the natural law precepts in the Declaration of Independence.
     
    You're confusing common law and natural law. One is part of our system of government, the other is a philosophical concept.

    It doesn't matter if the American Revolution was justified by natural law at this point, because common law, which is actually the law of the United States, has a principle that simply accepts what's old by virtue of being old.

    You can best see this with the excesses of the obviously immoral Normal Conquest and some of our ancestors' extreme mistreatment of Indians. No matter how illegal or immoral these acts were, the passage of time has rendered their results legitimate. It doesn't matter in the eyes of the common law if you prove beyond all doubt that my farm is Oklahoma belongs to me because my great grandfather stole it from your great grandfather. Concepts like laches, statute of limitations, and adverse possession render it mine just as much as if grandad bought it fairly.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)

    Replies: @whorefinder

  67. @Mr. Blank
    Reading about yet another adult being sentenced for kiddie sex or kiddie porn or something last week, it occurred to me: Why would anybody risk it? If that's really your bag, just wait another couple of decades or so and it will all be legal. Polygamy, incest, bestiality, whatever. It will all be accepted.

    Future hipsters will screen episodes of "To Catch A Predator" and laugh with the same kind of snarkiness you see today with "Reefer Madness." NAMBLA will eventually get its own edition of those hagiographic documentaries they're always making these days making about the "early pioneers" of the LGBTQ-whatever else lifestyle, complete with tons of silly old film clips from back in the Dark Ages when everybody thought these people were — gasp! — a danger to children!

    "Regular" gay rights always seemed to me like a natural end point to sexual liberation. I figured things would get there, then stop, or at least slow down, for a long, long time. But now that it's clear we're going to push way beyond that, I don't see any other natural stopping points, short of snuff porn or hard-core strongarm rape. Every other deviancy can be massaged into legitimacy if you can just find the right sympathetic "victims."

    And I now actively disbelieve people who claim "X won't lead to Y" — David Axelrod's claim this past week that Obama just flat-out lied about his opposition to gay marriage, and the fact that nobody on the Left really got worked up about it, just nailed it shut for me: These folks will just do whatever they have to do to get past the goalposts, then move them again. There's no endpoint. (I mean, yeah, I knew Obama was lying, but I figured that was something that would come out 3o or 40 years from now, when the issue had been settled for a generation and the only people who would care would be historians. The fact that Axelrod just brazenly admitted it now, when the issue is still very much alive, seemed to confirm that they think victory is in sight.)

    Replies: @jimbojones, @unpc downunder, @dfordoom

    Polygamy, incest, bestiality, whatever. It will all be accepted.

    Incest is likely to be next on the agenda. They’ll start with brother-sister incest since that’s less threatening. Then slowly they’ll introduce the idea of parent-child incest but only if the child is over the age of consent. Once that’s accepted it won’t be difficult to gradually extend the idea to children who are just a little under the age of consent. It will be done one step at a time.

    Once incest is normalised it becomes inevitable that paedophilia will be next.

    The big plus to incest and paedophilia is that they’re incredibly destructive to what little remains of family life, and destroying the family is what it’s all about.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @dfordoom


    Incest is likely to be next on the agenda.
     
    If you really believe this, as opposed to saying this as a debating point, you may be suffering from Asperger's. The ultralogical mind that knows so little about how normals think and emote, it can't see any reason why acceptance of homosexuality would not lead to acceptance of every other alternative sexuality.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @anon
    @dfordoom

    The big plus to incest and paedophilia is that they’re incredibly destructive to what little remains of family life, and destroying the family is what it’s all about.

    More precisely, it's all about destroying the reproductive capacity of rival groups. The all out assault ranges from destroying the cultural structures that facilitate reproduction and survival (the family unit) to undermining such groups' general solidarity and cohesion to diluting their gene pools.

    , @Priss Factor
    @dfordoom

    "Incest is likely to be next on the agenda. They’ll start with brother-sister incest since that’s less threatening. "

    Much of it seems to be 'who, whom'. As Sailer said, polygamy via Mormons would be a hardsell since Morms are too white. But if polygamy were to be associated with three homos wanting to get married... well since homos are so holy....

    Anyway, I think homos and their allies will try to suppress polygamy and incest-marriage, at least for awhile. Why? It will undermine the 'gay marriage' agenda. Most Americans are still opposed to polygamy and appalled by 'incest marriage'. If those are associated with 'marriage equality', people might start wondering about their support of 'gay marriage' as well. It will 'ghetto-ize' the cause of 'gay marriage' by negative association. Homos were able to get away with 'gay marriage' because, paradoxically enough, they cleaned up the image of homos from sexual deviancy to cultural exuberance. Indeed, some homos don't even want the word 'homosexuality' used. They want people to regard homos as an ersatz ethnic group, like the Irish. The less we think about the actual physicality of homosexuality---pretty gross or ridiculous---and focus on its cultural manifestations(in pop and elite culture), the more we are likely to see homos as a respectable community like any other.

    But there's no real culture around incest. People will just think of people of same family having sex together, and that will gross them out.
    There is a kind of culture around polygamy, as with Mormons, but it tends to be pre-modern, the sort of thing that 'progressives' fought against and discouraged in the Third World.

    Anyway, using the principles of 'marriage equality', incest marriage and polygamy should be allowed. If individuals should have the right to decide what is and isn't marriage based on their 'happiness', anything goes.

    But politics doesn't work that way. There is no consistency in politics. It's about who has the power. If we use the principles of equal treatment of all groups, then US politics shouldn't favor Jewish interests. But Jewish interests in domestic and foreign politics are favored. All US politicians pledge to AIPAC but no other lobby for a foreign nation. US forced sanctions on South Africa but sent tons of aid to Israel. Total hypocrisy, but it's about who has the power.
    Power always beats principles. When Southern Whites had the power, they discriminated against blacks even as they pretended to uphold the US constitution.
    Or consider Affirmative Action. Conquistador Whites are treated as 'people of color' victims. And the descendants of slave sellers(African immigrants) benefit from Affirmative Action(and invoke Selma) no less than the descendants of slaves(native born Americans with roots in the South). How can this be? Because it's about power, not principles. Principles bend to power and influence.
    Same in Europe. The very people who scream about the need for free speech in the wake of Charlie Hobo shootings say critics of Jewish power or homosexuals should be silenced and jailed.

    US attacks Russia for not having 'gay marriage' but gets along just fine with Saudi Arabia that has capital crime laws against homosexuality. Principles be damned. Those with power can do as they please. And most people, being hooked to pop culture and pop news, will just go with bread and circuses and junk news propaganda. Sheeple.

    Marriage, like Christianity, is dead. The elites are gonna push the filth of 'gay marriage' on all 50 states, and GOP, whores of globo-elites, are a bunch of toadies and running dogs.

    At this point, the ONLY thing left is for us to equate 'marriage' with homos. Let them have it.
    We need to develop a new concept and term that means sacred-bio-cultural union between Man and Woman according to the rules of nature and culture and morality and decency.
    That way, we can maintain the distinction between the real thing and the false thing.

    Proponents of 'gay marriage' say they are not anti-marriage. They just want marriage to be 'inclusive'. But 'gay marriage' IS anti-marriage since it degrades the meaning of marriage. It's like if you insist that voodoo be acknowledge as real medicine, you're anti-medicine since you're equating fake medicine with real medicine. It's like equating creationism with the science of evolution. Even if a pro-creationist says he's for the teaching of both instead of being anti-evolution, he's actually anti-science since his position undermines the very meaning of science.
    Every word/meaning is exclusive. It has specific meanings, and it can't include everything. Inclusiveness leads to what happened city colleges of NY when they began to accept just about anyone. They were no longer educational institutions since it allowed morons in who didn't give a shit about education. When 'marriage' is broadened to mean just about anything, it loses its value.
    'Marriage inflation' is like 'grade inflation'. If an F is made equal to an A, then A has no value.

    Since marriage has been defamed and demeaned via association with homo deviancy, I say let them have it. Let 'marriage' itself mean 'gay marriage'.

    As for the true bio-cultural-moral union of man and woman, we need a new word. We can work on that, and we can uphold this meaning for the community that will not collaborate with globo-elite world run by vile Wall Street, Hollywood, and Las Vegas scum.

    Christianity is dead. Any religion that not only fails to oppose 'gay marriage' but goes out of its way to embrace it is NOT a true religion. It's craven and cowardly pile of puss.

    So, should we embrace Islam? No, it's too nutty. But we can have Chrislam that takes some of the positive aspects of Christianity and fuses it with the militancy of Islam.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  68. It’s all about the Totem Pole, Steve.
    As ever in these situations, you must check each privileged group’s standing against the hierarchy in the Totem Pole.
    Now let’s see. Blacks trump everything, including women.
    So as much as ‘feminists’ might moan, if blacks want polygamy, they will get polygamy.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @Anonymous


    It’s all about the Totem Pole, Steve.
    As ever in these situations, you must check each privileged group’s standing against the hierarchy in the Totem Pole.
    Now let’s see. Blacks trump everything...
     
    Except Jews.
    , @anon
    @Anonymous

    Blacks don't even want monogamy.

    Morality aside, no sane man would want more than 1 wife in this culture. Most of us can barely handle 1. Serial monogamy is the current train wreck of choice.

    Replies: @Francis

  69. De facto polygamy is already in the UK (and probably US) – both in its weak form (man has several benefits-funded babymommas, perhaps concurrently, perhaps serially, perhaps a bit of both) and in more formal Muslim setting, where a man may have more than one “religious” wife (and IIRC the benefit system will treat wives 2/3/4 as single mothers)

  70. African-Americans seem to be naturally more open to polygamy. Maybe they can move to Israel, where they are more accepted.

    http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/23206/a-fascinating-look-at-israel-s-polygamist-black-hebrews/

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/195620

  71. @countenance
    I actually think the next step in "fringier than thou" politics is a split within World War T. Most Ts are men who pretend to be women, so this leaves women who pretend to be men as the fringe within the fringe, who will start complaining about the "establishment" transgender community of men-T-women discriminating against the women-T-men.

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist

    THe fringier it gets, the more the MSM with fawn over it. It’s the same reflex as obsessing over music micro-genres.

  72. I really like that Portland pretty much copied its really great slogan “Keep Portland Weird” from Austin, TX. Except that in Austin they say, “Keep Austin Weird.” So actually, it’s different.

    • Replies: @blank slate
    @slumber_j

    And the Seattle Seahawks outright stole their slogan "12th man" from the Texas A&M Aggies. What is it about the Pacific Northwest that lends itself to copying so much from other parts of the country?

  73. @anonymous-antimarxist
    So Oregon has America's first openly gay/bisexual governor???

    Really are Arizonans that clueless that they twice elected Janet Napolitano not realizing she was as gay as a women's softball team.

    Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy, @Anonymous

    “Really are Arizonans that clueless that they twice elected Janet Napolitano not realizing she was as gay as a women’s softball team.”

    No less clueless than South Carolinians that keep electing Lindsey Graham.

  74. Homosexual polygamy may come first.

  75. @Earl Lemongrab
    Polyamorists come across too much like the creepy, middle-aged swingers from late night HBO reality shows. They also set off a lot of feminist alarms by making women think the movement is basically guys pushing their partners into situations that make them uncomfortable (like Barack Obama's first Senate opponent Jack Ryan taking his Star Trek actress wife to sex clubs.)

    Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist, @Anonymous, @ben tillman

    Polyamorists come across too much like the creepy, middle-aged swingers from late night HBO reality shows. They also set off a lot of feminist alarms by making women think the movement is basically guys pushing their partners into situations that make them uncomfortable (like Barack Obama’s first Senate opponent Jack Ryan taking his Star Trek actress wife to sex clubs.)

    None of which matters, since what the people want is entirely irrelevant to what the people get.

    I think what Steve said makes sense.

  76. @Anonymous
    It's all about the Totem Pole, Steve.
    As ever in these situations, you must check each privileged group's standing against the hierarchy in the Totem Pole.
    Now let's see. Blacks trump everything, including women.
    So as much as 'feminists' might moan, if blacks want polygamy, they will get polygamy.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @anon

    It’s all about the Totem Pole, Steve.
    As ever in these situations, you must check each privileged group’s standing against the hierarchy in the Totem Pole.
    Now let’s see. Blacks trump everything…

    Except Jews.

  77. @whorefinder
    I really do think that, despite the commies' efforts, we'll see a backlash culture that will start clamping down on this nonsense.

    What will probably spark it will be a legal argument: either a return to natural law (long rejected since the 19th C.) or a careful, non-natural law argument that morality CAN and SHOULD be legislated.

    Why natural law? Simple: America's existence depends on it. The entire rationale for splitting with England---aka the Declaration of Independence---is based on natural law. In order to argue that any American law is valid, therefore, we need to acknowledge that it does not violate the natural law precepts in the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, if you say natural law doesn't matter, than our entire independence from Britain is invalid and every law passed by our governments (state and federal) is invalid as illegally made (because the British did not approve it, as we should legally be their subjects). Should some legal scholars turn our attention that way, a lot of lefties will have a hard time parsing natural law and lefty morality---which will provide the legal basis for challenging wacky retard marriage laws.

    In the vent the turn doesn't happen, some smart scholars can start pushing REALLY hard how the failure to legislate morality has hurt blacks the most. Just keep harping on the harm to BLACKs due to the Great Society and Divorce Culture, and the gays and feminists will lose any counter-arguments. Grab the liberal theology Catholics if you can to back it.

    Those are our two camel noses.

    Replies: @Melendwyr, @Lot

    Don’t be ridiculous. We didn’t break with Britain because of legal arguments. We broke with Britain because we wanted to. Arguments are just pretexts, constructed after-the-fact; desire is the motivation.

    As has long been noted by historians on both sides on the Pond, the charges laid in the Declaration of Independence are exaggerated at best. Indeed, if the government of George III had been a bit more diplomatic, it’s likely that we wouldn’t have revolted.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @Melendwyr


    Don’t be ridiculous. We didn’t break with Britain because of legal arguments. We broke with Britain because we wanted to. Arguments are just pretexts, constructed after-the-fact; desire is the motivation.
     
    Yes, but people do get very worked up over justifying their acts. It's one of the funny things about wars throughout history: everyone had some justification for why invasion was ok. That is to say that no one just invaded and claimed might made right---everyone threw in some "they stole the land first" or "they disrespected our king/gods" or "once upon a time their ancestors oppressed ours" excuse. Henry V (Shakespeare) spends a significant amount of time early on in the play justifying an invasion of France; Shakespeare was pointing out the difficulty in declaring that Henry V's conquests were legitimate.

    In the legal realm in particular, whether a law can reference a founding document in its justification is still somewhat important (although the left has eroded that a lot). Laws of construction are based on underlying legal precepts, which come from the foundation of a nation. And the left is caught in a bind, legally: if it declares the principles of the Declaration to not be relevant, then declaring "all men are created equal" falls apart.
  78. @anonymous-antimarxist
    So Oregon has America's first openly gay/bisexual governor???

    Really are Arizonans that clueless that they twice elected Janet Napolitano not realizing she was as gay as a women's softball team.

    Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy, @Anonymous

    Lesbians aren’t gay – haven’t you read the seminal works of Mr Steven Sailer?

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    @Anonymous

    Btw, what's happened to the iSteve.com domain ?

    The top google uk result for "why lesbians aren't gay" is

    www.isteve.com/lesvsgay.htm

    But clicking on the Google result redirects to some Louis Vuitton knockoff shop.

    And clicking on the link in the Unz archive version, I see the page isn't the knockoff shop, but now begins

    "louis vuitton tompkins square brown vernis leather hand bag,louis vuitton ladies watches"

    Presumably the new site owners have got Google to redirect to their "real" site.

    Why didn't you sell iSteve.com to them, if you were going to let it go ? Those Google rankings are gold dust!

  79. As other commenters here have stated or implied, we need to distinguish between what is permitted in an age of anything goes ( which of course is anything–we cannot really expect polygamists to be persecuted or prosecuted in the modern age), and how those who control the Megaphone will use polygamy to hammer heterosexual monogamous married couples.

    World War G hammers them by saying, “Gay marriage is just as good as heterosexual marriage, if not better, and don’t you dare to say that it isn’t.”

    World War T hammers them by saying, “Anyone can choose their gender and sexual behavior, which may even change from day to day, and don’t you dare claim that your traditional gender roles are better.”

    World War P will hammer monogamy. “Don’t you dare criticize how loving people choose to love each other.”

    I don’t think the agenda is to completely destroy heterosexual monogamous marriage; it is more to put the fringe groups on top in the power structure and to assign loser status to those who are in heterosexual monogamous marriages. They will attack them by saying that they are the product of primitive religious superstition, are discriminatory, patriarchal and outmoded, and that they are only being defended by old, outnumbered, Bible-thumping whites who must inevitably lose the power struggle.

  80. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:

    The Scots-Irish have done the polygamy thing as well. In 1930 my grandfather, Hugh David Potts, had a regular wife (my grandmother) in DeQueen, Arkansas, and a common-law wife in Oklahoma. Only Grandma didn’t know about the second wife right away. When she found out somehow, she sued Grandpa Potts for divorce – quite a scandalous thing to do in 1930’s Arkansas.

  81. @Melendwyr
    @syonredux


    Actually polygamy is dysgenic. It favors older males, and older fathers equal mutations.
     
    Mutations aren't in themselves dysgenic. Artificially preventing variation to be winnowed down by selection, however...

    Replies: @syonredux, @Lot, @Anonymous 1 am

    Actually polygamy is dysgenic. It favors older males, and older fathers equal mutations.

    Mutations aren’t in themselves dysgenic.Artificially preventing variation to be winnowed down by selection, however….

    Sure, but society isn’t going to start ruthlessly applying the breeder’s equation* anytime soon. And the empirical evidence strongly indicates that younger fathers produce healthier offspring.Polygamy strongly favors older fathers.Hence, from a genetic standpoint, it’s not a good idea.

    *
    “In selective breeding of plants and animals, the expected response to selection of a trait with known narrow-sense heritability h can be estimated using the breeder’s equation:[13]

    R = h^2 S

    In this equation, the Response to Selection (R) is defined as the realized average difference between the parent generation and the next generation, and the Selection Differential (S) is defined as the average difference between the parent generation and the selected parents.

    For example, imagine that a plant breeder is involved in a selective breeding project with the aim of increasing the number of kernels per ear of corn. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the average ear of corn in the parent generation has 100 kernels. Let us also assume that the selected parents produce corn with an average of 120 kernels per ear. If h2 equals 0.5, then the next generation will produce corn with an average of 0.5(120-100) = 10 additional kernels per ear. Therefore, the total number of kernels per ear of corn will equal, on average, 110.

    Note that heritability in the above equation is equal to the ratio \mathrm{Var}(A)/\mathrm{Var}(P) only if the genotype and the environmental noise follow Gaussian distributions .”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability#Response_to_selection

  82. As more immigrants from those countries come in they’ll reach a critical mass whereby they can start demanding more concessions, more than they’re able to do now. Polygamy will be accepted for purposes of welfare, a separate religious legal system parallel to that of the state will be recognized for their community, all meat served in public venues such as school cafeterias must be Halal, pork will be banned. There’ll also be ‘no go areas’ for women who are not covered up. They’ll be dictating things to us. Polygamy in the western countries, whether done covertly by some crackpot whites or immigrant foreigners, is pretty much a welfare racket; you pay while they play. Britain has had problems with this due to their large Muslim population, as well as other problems of course. An ex-wife of London Mayor Boris Johnson, Allegra Mostyn-Owen, actually married a Muslim and declared that she would be amenable to him taking other wives.
    It’s not just the issue itself but it’s one thing among many that alienate and corrode the general culture. There’s people who would like to lower the age of consent laws but don’t have the momentum to do so, yet. Masha Gessen was right when she said gay marriage was really a tool by which the institution of marriage would be destroyed.

  83. Polygamy is going to arrive the same way as everything else: via the tastes of kinky bourgeois SWPLs. It’s already here, if you look at places like Fetlife. The Africans, if they get roped in later, will just be decoration.

  84. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    We need to do a meta-level analysis of the WWG debate…for there is no other way to make sense of WWG

    Meta-level anaylsis=political economy anaylysis……
    The Gay norming of American Society is taken place for one reason:the collusion of Mega-Corporation and the Mega-CEOs and the very minority homosexual population…it is as simple as this. If Judge Ray Moore stays the course and inspires the Evangelical Christian Alabama population to fight back….the Mega=CEOs are going to threaten Alabama with economic violence along the lines of pulling out of Alabama…and cutting off federal aid to Alabama..and other types of ecoomic violence.

    I honestly believe that WWG goes hand in hand with Democratic-Republican interventionist War Crime foriegn policy….and post-1965 immigration-wage slave policy. The WWG enthusiasts
    are very vulnerable because of this….things can go really bad on the invade the world front and the invite the world front in a way that puts an end to WWG.

    Ok that was poltical economy. Meta-level logical anaysis:if rights are universal and equal protection is universal…then every social and cultural perversion gets protected….just as Conservative Christians argue..and the comments in this thread have made a compelling case that this is where we are going with the Identity Politics WW….or, there are going to be limits to equal protection and equal rights. And if there are…who is
    going to be
    jdge and jury about who gets covered
    under universal rights and equal protection. Of course the very minority homosexuals will be the judge..jury and executioners on this issue. If you take this approach to debating the homosexuals…you can catch them in some very fatal logical traps and contradictions.

    If the situation in Ukraine spirals out of control…..and if a critical number of White Americans experience extreme economic deprivation….WWG over…

  85. This may be a rarified example, but I recall that the comic book writer Alan Moore–generally regarded as the greatest such writer of the 1980s and 90s–was during his heyday involved in a polyamorous relationship involving a legal wife and a live-in mutual “lover.” It was apparently public knowledge at the time, at least among his colleagues, although not to us innocent kids who were only interested in heroes and monsters. I was shocked when I learned, relatively recently, that the clever and imaginative stories of my youth had been the fruit of a perverse personal life.

    I note his case because it shows how polyamory has been effectively (albeit quietly) tolerated for decades now, in the most anodyne settings. At the time, Moore was writing stories in the Superman and Green Lantern magazines (nothing remotely perverse about them in those early days, BTW, although later his obsessions would turn up in his own characters); but no one was clamoring for him to resign for immorality. It seems to me that this kind of set-up–a married couple plus one–is the way polygamy will gain legal status. Legal status would merely be “recognizing a reality that already exists and is tolerated”–so the argument would go.

    Incidentally, the joke was on Moore in the end. His legal wife and their “lover” conspired against him, moved out, then sued him for the fortune he had made through his writing in the previous two decades. So there’s justice for you!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @ChrisZ

    This is the most plausible way I have heard yet that polygamous marriages will be legitimized. I have my own opinions on how eventually incest and some pedophilia will be justified. I don't think it's right around the corner, but the groundwork is being laid by people that just "want to be tolerant."

    Incidentally, Alan Moore has more or less retired, intelligently I think, because he saw the writing on the wall regarding creativity. More and more attacks were being leveled at him that his work was misogynistic, to the point that people were bringing it up wherever he went. He defended himself vigorously a few times but found out that was just digging yourself deeper. Everyone's loss.

    , @Anonymous
    @ChrisZ

    This is the most plausible way I have heard yet that polygamous marriages will be legitimized. I have my own opinions on how eventually incest and some pedophilia will be justified. I don't think it's right around the corner, but the groundwork is being laid by people that just "want to be tolerant."

    Incidentally, Alan Moore has more or less retired, intelligently I think, because he saw the writing on the wall regarding creativity. More and more attacks were being leveled at him that his work was misogynistic, to the point that people were bringing it up wherever he went. He defended himself vigorously a few times but found out that was just digging yourself deeper. Everyone's loss.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @ChrisZ


    the comic book writer Alan Moore…
     
    Terry Jones of Monty Python had a well-known "open marriage" for decades, apparently even inviting the other's other over for tea.

    What no doubt happened was that, while Mrs Jones's string of lovers followed her age trajectory, Mr Jones's did not. At least not as much. When the wife-mistress gap reached a certain point, the deal exploded.
    , @Scotty G. Vito
    @ChrisZ

    That's interesting, I'm a fan of Moore's and had never heard about the denouement of that side of his personal saga. It also brings to mind one of the stranger obsessions to crop up in his later (non-mainstream) work, viz. the notion of a latent mob-uprising sentiment against lesbians living together, on a deep social level. Historically lez couples haven't grabbed the same level of persecution as gay men because the latter are pretty reckless in their lifestyle and quite tenuously committed to domesticism. But to read Moore's comics you'd think Heather's mommies constantly quivered in fear of being suddenly lynched. It may be a U.S./U.K. gulf, cuz over here the two-womyn households uniformly hold down non-competitive mid-level government jobs and their avoidance of straights is gladly reciprocated.

    Replies: @Hare Krishna

  86. Whenever the judges decide that polygamy should be legal, they will cancel all the laws prohibiting it. In that decision, the electorate and legislatures will not have any say at all.

  87. Somebody wrote this with a straight face:

    While strength (and therefore inequality) among men was more valuable in early civilizations than it was for women, this doesn’t really explain why they are still less inclined to support equality than the opposite sex. “I don’t think there is enough basis for speculation,” Dr. Price adds, but “people who are more attractive have to do less … to make themselves valuable to other people [because] they’re already highly valued by virtue of their high attractiveness.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/12/science-says-hot-guys-are-a-holes.html

  88. @George
    @Steve Sailer

    The leech off the state aspect is interesting. Unlike the usual welfare cases it seems the FLDS polygamists many sons leave home early and get more or less menial jobs and work their way up. So in the FLDS case the argument that welfare is a societal investment in the future workforce that will pay for itself may actually be true. Needless to say it will never happen but a generational study of FLDS welfare dependency and criminality would be interesting.

    The leeching of the state accusation is also made against Orthodox Jews.

    Replies: @Brutusale

    It’s been a while since I read Jon Krakauer’s Under the Banner of Heaven, which touched on LDS polygamy in the Arizona Strip, but I seem to recall them being among the largest recipients of welfare for a white population.

    At least they’re not flamboyant about their leeching off the government like the Muslims in England.

  89. Legalizing polygamy would be a good idea. I mean, the generation formed by the roaring 1920’s was convinced that a real man needed more than one women. Even Protestant mandarins like Karl Barth or Paul Tillich had a mistress – it belonged to the “modern” lifestyle. Holding fast on monogamy lead only to a lot of hypocrisy.

    On the other hand, homosexuals may have been too smart by half. Their juridical argument was that marriage laws mustn’t make a difference between man and woman – so, now, Ms.Brown and her ilk can hardly argue at the courts that marriage with a man and marriage with a woman are essentially different and therefore not mutually exclusive.

  90. Off Topic but hey Steve, you’ve been quiet about the “hate crime murders” in North Carolina.

  91. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/20/brief-wondrous-life-of-oscar-wao-novel-21st-century-best-junot-diaz

    So swpl.

    White people like black nerds. Urkel Toms.

    Diaz, Gladwell, Obama., Zadie Smith.

    Mulattosis.

  92. “I am Anomalous says:

    What if they are…lesbian polyamorists?

    http://offbeatbride.com/2013/11/massachusetts-lesbian-poly-wedding

    Look at the beautiful, uh triple? How could one dare to deny them the right to legitimize their love in the eyes of the State?”

    Nothing goes with a virginal white wedding gown like a tattoo.

  93. @Melendwyr
    @syonredux


    Actually polygamy is dysgenic. It favors older males, and older fathers equal mutations.
     
    Mutations aren't in themselves dysgenic. Artificially preventing variation to be winnowed down by selection, however...

    Replies: @syonredux, @Lot, @Anonymous 1 am

    Mutations aren’t in themselves dysgenic.

    About 99.9% of the time they are dysgenic or have no effect at all.

  94. @dfordoom
    @Mr. Blank

    Polygamy, incest, bestiality, whatever. It will all be accepted.

    Incest is likely to be next on the agenda. They'll start with brother-sister incest since that's less threatening. Then slowly they'll introduce the idea of parent-child incest but only if the child is over the age of consent. Once that's accepted it won't be difficult to gradually extend the idea to children who are just a little under the age of consent. It will be done one step at a time.

    Once incest is normalised it becomes inevitable that paedophilia will be next.

    The big plus to incest and paedophilia is that they're incredibly destructive to what little remains of family life, and destroying the family is what it's all about.

    Replies: @Lot, @anon, @Priss Factor

    Incest is likely to be next on the agenda.

    If you really believe this, as opposed to saying this as a debating point, you may be suffering from Asperger’s. The ultralogical mind that knows so little about how normals think and emote, it can’t see any reason why acceptance of homosexuality would not lead to acceptance of every other alternative sexuality.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Lot

    The ultralogical mind that knows so little about how normals think and emote, it can’t see any reason why acceptance of homosexuality would not lead to acceptance of every other alternative sexuality.

    So you don't think that Hollywood filming Fifty Shades of Grey indicates that there is already a major push to "normalise" every other alternative sexuality?

    If the way ordinary people thought and emoted counted for anything homosexual marriage would never have gotten onto the political agenda. Ordinary people don't and never did support homosexual marriage. They have been intimidated into acquiescence. The arguments for incest will be the same arguments used to normalise homosexuality. "They can't help it, they were born that way." "No-on can help who they fall in love with."

    My prediction is that within a couple of years we'll see Hollyweird making sensitive sympathetic movies about incest.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  95. @whorefinder
    I really do think that, despite the commies' efforts, we'll see a backlash culture that will start clamping down on this nonsense.

    What will probably spark it will be a legal argument: either a return to natural law (long rejected since the 19th C.) or a careful, non-natural law argument that morality CAN and SHOULD be legislated.

    Why natural law? Simple: America's existence depends on it. The entire rationale for splitting with England---aka the Declaration of Independence---is based on natural law. In order to argue that any American law is valid, therefore, we need to acknowledge that it does not violate the natural law precepts in the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, if you say natural law doesn't matter, than our entire independence from Britain is invalid and every law passed by our governments (state and federal) is invalid as illegally made (because the British did not approve it, as we should legally be their subjects). Should some legal scholars turn our attention that way, a lot of lefties will have a hard time parsing natural law and lefty morality---which will provide the legal basis for challenging wacky retard marriage laws.

    In the vent the turn doesn't happen, some smart scholars can start pushing REALLY hard how the failure to legislate morality has hurt blacks the most. Just keep harping on the harm to BLACKs due to the Great Society and Divorce Culture, and the gays and feminists will lose any counter-arguments. Grab the liberal theology Catholics if you can to back it.

    Those are our two camel noses.

    Replies: @Melendwyr, @Lot

    Why natural law? Simple: America’s existence depends on it. The entire rationale for splitting with England—aka the Declaration of Independence—is based on natural law. In order to argue that any American law is valid, therefore, we need to acknowledge that it does not violate the natural law precepts in the Declaration of Independence.

    You’re confusing common law and natural law. One is part of our system of government, the other is a philosophical concept.

    It doesn’t matter if the American Revolution was justified by natural law at this point, because common law, which is actually the law of the United States, has a principle that simply accepts what’s old by virtue of being old.

    You can best see this with the excesses of the obviously immoral Normal Conquest and some of our ancestors’ extreme mistreatment of Indians. No matter how illegal or immoral these acts were, the passage of time has rendered their results legitimate. It doesn’t matter in the eyes of the common law if you prove beyond all doubt that my farm is Oklahoma belongs to me because my great grandfather stole it from your great grandfather. Concepts like laches, statute of limitations, and adverse possession render it mine just as much as if grandad bought it fairly.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @Lot


    You’re confusing common law and natural law. One is part of our system of government, the other is a philosophical concept.

    It doesn’t matter if the American Revolution was justified by natural law at this point, because common law, which is actually the law of the United States, has a principle that simply accepts what’s old by virtue of being old.

    You can best see this with the excesses of the obviously immoral Normal Conquest and some of our ancestors’ extreme mistreatment of Indians. No matter how illegal or immoral these acts were, the passage of time has rendered their results legitimate. It doesn’t matter in the eyes of the common law if you prove beyond all doubt that my farm is Oklahoma belongs to me because my great grandfather stole it from your great grandfather. Concepts like laches, statute of limitations, and adverse possession render it mine just as much as if grandad bought it fairly.
     
    If lefties really are going to use the argument that "the declaration of independence isn't valid, but the revolution is valid due to common law" then it's losing a lot of "all people created equal" in its arguments. If the declaration of independence no longer applies or is invalid, then a legal scholar (or someone working off a legal scholar) can build a movement against equality---precisely due to the left's own rejection.

    Remember that many revolutionaries were first lawyers or legal scholars. R0bspieree, John Jay, and John Adams come to mind. Once they ran into philosophical and practical limits for legal reform, they went to revolution.
  96. There are maybe three reasons legalized polygamy might become an issue: bisexuals who are members of a sexual threesome and immigrants who want the right to use chain migration to import all of their spouses. The third is if polygamy ever becomes popular among the billionaire set, and want the right to pass their wealth on to all their spouses without an inheritance tax. Given their ever-growing masses of wealth, I’m not so sure I’d write off that last possibility.

    But de facto polygamy is already here, and has been for a long time. De facto polygamists DO NOT want legal recognition, because it would actually hamper their ability to leech off the welfare system, the current rules of which heavily favor unwed mothers. Half of the people in the large polygamist community on the Utah/Arizona border are on food stamps and Medicaid.

  97. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    @unpc downunder


    Children and animals can’t provide consent.
     
    Animals don't consent to being slaughtered, eaten and worn, either. They might actually prefer being laid, to that.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    That’s actually a good point. I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense. I’m surprised zoophiles haven’t used that argument yet. It’s crazy enough to work.

    It doesn’t seem that far fetched that there might be a liberal regime in the future where meat consumption is illegal while sex and marriage with animals is not.

  98. The real estate lobby will keep polygamy illegal. Do any of you know what “intestate succession” and “clear title” mean? Until it is possible to answer the question of whether all spouses are married to each other or can you pick some? Could Ted be married to Mary and Susan while Susan is only married to Ted, but Mary is married to Ted and Jane? What happens if Ted and Mary buy a house, then marry Jane? Does Jane automatically have an interest in the house? If all three of them are married and one buys a house, do the others have an interest? How does community property work? Who has parental rights for all the kids?

    These issues are considerably larger than the facile arguments you have provided here.

  99. @slumber_j
    I really like that Portland pretty much copied its really great slogan "Keep Portland Weird" from Austin, TX. Except that in Austin they say, "Keep Austin Weird." So actually, it's different.

    Replies: @blank slate

    And the Seattle Seahawks outright stole their slogan “12th man” from the Texas A&M Aggies. What is it about the Pacific Northwest that lends itself to copying so much from other parts of the country?

  100. @Maj. Kong
    @Anonymous

    If it was eugenic, the world would be Muslim.

    Polygamy destroys incentives for the bottom 80% of males.

    Replies: @Anonymous 1 am

    If it was eugenic, the world would be Muslim.

    You incorrectly assume that polygyny is widespread in the Muslim world. It isn’t. In fact, it is fair to say it is more widely practiced–in the form of multiple sexual partners (de facto polygyny) or even multiple wives (serial polygyny)–in the West.

    Polygamy destroys incentives for the bottom 80% of males.

    Only if every single female is unequivocally reserved for only 20% of the males. Of course, that isn’t the case anywhere. (Even if it were, your statement incorrectly assumes that men can only motivated by actual real marriage prospects.)

    If anything, a degree of polygyny should create more incentives for the bottom 80% to work. Unlike in a purely monogamous society, where each man is in theory entitled to a wife quota, with polygyny a man faces a greater risk of being left out in the cold altogether. Just like in a capitalist or free market economic system, greater competition increases incentives to work.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Anonymous 1 am

    "If anything, a degree of polygyny should create more incentives for the bottom 80% to work. Unlike in a purely monogamous society, where each man is in theory entitled to a wife quota, with polygyny a man faces a greater risk of being left out in the cold altogether. Just like in a capitalist or free market economic system, greater competition increases incentives to work."

    Name a country where polygamy is widely practiced in which you'd like to live.

    Your theory makes perfect sense, other than the fact that in real life it hasn't turned out that way. Monogamous societies are far superior to polygamous ones in every respect.

    Replies: @Anonymous 1 am

  101. @27 year old
    @Anonymous

    how has "eugenic" polygamy worked out so far for the arab world, or for africa?

    what a joke...

    Replies: @Anonymous 1 am

    how has “eugenic” polygamy worked out so far for the arab world, or for africa?

    what a joke…

    Fact is, it isn’t widely practiced in those regions. Even if it were–and setting aside your controversial claim that people in the West are demonstrating greater success than those from the Arab world and Africe (have you compared TFRs, population growth, territorial expansion recently?), how would you account for other factors (other cultural and legal mores, natural resources, climate, genes)?

    You should ask horse and other animal breeders, female clients of sperm banks, mistresses the world over how polygyny is working out for them. Quite well, judging by the choices they make.

    The joke’s on you, Jack.

  102. @syonredux
    @Anonymous


    Polygamy is eugenic
     
    Actually polygamy is dysgenic. It favors older males, and older fathers equal mutations.

    You might also want to bear in mind that Black Africa has high rates of polygamy.Last time I checked, Black Africa is not exactly known for its human capital .....

    And let's not even bring up the damage to social cohesion caused by elite males hoarding women

    Replies: @Melendwyr, @Anonymous 1 am

    Actually polygamy is dysgenic. It favors older males, and older fathers equal mutations.

    Actually, it doesn’t. If favors superior males. It gives women more choice in who they mate with. If they happen to choose older men in a free market, that is as good an indicator as any of quality.

    Even if it did favor older men (and granting for the sake of argument your controversial claim that older fathers have greater net negative mutations in any really significant sense), an older man can be a proxy for some other important qualities: survival ability.

    Polygyny + Female Hypergamy = Eugenics

  103. @Melendwyr
    @syonredux


    Actually polygamy is dysgenic. It favors older males, and older fathers equal mutations.
     
    Mutations aren't in themselves dysgenic. Artificially preventing variation to be winnowed down by selection, however...

    Replies: @syonredux, @Lot, @Anonymous 1 am

    Mutations aren’t in themselves dysgenic. Artificially preventing variation to be winnowed down by selection, however…

    Monogamy actually represents the artificial (via human legal conventions) prevention of winnowing down by natural selection. Polygyny essentially just means a free sexual market. It gives women a greater variety in their choice of mate. It is more like capitalism, free trade. Monogamy is more akin to a quota system: affirmative action or communism.

    polygyny + female hypergamy = eugenics

    • Replies: @Glaivester
    @Anonymous 1 am

    Debating over whether polygamy (polygyny) is dysgenic or eugenic misses the point of what those words mean. Eugenics means that you organize society in order to get more of the qualities you want that society to have.

    Polygamous societies will select for different traits than monogamous ones. The issue here is not whether one or the other systems is dysgenic or eugenic on some platonic level, the issue is which system is more likely to select for traits that will sustain the type of society we want to have.

    Replies: @Tracy

  104. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom
    @Mr. Blank

    Polygamy, incest, bestiality, whatever. It will all be accepted.

    Incest is likely to be next on the agenda. They'll start with brother-sister incest since that's less threatening. Then slowly they'll introduce the idea of parent-child incest but only if the child is over the age of consent. Once that's accepted it won't be difficult to gradually extend the idea to children who are just a little under the age of consent. It will be done one step at a time.

    Once incest is normalised it becomes inevitable that paedophilia will be next.

    The big plus to incest and paedophilia is that they're incredibly destructive to what little remains of family life, and destroying the family is what it's all about.

    Replies: @Lot, @anon, @Priss Factor

    The big plus to incest and paedophilia is that they’re incredibly destructive to what little remains of family life, and destroying the family is what it’s all about.

    More precisely, it’s all about destroying the reproductive capacity of rival groups. The all out assault ranges from destroying the cultural structures that facilitate reproduction and survival (the family unit) to undermining such groups’ general solidarity and cohesion to diluting their gene pools.

  105. Today is Valentines Day – the BDSM holiday. So it’s good to consider some of the evidence from BDSM.

    BDSM is quite popular probably simply because it is Darwinian. Homosexuality is of course anti-Darwinian. Gays have fewer progeny whereas BDSMers tend to have more sex, more sexual intercourse, and presumably more offspring. That’s certainly true for chimpanzees. The females who are beaten more have more baby chimps.

    So why so many human women want to be beaten by a man, isn’t all that hard to understand. The girls who want to be whipped on Valentines Day in ancient Rome were doing it for fertility. The same is true today.

    There are thousands of ads on the web from women who want to be whipped by a man and be his slave. The interesting thing however is that despite their desire to be abused and humiliated the one thing they mostly reject is sharing their Master with another woman.

    Women it seems to me will put up with any sort of treatment from a man but not sharing. Of course men will tell their woman that they need and want another woman or two – but women in my experience tend to resist this arrangement.

    Most man want to have a harem of willing women but women don’t care much for the idea. So there is a lot less polyamory around than you would expect. I suspect that polygamy will always be a marginal pursuit.

    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    @Pat Boyle

    This hits on something I've observed over the years: That no matter how "liberated" women say they want to be romantically, they will not tolerate cheating by their man. It struck me as funny when a woman I knew, of down-the-line liberal credentials--who even defended Clinton throughout his scandal--dropped her husband without a further thought when he was caught in some pathetic midlife cheating. I've often wondered whether this was a sign that fidelity in monogamous marriage was a deeply rooted prejudice in the feminine soul, which might portend well for the survival of the institution, despite the present storms.

    But Sailer had written chapter and verse on this already. My observations were taken mostly from what he called "high-status" women, who have a strong sense of what they're "worth" and entitled to expect in a man. When they find a compatible high-status man, they expect absolute fidelity from him. But "low-status" women are unlikely to land a high-status mate except in the context of a harem, and they are theoretically more willing to enter into such arrangements to be in the orbit of a high-status mate. Steve's article on the subject is available online, I'm certain.

    One might think that since high-status women are among the drivers of marriage "reform," the idea of monogamy will prevail. But of course, the goal here is not the legalization of polygamy per se, but the "death by a thousand cuts" of the existing institution of marriage. I have no doubt that, like my acquaintance above, those drivers will be very solicitous of polygamy as a social norm for others, while jealously guarding their personal "right" to absolute fidelity in their mates.

  106. @WhatEvvs
    Hm. Interesting but I just don't think so.

    I nominate the breakaway Mormons who live in very rural parts of northern AZ and the wilder parts of Utah. I think it's only a matter of time when one brings a lawsuit and wins.

    I'm still waiting for you to comment on the CA law that allows multiple parents. Isn't this in effect a back-door to plural marriage?

    https://verdict.justia.com/2013/10/15/california-allows-children-two-legal-parents

    Replies: @syonredux, @Lugash, @anon

    Breakaway Mormons are conservative whites so will get not political traction.
    In CA we’ll see if the coastal elites can keep forcing legalized perversion upon the socially conservative voting (not behaving) NAM’s. They’ve gotten away with it since Prop 187 in 1994. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187

  107. @jimbojones
    @Mr. Blank

    People watch kiddie porn due to addiction and compulsion. It's a sad sickness. The ones who never touch kids but just watch the filth are particularly pathetic. Impossible not to pity them, imo.

    An intelligent person close to me recently made the following argument in favor of legalizing kiddie porn: 1) Watching (as opposed to making) kiddie porn harms no one (except, arguably, the viewer). 2) Behaviors that harm no one except the acting agent, and bring pleasure to that agent, should be legal. (I.e. pure utilitarianism.) 3) Therefore kiddie porn should be legal.

    Now, under pure utilitarianism (the one that goes after minimaxing the sum utility of individual agents and refuses to recognize the State or God as valid entities), one CAN NOT argue against my friend's argument. I also think that one can not argue against "gay marriage" under pure utilitarianism. I mean, under pure utilitarianism, the argument pro-SSM goes like this: 1) "Marriage" is a meaningless abstraction that mostly has to do with sex; 2) People should have all the sex they want as long as it is consentual and all parties involved have reached the age of consent; 3) Therefore SSM should be as legal as anything else (definitely including polygamous marriage; necrophiliac and bestial marriage might be a bridge too far though).
    Under hardcore utilitarianism, that argument is watertight.

    So one has to reject utilitarianism, or at least argue for a weaker version of it. IMO the strongest secular (and no other kind is permitted officially) argument against SSM is the argument from the public health/ the good of the State. The idea is that homosexuality is bad for the State and bad for public health (both well-established facts, by the way). And therefore SSM should be frowned upon as a promotion of homosexual behavior.
    But nowadays many put the individual far above the State. OK - so here the argument against SSM goes as follows: 1) Homosexual/trans-sexual/whatever behavior has been scientifically shown to be extremely harmful to the practicing agent; 2) Sane/healthy/adult people have the duty and obligation to prevent crazy/sick/minor people from harming themselves through addiction/stupidity/ignorance; 3) Therefore homosexuals, pedophiles, etc should be treated as sick wards of the public (which was the view until the '70s).
    Since (2) is enshrined in our society, people on the pro-SSM side usually blindly reject (1) without bothering to study the vast literature on the subject, literature that goes back to the ancient world.

    One wonders if child porno will be the trigger which forces the progressive folks to see their delusion and the reductio ad absurdum that has been hanging above their necks from the beginning.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @anon

    How about the children forced to act in the films? That’s why we warehouse those pervs.

  108. @Anonymous
    It's all about the Totem Pole, Steve.
    As ever in these situations, you must check each privileged group's standing against the hierarchy in the Totem Pole.
    Now let's see. Blacks trump everything, including women.
    So as much as 'feminists' might moan, if blacks want polygamy, they will get polygamy.

    Replies: @ben tillman, @anon

    Blacks don’t even want monogamy.

    Morality aside, no sane man would want more than 1 wife in this culture. Most of us can barely handle 1. Serial monogamy is the current train wreck of choice.

    • Replies: @Francis
    @anon

    We're already off the tracks...

  109. It’s almost funny that legalized polygamy is coming one way or another. Funny in a sad and sick way but still funny.

  110. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:
    @dfordoom
    @Mr. Blank

    Polygamy, incest, bestiality, whatever. It will all be accepted.

    Incest is likely to be next on the agenda. They'll start with brother-sister incest since that's less threatening. Then slowly they'll introduce the idea of parent-child incest but only if the child is over the age of consent. Once that's accepted it won't be difficult to gradually extend the idea to children who are just a little under the age of consent. It will be done one step at a time.

    Once incest is normalised it becomes inevitable that paedophilia will be next.

    The big plus to incest and paedophilia is that they're incredibly destructive to what little remains of family life, and destroying the family is what it's all about.

    Replies: @Lot, @anon, @Priss Factor

    “Incest is likely to be next on the agenda. They’ll start with brother-sister incest since that’s less threatening. ”

    Much of it seems to be ‘who, whom’. As Sailer said, polygamy via Mormons would be a hardsell since Morms are too white. But if polygamy were to be associated with three homos wanting to get married… well since homos are so holy….

    Anyway, I think homos and their allies will try to suppress polygamy and incest-marriage, at least for awhile. Why? It will undermine the ‘gay marriage’ agenda. Most Americans are still opposed to polygamy and appalled by ‘incest marriage’. If those are associated with ‘marriage equality’, people might start wondering about their support of ‘gay marriage’ as well. It will ‘ghetto-ize’ the cause of ‘gay marriage’ by negative association. Homos were able to get away with ‘gay marriage’ because, paradoxically enough, they cleaned up the image of homos from sexual deviancy to cultural exuberance. Indeed, some homos don’t even want the word ‘homosexuality’ used. They want people to regard homos as an ersatz ethnic group, like the Irish. The less we think about the actual physicality of homosexuality—pretty gross or ridiculous—and focus on its cultural manifestations(in pop and elite culture), the more we are likely to see homos as a respectable community like any other.

    But there’s no real culture around incest. People will just think of people of same family having sex together, and that will gross them out.
    There is a kind of culture around polygamy, as with Mormons, but it tends to be pre-modern, the sort of thing that ‘progressives’ fought against and discouraged in the Third World.

    Anyway, using the principles of ‘marriage equality’, incest marriage and polygamy should be allowed. If individuals should have the right to decide what is and isn’t marriage based on their ‘happiness’, anything goes.

    But politics doesn’t work that way. There is no consistency in politics. It’s about who has the power. If we use the principles of equal treatment of all groups, then US politics shouldn’t favor Jewish interests. But Jewish interests in domestic and foreign politics are favored. All US politicians pledge to AIPAC but no other lobby for a foreign nation. US forced sanctions on South Africa but sent tons of aid to Israel. Total hypocrisy, but it’s about who has the power.
    Power always beats principles. When Southern Whites had the power, they discriminated against blacks even as they pretended to uphold the US constitution.
    Or consider Affirmative Action. Conquistador Whites are treated as ‘people of color’ victims. And the descendants of slave sellers(African immigrants) benefit from Affirmative Action(and invoke Selma) no less than the descendants of slaves(native born Americans with roots in the South). How can this be? Because it’s about power, not principles. Principles bend to power and influence.
    Same in Europe. The very people who scream about the need for free speech in the wake of Charlie Hobo shootings say critics of Jewish power or homosexuals should be silenced and jailed.

    US attacks Russia for not having ‘gay marriage’ but gets along just fine with Saudi Arabia that has capital crime laws against homosexuality. Principles be damned. Those with power can do as they please. And most people, being hooked to pop culture and pop news, will just go with bread and circuses and junk news propaganda. Sheeple.

    Marriage, like Christianity, is dead. The elites are gonna push the filth of ‘gay marriage’ on all 50 states, and GOP, whores of globo-elites, are a bunch of toadies and running dogs.

    At this point, the ONLY thing left is for us to equate ‘marriage’ with homos. Let them have it.
    We need to develop a new concept and term that means sacred-bio-cultural union between Man and Woman according to the rules of nature and culture and morality and decency.
    That way, we can maintain the distinction between the real thing and the false thing.

    Proponents of ‘gay marriage’ say they are not anti-marriage. They just want marriage to be ‘inclusive’. But ‘gay marriage’ IS anti-marriage since it degrades the meaning of marriage. It’s like if you insist that voodoo be acknowledge as real medicine, you’re anti-medicine since you’re equating fake medicine with real medicine. It’s like equating creationism with the science of evolution. Even if a pro-creationist says he’s for the teaching of both instead of being anti-evolution, he’s actually anti-science since his position undermines the very meaning of science.
    Every word/meaning is exclusive. It has specific meanings, and it can’t include everything. Inclusiveness leads to what happened city colleges of NY when they began to accept just about anyone. They were no longer educational institutions since it allowed morons in who didn’t give a shit about education. When ‘marriage’ is broadened to mean just about anything, it loses its value.
    ‘Marriage inflation’ is like ‘grade inflation’. If an F is made equal to an A, then A has no value.

    Since marriage has been defamed and demeaned via association with homo deviancy, I say let them have it. Let ‘marriage’ itself mean ‘gay marriage’.

    As for the true bio-cultural-moral union of man and woman, we need a new word. We can work on that, and we can uphold this meaning for the community that will not collaborate with globo-elite world run by vile Wall Street, Hollywood, and Las Vegas scum.

    Christianity is dead. Any religion that not only fails to oppose ‘gay marriage’ but goes out of its way to embrace it is NOT a true religion. It’s craven and cowardly pile of puss.

    So, should we embrace Islam? No, it’s too nutty. But we can have Chrislam that takes some of the positive aspects of Christianity and fuses it with the militancy of Islam.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Priss Factor

    Christianity is dead. Any religion that not only fails to oppose ‘gay marriage’ but goes out of its way to embrace it is NOT a true religion. It’s craven and cowardly pile of puss.

    I agree totally, but what about the Orthodox Church in Russia today? Confident, very anti-PC, very traditionalist. Russia may well be the only major Christian nation left. Perhaps a few of the other eastern European countries as well but the EU will soon manage to stamp out true Christianity there. So only Russia will be left.

    It's no coincidence that Russia is the only Christian country with a real leader. A leader who happens to be a Christian.

    Replies: @HA, @Tracy

  111. By the same token, straight men aren’t going to be attracted to polygamy, by and large. Because unless you are a master manipulator most men would be worn out by the demands multiple wives would make on him (not sexual ones, of course.)

    The bigger problem straight men will have with polygamy is that unless there is a huge gender imbalance, most men are not going to be “benefiting” from it, and the more that some do, the more other men are going to find themselves mate-less. Only someone who thinks he is quite a catch can
    expect to benefit here. Unless of course, we are talking about polyandry as well as polygyny. But men don’t take too kindly to that, either, unless they don’t expect to be providing any support to any children their mates produce anyway.

  112. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:
    @SPMoore8
    Steve is right to point out that World War G was not about marriage. Like World War T, it is essentially an effort to normalize unusual sexual orientations. But I don't think either outcome is in the cards.

    The vast majority of people I know support gay marriage and they support it basically because they don't like to see gays crying on TV. Literally. So let them get married if it means so much to them. Same applies to transgenderism. Most people have a "Hey, you know what, go do your thing."

    Polygamy is different. The women I know who eyes well up with tears when they read some story on the internet about some gay guy who wasn't able to marry his boyfriend, and as a result went into a downward spiral of prostitution and drug abuse are the same women who find polygamy disgusting, exploitative, and cheapening of the marriage contract. And, while millenial women might be different, most women I know take marriage -- and the sexual exclusivity associated with it -- very seriously.

    By the same token, straight men aren't going to be attracted to polygamy, by and large. Because unless you are a master manipulator most men would be worn out by the demands multiple wives would make on him (not sexual ones, of course.)

    Therefore I don't think there will ever be a groundswell for legalized polygamy. On the other hand, de facto polygamy already exists, and so does serial monogamy, which, when you think of it, is something like polygamy, especially for the people who marry 5-6 times in ten years.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Priss Factor

    “By the same token, straight men aren’t going to be attracted to polygamy, by and large. ”

    It has nothing to do with that kind of attraction. In fact, most people aren’t attracted to homosexuality. I mean how many millennial males who support ‘gay marriage’ are attracted to homosexuality itself? They’d freak out if someone suggested they BEND OVER.

    They support ‘gay marriage’ because they see homos as some holy victim-victor group. People love victim-victors in America. If people are only victims, they are too sappy and pathetic. If they are only victors, they are overly ‘privileged’. But if you’re a victim-victor, it follows the American myth of the underdog reaching the top due to merit and overcoming tragedy.

    So, even if most men don’t wanna be polygamous, if the polygamous community is made ‘cool’ and ‘fashionable’, people may come to support it not for themselves but because the brand has a positive ring to it. It’s like most Americans don’t give a crap about Tibetan Buddhism per se but love supporting the Dalai Lama because he has the proper cachet as an international guru and star. It’s not about ‘what we want for us’ but ‘what we acknowledge as cool’.

  113. Has the Nation of Islam been mentioned yet? I could see them winning a religious freedom lawsuit.

    I think that the African immigrants have been mostly Christian until recently. The Muslim fraction is likely increasing. The details are probably out there somewhere.

    Don’t under estimate the renegade splinter Mormon groups as the lead in for legalized polygamy.

    They have resources because they pool them. So, they’re the money and brains of the operation, and they use African Muslims or vibrant bisexuals or some other less-discriminated-against proxy to send the case(s) through the courts.

    Mormon Fundamentalist money and planning, crypto-Mormon lawyers, and black African Muslim plaintiffs.

    I could see that.

    Polygamy is already here, and perfectly legal. As soon as you decriminalize adultery, polygamous marriages are entirely possible and cannot be prosecuted. Fundamentalist Mormons have been taking asvantage of this for decades. Anyone can do it.

    I read about at least one case where a married man was prosecuted for bigamy for paying to support his mistress (and, if memory serves, the children he had by her).

    Eventually it will be legalized because of common law. If it’s a fact in the community, then eventually judges will be forced to sanction it somehow. So it will happen because, say, some Somali woman shows up in court saying she’s married and demands community property. But it turns out she’s a second wife. What does the judge do? Throw her out with nothing? He’ll make the guy pay her some alimony (as is sanctioned in Muslim law), and it will set the precedent.

    That sounds plausible, too.

    Polygamy is eugenic. Therefore, it will not be promoted by the hostile elites. Their strategy is to promote dysgenic practices among potential rival groups such as people of Northern European descent. The objective is to weaken such groups’ gene pools.

    But libs are arrogant enough to try to ban it for Euros and allow it for blacks, which might wind up biting them in the ass eventually.

    I don’t think it will be Utah or Arizona. The Mormon power brokers(particularly in Utah) would love nothing more than to see the polygamist/FLDS drop into a black hole. Arizona’s state government really doesn’t like the shenanigans going on Colorado City.

    That’s because the Fundies make them look bad. In their hearts, a great many Mormons are probably sympathetic to polygamy. It’s practiced on the down low by a lot of Mormons in the ‘burbs, apparently, who aren’t part of any rival cults. The Mormon brass’ tune will change once polygamy’s about the Bravery of Love.

    Steve makes a good point. Since gays can get married, it seems that bisexuals will be able to get bisexual marriage whereby they can marry a man and a woman at the same time and institute polygamy by default.

    Or libs could draw the line and say bisexuals get to marry whomever they want, but only one whomever. They’re bisexuals, not polygysexuals.

    Liberalism 101: bestiality and pedophilia violate liberal autonomy theory. Liberalism is about permitting anything as long as its consensual. Children and animals can’t provide consent.

    “Children can’t provide consent” is AGEISM!!!

  114. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    Does real marriage discriminate against homosexuals? If so, why shouldn’t it?

    Doesn’t every word and concept discriminate against those that don’t belong?

    If marriage should be everything, why not say every friendship is a marriage? Why not say a bond between parents and children is marriage, incestuous or not?

    Why not say the relation between teacher and child is marriage?

    Every term discriminates against those that don’t belong. ‘Tall people’ discriminates against midgets.

    ‘Women’ discriminate against men, though trans-culture would have us believe that any man who puts on a wig and dress is a woman.

    ‘American’ discriminates against those without US citizenship. And everything has its rules and guidelines.

  115. I think if polygynist cultures ever discover sex selection, they’ll be really dangerous. Sex selection would let them achieve whatever sex ratios they prefer, and remove all talk of the danger their practices represent to the rest of society.

    • Replies: @JSM
    @Svigor

    Yep. Which is why I'm aghast at the Men's Rights Activists guys who salivate at the idea of polygyny. If sex selection can happen, so that many more girls than boys are conceived so that there are lots of women available to the few men around, just consider the lost benefits to all of society of those never-conceived boys' forgone drive, creativity and cognition?

    As it is, any polygynist society already could, should it want to, simply do amniocentesis at a few weeks' gestation on all new pregnancies and abort all the "excess" boy embryos.

    How can you pro-polygamy (i.e., polygyny) "MRAs" *possibly* view yourselves as advocating for men's rights if you support social ideas that prevent them from being born in the first place?

    Replies: @whorefinder

  116. @Anonymous
    @prosa123

    Right. Polygamy is not actually not very common in many Arab countries. Monogamy is the norm.

    In fact the US today may be effectively more polygamous if you consider that it's not uncommon for wealthy men to marry several times throughout their lives and that fornication and adultery are more common than in Arab countries.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Art Deco

    that it’s not uncommon for wealthy men to marry several times throughout their lives

    As a rule, the propensity to divorce is and has been for five decades or more inversely associated with social stratum (though that might not apply to every substratum). Small town patricians are not Hollywood.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Art Deco

    No, it's only inversely associated up to a certain point. After a certain threshold of wealth, the there's more of a direct association.

  117. Let’s see. We’ve already reached the point where two guys in the same infantry squad can marry. How long shall it be until the entire squad can marry?

  118. @WhatEvvs
    @syonredux

    Please do some more research and stop paying too much attention to Steve's veneration of whiteness as the repository of everything good and beautiful. There are more than a few "out there" dissident Mormons living it the wilder regions of Northern AZ/Utah who are spoiling for a fight.

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/237935982/Polygamy-ruling-in-Utah

    Did you read the Justia article on plural parents? After plural parents comes plural spouses.

    It will be both.

    Replies: @syonredux, @tomv

    Steve’s invocation of “whiteness, patriarchalism, Mormon Republicanism, fly-overness” is not meant to imply the “repository of everything good and beautiful,” but rather the opposite of that in the eye of the powers that be. That is why they would not win, even if they were spoiling for a fight.

    On this blog, it’s the smart-alecky commenters who are the densest.

  119. @anon
    @Anonymous

    Blacks don't even want monogamy.

    Morality aside, no sane man would want more than 1 wife in this culture. Most of us can barely handle 1. Serial monogamy is the current train wreck of choice.

    Replies: @Francis

    We’re already off the tracks…

  120. I can’t help but think that the reason some of you are panicking over the potential introduction of polygamy is that you – that is, social conservatives – don’t feel you can make a persuasive case for your preferred conventions. People have to be socially and legally constrained into them.

    If human preferences are opposed to the social models you’re advocating, and those models not only work as well as you believe they do but much better than others… won’t the long-term extinction of the people who reject those models be a good and desirable thing? We can tolerate alcohol because the societies of our distant ancestors were seriously damaged by the drug, and those most vulnerable to it ended up dying without issue. We value our current state, but don’t always recognize what it cost to get us here. I think a similar case could be made for marriage customs, only mostly a memetic evolution instead of genetic (although inborn tendencies might make a difference).

    Why exactly is it that you consider the destruction of the people who reject the correct ways to live (in your views) to be a bad thing?

  121. @Jean Cocteausten
    @tony_k

    Here is something I don't understand. Why is it not considered offensive to refer to TG 'women' as transgender? I thought the whole idea was that they are supposed to be real women, exactly the same as if they had two X chromosomes. The TG terminology calls attention to the fact that they're different from real women, which is one of those classic Steve Sailer "things you aren't supposed to notice."

    Replies: @Glaivester

    Here is something I don’t understand. Why is it not considered offensive to refer to TG ‘women’ as transgender? I thought the whole idea was that they are supposed to be real women, exactly the same as if they had two X chromosomes. The TG terminology calls attention to the fact that they’re different from real women,

    According to the latest terminology, “transgender” means that they identify as a different gender than the one they were originally “assigned.” This terminology is designed to obfuscate the fact that their gender does not match their sex organs, and to allow them to continue the fiction that sex organs are irrelevant to gender, as if the real issue were that the doctor checked the wrong box on the form.

  122. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    There’s an economic reason why polygamy has not and very likely won’t ever flourish in Western societies. It’s too expensive.

    Go back 10,000 years. A guy a is living in Europe in the shadow of retreating glaciers. Winter is long, cold, and hard. He’s married to multiple wives and has 30 kids. And he has to go out and hunt enough meat for them to eat every day. No way. He’d crack from the strain. It’s too expensive a Darwinian strategy for spreading your genes.

    Now flash forward to modern Western societies. Is there a single one that’s cheap to live in? High housing costs, transportation, food, clothing, etc., Imagine paying 60,000 per year per kid for 30 offspring to attend Harvard. Nope, Western societies are still too expensive.

    This is why I don’t worry about polygamy very much.

    Yes, polygamy has flourished where people are poor, but historically speaking it’s only flourished where it’s also cheap to live. You want enough food for a year? Pick if off a tree that has a fruiting season which continues for 12 solid months. That’s the reason why polygamy’s main nexus has been near the equator. Only that area provides enough food to support it.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Anon

    There’s an economic reason why polygamy has not and very likely won’t ever flourish in Western societies. It’s too expensive.

    It doesn't matter if only a handful of people embrace it. The objective is the demoralisation of society. Once marriage becomes a union between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and three men, a woman and a fence-post, then marriage has effectively been destroyed. It doesn't matter if they can only find one woman who wants to marry a fence-post. One is enough to make the point that marriage has become a joke, and that's the aim.

  123. @Pat Boyle
    Today is Valentines Day - the BDSM holiday. So it's good to consider some of the evidence from BDSM.

    BDSM is quite popular probably simply because it is Darwinian. Homosexuality is of course anti-Darwinian. Gays have fewer progeny whereas BDSMers tend to have more sex, more sexual intercourse, and presumably more offspring. That's certainly true for chimpanzees. The females who are beaten more have more baby chimps.

    So why so many human women want to be beaten by a man, isn't all that hard to understand. The girls who want to be whipped on Valentines Day in ancient Rome were doing it for fertility. The same is true today.

    There are thousands of ads on the web from women who want to be whipped by a man and be his slave. The interesting thing however is that despite their desire to be abused and humiliated the one thing they mostly reject is sharing their Master with another woman.

    Women it seems to me will put up with any sort of treatment from a man but not sharing. Of course men will tell their woman that they need and want another woman or two - but women in my experience tend to resist this arrangement.

    Most man want to have a harem of willing women but women don't care much for the idea. So there is a lot less polyamory around than you would expect. I suspect that polygamy will always be a marginal pursuit.

    Replies: @ChrisZ

    This hits on something I’ve observed over the years: That no matter how “liberated” women say they want to be romantically, they will not tolerate cheating by their man. It struck me as funny when a woman I knew, of down-the-line liberal credentials–who even defended Clinton throughout his scandal–dropped her husband without a further thought when he was caught in some pathetic midlife cheating. I’ve often wondered whether this was a sign that fidelity in monogamous marriage was a deeply rooted prejudice in the feminine soul, which might portend well for the survival of the institution, despite the present storms.

    But Sailer had written chapter and verse on this already. My observations were taken mostly from what he called “high-status” women, who have a strong sense of what they’re “worth” and entitled to expect in a man. When they find a compatible high-status man, they expect absolute fidelity from him. But “low-status” women are unlikely to land a high-status mate except in the context of a harem, and they are theoretically more willing to enter into such arrangements to be in the orbit of a high-status mate. Steve’s article on the subject is available online, I’m certain.

    One might think that since high-status women are among the drivers of marriage “reform,” the idea of monogamy will prevail. But of course, the goal here is not the legalization of polygamy per se, but the “death by a thousand cuts” of the existing institution of marriage. I have no doubt that, like my acquaintance above, those drivers will be very solicitous of polygamy as a social norm for others, while jealously guarding their personal “right” to absolute fidelity in their mates.

  124. Camel’s nose under the tent? Why bother, since polygamy is much further up the slippery slope than SSM. Polygamy was legal (and remains so) in many places in the world before SSM was whisper in Andrew Sullivan’s brain. And it has historical sanction in many of the world’s religions and cultures. As many have said here, it’s not coming–it’s already arrived.

  125. To be honest, polygyny is the only marriage arrangement mentioned in this article that is actually bad for society. The rest are more or less neutral. When I was a hardcore libertarian, I couldn’t conceive of an argument for gay marriage that would not also cover polygamy and vice versa. Now, I see them as very different on communitarian grounds.

    I believe polyandry in practice is always a reaction to severe poverty. I doubt very many Tibetans in Tibet would do that (or would ever have done it in the past) if they had any other options. Not much danger of that catching on as a big thing in the U.S. in the foreseeable future.

  126. @Melendwyr
    @whorefinder

    Don't be ridiculous. We didn't break with Britain because of legal arguments. We broke with Britain because we wanted to. Arguments are just pretexts, constructed after-the-fact; desire is the motivation.

    As has long been noted by historians on both sides on the Pond, the charges laid in the Declaration of Independence are exaggerated at best. Indeed, if the government of George III had been a bit more diplomatic, it's likely that we wouldn't have revolted.

    Replies: @whorefinder

    Don’t be ridiculous. We didn’t break with Britain because of legal arguments. We broke with Britain because we wanted to. Arguments are just pretexts, constructed after-the-fact; desire is the motivation.

    Yes, but people do get very worked up over justifying their acts. It’s one of the funny things about wars throughout history: everyone had some justification for why invasion was ok. That is to say that no one just invaded and claimed might made right—everyone threw in some “they stole the land first” or “they disrespected our king/gods” or “once upon a time their ancestors oppressed ours” excuse. Henry V (Shakespeare) spends a significant amount of time early on in the play justifying an invasion of France; Shakespeare was pointing out the difficulty in declaring that Henry V’s conquests were legitimate.

    In the legal realm in particular, whether a law can reference a founding document in its justification is still somewhat important (although the left has eroded that a lot). Laws of construction are based on underlying legal precepts, which come from the foundation of a nation. And the left is caught in a bind, legally: if it declares the principles of the Declaration to not be relevant, then declaring “all men are created equal” falls apart.

  127. @Lot
    @whorefinder


    Why natural law? Simple: America’s existence depends on it. The entire rationale for splitting with England—aka the Declaration of Independence—is based on natural law. In order to argue that any American law is valid, therefore, we need to acknowledge that it does not violate the natural law precepts in the Declaration of Independence.
     
    You're confusing common law and natural law. One is part of our system of government, the other is a philosophical concept.

    It doesn't matter if the American Revolution was justified by natural law at this point, because common law, which is actually the law of the United States, has a principle that simply accepts what's old by virtue of being old.

    You can best see this with the excesses of the obviously immoral Normal Conquest and some of our ancestors' extreme mistreatment of Indians. No matter how illegal or immoral these acts were, the passage of time has rendered their results legitimate. It doesn't matter in the eyes of the common law if you prove beyond all doubt that my farm is Oklahoma belongs to me because my great grandfather stole it from your great grandfather. Concepts like laches, statute of limitations, and adverse possession render it mine just as much as if grandad bought it fairly.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)

    Replies: @whorefinder

    You’re confusing common law and natural law. One is part of our system of government, the other is a philosophical concept.

    It doesn’t matter if the American Revolution was justified by natural law at this point, because common law, which is actually the law of the United States, has a principle that simply accepts what’s old by virtue of being old.

    You can best see this with the excesses of the obviously immoral Normal Conquest and some of our ancestors’ extreme mistreatment of Indians. No matter how illegal or immoral these acts were, the passage of time has rendered their results legitimate. It doesn’t matter in the eyes of the common law if you prove beyond all doubt that my farm is Oklahoma belongs to me because my great grandfather stole it from your great grandfather. Concepts like laches, statute of limitations, and adverse possession render it mine just as much as if grandad bought it fairly.

    If lefties really are going to use the argument that “the declaration of independence isn’t valid, but the revolution is valid due to common law” then it’s losing a lot of “all people created equal” in its arguments. If the declaration of independence no longer applies or is invalid, then a legal scholar (or someone working off a legal scholar) can build a movement against equality—precisely due to the left’s own rejection.

    Remember that many revolutionaries were first lawyers or legal scholars. R0bspieree, John Jay, and John Adams come to mind. Once they ran into philosophical and practical limits for legal reform, they went to revolution.

  128. @Art Deco
    @Anonymous

    that it’s not uncommon for wealthy men to marry several times throughout their lives

    As a rule, the propensity to divorce is and has been for five decades or more inversely associated with social stratum (though that might not apply to every substratum). Small town patricians are not Hollywood.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    No, it’s only inversely associated up to a certain point. After a certain threshold of wealth, the there’s more of a direct association.

  129. iSteveFan says:

    OT but definitely iSteve clickbait. Japan, immigration and apartheid all discussed in one article.

    Excerpt:

    In her column, Ms Sono said Japan’s chronic labour shortage was forcing the country to consider more immigrants, but added that after studying the situation in South Africa “for 30-40 years” such policies would only work if the country segregated races. “It is next to impossible to attain an understanding of foreigners by living alongside them,” she said.

    She said black Africans had ruined areas previously reserved for whites in the country and they would do the same thing to Japan if allowed to do so. According to the Japanese media, the author has never lived in South Africa.

  130. @Anonymous 1 am
    @Maj. Kong

    If it was eugenic, the world would be Muslim.

    You incorrectly assume that polygyny is widespread in the Muslim world. It isn't. In fact, it is fair to say it is more widely practiced--in the form of multiple sexual partners (de facto polygyny) or even multiple wives (serial polygyny)--in the West.

    Polygamy destroys incentives for the bottom 80% of males.

    Only if every single female is unequivocally reserved for only 20% of the males. Of course, that isn't the case anywhere. (Even if it were, your statement incorrectly assumes that men can only motivated by actual real marriage prospects.)

    If anything, a degree of polygyny should create more incentives for the bottom 80% to work. Unlike in a purely monogamous society, where each man is in theory entitled to a wife quota, with polygyny a man faces a greater risk of being left out in the cold altogether. Just like in a capitalist or free market economic system, greater competition increases incentives to work.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    “If anything, a degree of polygyny should create more incentives for the bottom 80% to work. Unlike in a purely monogamous society, where each man is in theory entitled to a wife quota, with polygyny a man faces a greater risk of being left out in the cold altogether. Just like in a capitalist or free market economic system, greater competition increases incentives to work.”

    Name a country where polygamy is widely practiced in which you’d like to live.

    Your theory makes perfect sense, other than the fact that in real life it hasn’t turned out that way. Monogamous societies are far superior to polygamous ones in every respect.

    • Replies: @Anonymous 1 am
    @Wilkey

    Name a country where polygamy is widely practiced in which you’d like to live.

    Your theory makes perfect sense, other than the fact that in real life it hasn’t turned out that way. Monogamous societies are far superior to polygamous ones in every respect.


    There's not a more polygynous country on the planet than the US of A. That's probably made true solely by count of the multiple marriages and divorces per (higher status) male, and the serial long term relationships. Add to that: (1) the general promiscuity among people in their teens, twenties, and thirties--the male counterpart of which is disproportionately from higher status males; (2) the cheating and cuckolding; and (3) the worship by females on a mass scale of celebrities and sports stars.

  131. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @ChrisZ
    This may be a rarified example, but I recall that the comic book writer Alan Moore--generally regarded as the greatest such writer of the 1980s and 90s--was during his heyday involved in a polyamorous relationship involving a legal wife and a live-in mutual "lover." It was apparently public knowledge at the time, at least among his colleagues, although not to us innocent kids who were only interested in heroes and monsters. I was shocked when I learned, relatively recently, that the clever and imaginative stories of my youth had been the fruit of a perverse personal life.

    I note his case because it shows how polyamory has been effectively (albeit quietly) tolerated for decades now, in the most anodyne settings. At the time, Moore was writing stories in the Superman and Green Lantern magazines (nothing remotely perverse about them in those early days, BTW, although later his obsessions would turn up in his own characters); but no one was clamoring for him to resign for immorality. It seems to me that this kind of set-up--a married couple plus one--is the way polygamy will gain legal status. Legal status would merely be "recognizing a reality that already exists and is tolerated"--so the argument would go.

    Incidentally, the joke was on Moore in the end. His legal wife and their "lover" conspired against him, moved out, then sued him for the fortune he had made through his writing in the previous two decades. So there's justice for you!

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Scotty G. Vito

    This is the most plausible way I have heard yet that polygamous marriages will be legitimized. I have my own opinions on how eventually incest and some pedophilia will be justified. I don’t think it’s right around the corner, but the groundwork is being laid by people that just “want to be tolerant.”

    Incidentally, Alan Moore has more or less retired, intelligently I think, because he saw the writing on the wall regarding creativity. More and more attacks were being leveled at him that his work was misogynistic, to the point that people were bringing it up wherever he went. He defended himself vigorously a few times but found out that was just digging yourself deeper. Everyone’s loss.

  132. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @ChrisZ
    This may be a rarified example, but I recall that the comic book writer Alan Moore--generally regarded as the greatest such writer of the 1980s and 90s--was during his heyday involved in a polyamorous relationship involving a legal wife and a live-in mutual "lover." It was apparently public knowledge at the time, at least among his colleagues, although not to us innocent kids who were only interested in heroes and monsters. I was shocked when I learned, relatively recently, that the clever and imaginative stories of my youth had been the fruit of a perverse personal life.

    I note his case because it shows how polyamory has been effectively (albeit quietly) tolerated for decades now, in the most anodyne settings. At the time, Moore was writing stories in the Superman and Green Lantern magazines (nothing remotely perverse about them in those early days, BTW, although later his obsessions would turn up in his own characters); but no one was clamoring for him to resign for immorality. It seems to me that this kind of set-up--a married couple plus one--is the way polygamy will gain legal status. Legal status would merely be "recognizing a reality that already exists and is tolerated"--so the argument would go.

    Incidentally, the joke was on Moore in the end. His legal wife and their "lover" conspired against him, moved out, then sued him for the fortune he had made through his writing in the previous two decades. So there's justice for you!

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Scotty G. Vito

    This is the most plausible way I have heard yet that polygamous marriages will be legitimized. I have my own opinions on how eventually incest and some pedophilia will be justified. I don’t think it’s right around the corner, but the groundwork is being laid by people that just “want to be tolerant.”

    Incidentally, Alan Moore has more or less retired, intelligently I think, because he saw the writing on the wall regarding creativity. More and more attacks were being leveled at him that his work was misogynistic, to the point that people were bringing it up wherever he went. He defended himself vigorously a few times but found out that was just digging yourself deeper. Everyone’s loss.

  133. Reading your article, I am wondering where the boundary of sexual behavior is? It would seem statutory rape, while based on an arbitrary non biblical age, is being vigorously enforced. I think bestiality is still enforced. I cannot imagine anyone openly admitting to bestiality. Rape is vigorously enforced and its definition is being constantly expanded, for example the Julian Assange affair. Prostitution seems to be transitioning to being acceptable. But what are the current boundaries?

  134. @Lot
    @dfordoom


    Incest is likely to be next on the agenda.
     
    If you really believe this, as opposed to saying this as a debating point, you may be suffering from Asperger's. The ultralogical mind that knows so little about how normals think and emote, it can't see any reason why acceptance of homosexuality would not lead to acceptance of every other alternative sexuality.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The ultralogical mind that knows so little about how normals think and emote, it can’t see any reason why acceptance of homosexuality would not lead to acceptance of every other alternative sexuality.

    So you don’t think that Hollywood filming Fifty Shades of Grey indicates that there is already a major push to “normalise” every other alternative sexuality?

    If the way ordinary people thought and emoted counted for anything homosexual marriage would never have gotten onto the political agenda. Ordinary people don’t and never did support homosexual marriage. They have been intimidated into acquiescence. The arguments for incest will be the same arguments used to normalise homosexuality. “They can’t help it, they were born that way.” “No-on can help who they fall in love with.”

    My prediction is that within a couple of years we’ll see Hollyweird making sensitive sympathetic movies about incest.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @dfordoom


    The arguments for incest will be the same arguments used to normalise homosexuality.
     
    "Incest" may already be legal between members of the same sex. Read your state's statutes.

    Iowa's defines incest as a "sex act". That requires both sexes.

    Wisconsin's and Minnesota's both use the term "sexual intercourse". Wisconsin makes an effort to redefine--i.e., stretch beyond reason--sexual intercourse to include an explicit Cantonese menu of operations that don't need both sexes.

    Minnesota does not. Presumably, same-sex incest is not illegal in Minnesota due to its impossibility.

    Then there's "consanguinity", or the application of incest taboos to marriage. Traditionally, these have been sex-specific: "A man may not marry his [enter female relative here-- oops, I mean don't enter her, anywhere.]"

    Iowa got same-sex marriage via court order. The legislature did not rewrite the law. Therefore, nothing stops a man from marrying his brother in Iowa.

  135. There is also the Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice scenario where the government legalizes a form of hippie marriage that, to use a chemistry analogy, is less like a covalent bond between two atoms and more like a dimer.

  136. @Anonymous 1 am
    @Melendwyr

    Mutations aren’t in themselves dysgenic. Artificially preventing variation to be winnowed down by selection, however…

    Monogamy actually represents the artificial (via human legal conventions) prevention of winnowing down by natural selection. Polygyny essentially just means a free sexual market. It gives women a greater variety in their choice of mate. It is more like capitalism, free trade. Monogamy is more akin to a quota system: affirmative action or communism.

    polygyny + female hypergamy = eugenics

    Replies: @Glaivester

    Debating over whether polygamy (polygyny) is dysgenic or eugenic misses the point of what those words mean. Eugenics means that you organize society in order to get more of the qualities you want that society to have.

    Polygamous societies will select for different traits than monogamous ones. The issue here is not whether one or the other systems is dysgenic or eugenic on some platonic level, the issue is which system is more likely to select for traits that will sustain the type of society we want to have.

    • Replies: @Tracy
    @Glaivester


    The issue here is not whether one or the other systems is dysgenic or eugenic on some platonic level, the issue is which system is more likely to select for traits that will sustain the type of society we want to have.
     
    It might be seen that way for folks who don't have a transcendent concept of the True, Good, and Beautiful. IOW, you seem to be assuming that "the Platonic level" doesn't exist or doesn't matter. The lack of a common view of all that is the single worst problem plaguing the West. It's at the bottom of everything.
  137. OT, but here’s a great article in the NYT that demonstrates, in part, why dynasties survive – in this case the Bush Dynasty.

    It reveals much of the official correspondence Jeb Bush had with his father for the 12 years that daddy was POTUS and VPOTUS, including all of the favors he asked for on behalf of “friends” and businesses. In other words, Jeb Bush has spent the last 34 years building up his stable of campaign donors, using daddy’s help. Try competing with a guy whose close relatives have been vice president or president of the US for 20 of the last 34 years.

    And all this article can reveal is the official correspondence. It does not and cannot reveal the things discussed over the phone or at family gatherings.

  138. @Svigor
    I think if polygynist cultures ever discover sex selection, they'll be really dangerous. Sex selection would let them achieve whatever sex ratios they prefer, and remove all talk of the danger their practices represent to the rest of society.

    Replies: @JSM

    Yep. Which is why I’m aghast at the Men’s Rights Activists guys who salivate at the idea of polygyny. If sex selection can happen, so that many more girls than boys are conceived so that there are lots of women available to the few men around, just consider the lost benefits to all of society of those never-conceived boys’ forgone drive, creativity and cognition?

    As it is, any polygynist society already could, should it want to, simply do amniocentesis at a few weeks’ gestation on all new pregnancies and abort all the “excess” boy embryos.

    How can you pro-polygamy (i.e., polygyny) “MRAs” *possibly* view yourselves as advocating for men’s rights if you support social ideas that prevent them from being born in the first place?

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @JSM


    . Which is why I’m aghast at the Men’s Rights Activists guys who salivate at the idea of polygyny.
     
    Jigga wha?

    I'm quite active in the manosphere and read most if not all of the major names daily, and I've never come across this. All MRAs/Manospherians/PUAs are quite aware that women are hypergamous (i.e. constantly chasing after the the top 20% of males and ignoring the other 80%) and thus how polgyny would just open the door to even more hypergamous behavior by women--thus leaving most men in the dust. They even point out the instability of such societies when it is discussed.

    Most of the Manosphereans lament that today every man can't be guaranteed a chaste wife for life, and only turn to game as a consolation prize---"if I can't have a white picket fence, at least I can fool these sluts and get some."

    But polgyny? Nope, not MRA. Don't know where you're getting that from.

    Replies: @The most deplorable one

  139. I lot of the posts in this thread prove my earlier point that nerd* sexuality is a powerful thing. For nerds, everything is a is a technical problem, including human sexuality. If polygamy “works” according to nerd criteria then it is good. If transgenderism, bestiality or paedophilia are shown to “work’ then they should be legalized and promoted too. It’s all just a matter of effective or ineffective techniques for reproducing humans and getting pleasure. When nerds decide polygamy works for them then we’ll get polygamy.

    * A “nerd” being a degenerated, lumpen-technocrat.

  140. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    pre. Polyamorists come across too much like the creepy, middle-aged swingers from late night HBO reality shows. They also set off a lot of feminist alarms by making women think the movement is basically guys pushing their partners into situations that make them uncomfortable (like Barack Obama’s first Senate opponent Jack Ryan taking his Star Trek actress wife to sex clubs.)

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @Anonymous

    Yes but the evidence is overwhelming that people can be counted on to accept what would have been too creepy for them just a year or so earlier. I think a lot of people around now would grudgingly fake being bisexual if that's what it took to show you're progressive and a good team player. If we were told tomorrow that Mark Zuckerberg, Terry Bradshaw or Warren Buffet had all come out as a polyamorous bisexuals I wouldn't be amazed. Anything is possible now days.

  141. ~~~~~~▄▐▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▌
    ~~~▄▄██▌▌ Cargo:
    ▄▄▄▌▐██▌.▌ Destination:
    ███████▌.▌▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▌
    ▀(O)▀▀▀▀▀▀▀(O)(O)▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀(@)▀▀

  142. @Priss Factor
    @dfordoom

    "Incest is likely to be next on the agenda. They’ll start with brother-sister incest since that’s less threatening. "

    Much of it seems to be 'who, whom'. As Sailer said, polygamy via Mormons would be a hardsell since Morms are too white. But if polygamy were to be associated with three homos wanting to get married... well since homos are so holy....

    Anyway, I think homos and their allies will try to suppress polygamy and incest-marriage, at least for awhile. Why? It will undermine the 'gay marriage' agenda. Most Americans are still opposed to polygamy and appalled by 'incest marriage'. If those are associated with 'marriage equality', people might start wondering about their support of 'gay marriage' as well. It will 'ghetto-ize' the cause of 'gay marriage' by negative association. Homos were able to get away with 'gay marriage' because, paradoxically enough, they cleaned up the image of homos from sexual deviancy to cultural exuberance. Indeed, some homos don't even want the word 'homosexuality' used. They want people to regard homos as an ersatz ethnic group, like the Irish. The less we think about the actual physicality of homosexuality---pretty gross or ridiculous---and focus on its cultural manifestations(in pop and elite culture), the more we are likely to see homos as a respectable community like any other.

    But there's no real culture around incest. People will just think of people of same family having sex together, and that will gross them out.
    There is a kind of culture around polygamy, as with Mormons, but it tends to be pre-modern, the sort of thing that 'progressives' fought against and discouraged in the Third World.

    Anyway, using the principles of 'marriage equality', incest marriage and polygamy should be allowed. If individuals should have the right to decide what is and isn't marriage based on their 'happiness', anything goes.

    But politics doesn't work that way. There is no consistency in politics. It's about who has the power. If we use the principles of equal treatment of all groups, then US politics shouldn't favor Jewish interests. But Jewish interests in domestic and foreign politics are favored. All US politicians pledge to AIPAC but no other lobby for a foreign nation. US forced sanctions on South Africa but sent tons of aid to Israel. Total hypocrisy, but it's about who has the power.
    Power always beats principles. When Southern Whites had the power, they discriminated against blacks even as they pretended to uphold the US constitution.
    Or consider Affirmative Action. Conquistador Whites are treated as 'people of color' victims. And the descendants of slave sellers(African immigrants) benefit from Affirmative Action(and invoke Selma) no less than the descendants of slaves(native born Americans with roots in the South). How can this be? Because it's about power, not principles. Principles bend to power and influence.
    Same in Europe. The very people who scream about the need for free speech in the wake of Charlie Hobo shootings say critics of Jewish power or homosexuals should be silenced and jailed.

    US attacks Russia for not having 'gay marriage' but gets along just fine with Saudi Arabia that has capital crime laws against homosexuality. Principles be damned. Those with power can do as they please. And most people, being hooked to pop culture and pop news, will just go with bread and circuses and junk news propaganda. Sheeple.

    Marriage, like Christianity, is dead. The elites are gonna push the filth of 'gay marriage' on all 50 states, and GOP, whores of globo-elites, are a bunch of toadies and running dogs.

    At this point, the ONLY thing left is for us to equate 'marriage' with homos. Let them have it.
    We need to develop a new concept and term that means sacred-bio-cultural union between Man and Woman according to the rules of nature and culture and morality and decency.
    That way, we can maintain the distinction between the real thing and the false thing.

    Proponents of 'gay marriage' say they are not anti-marriage. They just want marriage to be 'inclusive'. But 'gay marriage' IS anti-marriage since it degrades the meaning of marriage. It's like if you insist that voodoo be acknowledge as real medicine, you're anti-medicine since you're equating fake medicine with real medicine. It's like equating creationism with the science of evolution. Even if a pro-creationist says he's for the teaching of both instead of being anti-evolution, he's actually anti-science since his position undermines the very meaning of science.
    Every word/meaning is exclusive. It has specific meanings, and it can't include everything. Inclusiveness leads to what happened city colleges of NY when they began to accept just about anyone. They were no longer educational institutions since it allowed morons in who didn't give a shit about education. When 'marriage' is broadened to mean just about anything, it loses its value.
    'Marriage inflation' is like 'grade inflation'. If an F is made equal to an A, then A has no value.

    Since marriage has been defamed and demeaned via association with homo deviancy, I say let them have it. Let 'marriage' itself mean 'gay marriage'.

    As for the true bio-cultural-moral union of man and woman, we need a new word. We can work on that, and we can uphold this meaning for the community that will not collaborate with globo-elite world run by vile Wall Street, Hollywood, and Las Vegas scum.

    Christianity is dead. Any religion that not only fails to oppose 'gay marriage' but goes out of its way to embrace it is NOT a true religion. It's craven and cowardly pile of puss.

    So, should we embrace Islam? No, it's too nutty. But we can have Chrislam that takes some of the positive aspects of Christianity and fuses it with the militancy of Islam.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Christianity is dead. Any religion that not only fails to oppose ‘gay marriage’ but goes out of its way to embrace it is NOT a true religion. It’s craven and cowardly pile of puss.

    I agree totally, but what about the Orthodox Church in Russia today? Confident, very anti-PC, very traditionalist. Russia may well be the only major Christian nation left. Perhaps a few of the other eastern European countries as well but the EU will soon manage to stamp out true Christianity there. So only Russia will be left.

    It’s no coincidence that Russia is the only Christian country with a real leader. A leader who happens to be a Christian.

    • Replies: @HA
    @dfordoom

    "It’s no coincidence that Russia is the only Christian country with a real leader. A leader who happens to be a Christian."

    Was Putin's mistress also a Christian? You think maybe he hooked up with her because his wife wasn't Christian enough?

    I bet that was it.

    , @Tracy
    @dfordoom


    @K. Arujo

    Christianity is dead. Any religion that not only fails to oppose ‘gay marriage’ but goes out of its way to embrace it is NOT a true religion. It’s craven and cowardly pile of puss.
     
    The Catholic Church obviously opposes gay "marriage," and Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the only two strains of Christianity that have any sort of claim to be the real deal. Religions that sprang up because Kings wanted divorces, monks wanted to get laid, etc., can't really be taken seriously, if you ask me.

    Replies: @Melendwyr

  143. @Anonymous
    pre. Polyamorists come across too much like the creepy, middle-aged swingers from late night HBO reality shows. They also set off a lot of feminist alarms by making women think the movement is basically guys pushing their partners into situations that make them uncomfortable (like Barack Obama’s first Senate opponent Jack Ryan taking his Star Trek actress wife to sex clubs.)

    Replies: @Cagey Beast

    Yes but the evidence is overwhelming that people can be counted on to accept what would have been too creepy for them just a year or so earlier. I think a lot of people around now would grudgingly fake being bisexual if that’s what it took to show you’re progressive and a good team player. If we were told tomorrow that Mark Zuckerberg, Terry Bradshaw or Warren Buffet had all come out as a polyamorous bisexuals I wouldn’t be amazed. Anything is possible now days.

  144. @Anon
    There's an economic reason why polygamy has not and very likely won't ever flourish in Western societies. It's too expensive.

    Go back 10,000 years. A guy a is living in Europe in the shadow of retreating glaciers. Winter is long, cold, and hard. He's married to multiple wives and has 30 kids. And he has to go out and hunt enough meat for them to eat every day. No way. He'd crack from the strain. It's too expensive a Darwinian strategy for spreading your genes.

    Now flash forward to modern Western societies. Is there a single one that's cheap to live in? High housing costs, transportation, food, clothing, etc., Imagine paying 60,000 per year per kid for 30 offspring to attend Harvard. Nope, Western societies are still too expensive.

    This is why I don't worry about polygamy very much.

    Yes, polygamy has flourished where people are poor, but historically speaking it's only flourished where it's also cheap to live. You want enough food for a year? Pick if off a tree that has a fruiting season which continues for 12 solid months. That's the reason why polygamy's main nexus has been near the equator. Only that area provides enough food to support it.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    There’s an economic reason why polygamy has not and very likely won’t ever flourish in Western societies. It’s too expensive.

    It doesn’t matter if only a handful of people embrace it. The objective is the demoralisation of society. Once marriage becomes a union between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and three men, a woman and a fence-post, then marriage has effectively been destroyed. It doesn’t matter if they can only find one woman who wants to marry a fence-post. One is enough to make the point that marriage has become a joke, and that’s the aim.

  145. @Wilkey
    @Anonymous 1 am

    "If anything, a degree of polygyny should create more incentives for the bottom 80% to work. Unlike in a purely monogamous society, where each man is in theory entitled to a wife quota, with polygyny a man faces a greater risk of being left out in the cold altogether. Just like in a capitalist or free market economic system, greater competition increases incentives to work."

    Name a country where polygamy is widely practiced in which you'd like to live.

    Your theory makes perfect sense, other than the fact that in real life it hasn't turned out that way. Monogamous societies are far superior to polygamous ones in every respect.

    Replies: @Anonymous 1 am

    Name a country where polygamy is widely practiced in which you’d like to live.

    Your theory makes perfect sense, other than the fact that in real life it hasn’t turned out that way. Monogamous societies are far superior to polygamous ones in every respect.

    There’s not a more polygynous country on the planet than the US of A. That’s probably made true solely by count of the multiple marriages and divorces per (higher status) male, and the serial long term relationships. Add to that: (1) the general promiscuity among people in their teens, twenties, and thirties–the male counterpart of which is disproportionately from higher status males; (2) the cheating and cuckolding; and (3) the worship by females on a mass scale of celebrities and sports stars.

  146. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @syonredux
    @WhatEvvs


    Please do some more research and stop paying too much attention to Steve’s veneration of whiteness as the repository of everything good and beautiful.
     
    When has Steve ever said that "whiteness [is] the repository of everything good and beautiful," dear fellow? It seems to me that he comments quite often on White venality.

    There are more than a few “out there” dissident Mormons living it the wilder regions of Northern AZ/Utah who are spoiling for a fight.
     
    Of course there are, dear fellow.But the question that Steve raised involved what kind of polygamist would be most worthy of receiving the imprimatur of the White Liberal Elite. Fundamentalist Mormon nutjobs? Probably not.

    Replies: @Bill P, @WhatEvvs

    Of course there are, dear fellow.But the question that Steve raised involved what kind of polygamist would be most worthy of receiving the imprimatur of the White Liberal Elite. Fundamentalist Mormon nutjobs? Probably not.

    That’s not what he wrote. He wrote:

    Various vectors have been proposed for how polygamy would become lawful in America:

    And gave ludicrous, speculative examples. Really, the idea that polygamy introduced by African immigrants (who are not all Muslim, by the way) is going to be the “vector” to make polygamy legal, or (in your interpretation) acceptance by the elites, is beyond silly. The Yankee Protestant elites has been the group most resistant to any influence by immigrants. Their downfall is purely idiopathic, unless you take your marching orders from the insane Kevin MacDonald. Which I think you do.

    Anyway, I gave an actual example from an actual sitting judge. A legal decision rendered by a Republican judge in….Utah. (Where else?)

    And also, an article in Justia about a law passed in California.

    Since most of the people here don’t like to read dull things like legal decisions and laws, preferring to dwell on the mossy interiors of their paranoid little brains, it went nowhere. I realize that reading a legal decision isn’t as colorful as reading a Conan the Barbarian story, but if you want to argue about marriage and family law, you ought to get into the habit.

  147. @shk12344
    I think the end to ban on polygamy is all but certain. This is an article dated August 29, 2014 from International Business Times via www.archive.today

    https://archive.today/lhKSn

    "Part of Utah’s ban on polygamy was struck down Wednesday after a federal judge ruled that the law violated both the First and Fourteenth amendments.

    While the ruling does not allow a Utah resident to legally marry multiple people, an individual may marry one person and live with others they consider to be spouses,

    Replies: @Mike Street Station

    A Utah judge struck down the state ban on polygamy the same week that a North Dakota judge allowed a man in a same sex marriage to also marry a woman.

    So yes it’s coming, and by the time it gets here, we’ll barely notice since the changes are coming so fast and furious.

  148. No one seems to have mentioned the kind of polyamory that often gets trotted out on places like Salon or Slate – typically a fairly unattractive woman with a sad beta male partner whom she services just barely enough sexually to keep him around to do the housework and pay the bills while she enjoys romance novel type sex with a more alpha type who probably holds her in contempt. In the articles the writers typically describe these relationships as progressive polyamorous utopias, but if you read between the lines I suspect my description is more accurate.

  149. @Anonymous
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    Lesbians aren't gay - haven't you read the seminal works of Mr Steven Sailer?

    Replies: @Anonymous Nephew

    Btw, what’s happened to the iSteve.com domain ?

    The top google uk result for “why lesbians aren’t gay” is

    http://www.isteve.com/lesvsgay.htm

    But clicking on the Google result redirects to some Louis Vuitton knockoff shop.

    And clicking on the link in the Unz archive version, I see the page isn’t the knockoff shop, but now begins

    “louis vuitton tompkins square brown vernis leather hand bag,louis vuitton ladies watches”

    Presumably the new site owners have got Google to redirect to their “real” site.

    Why didn’t you sell iSteve.com to them, if you were going to let it go ? Those Google rankings are gold dust!

  150. @JSM
    @Svigor

    Yep. Which is why I'm aghast at the Men's Rights Activists guys who salivate at the idea of polygyny. If sex selection can happen, so that many more girls than boys are conceived so that there are lots of women available to the few men around, just consider the lost benefits to all of society of those never-conceived boys' forgone drive, creativity and cognition?

    As it is, any polygynist society already could, should it want to, simply do amniocentesis at a few weeks' gestation on all new pregnancies and abort all the "excess" boy embryos.

    How can you pro-polygamy (i.e., polygyny) "MRAs" *possibly* view yourselves as advocating for men's rights if you support social ideas that prevent them from being born in the first place?

    Replies: @whorefinder

    . Which is why I’m aghast at the Men’s Rights Activists guys who salivate at the idea of polygyny.

    Jigga wha?

    I’m quite active in the manosphere and read most if not all of the major names daily, and I’ve never come across this. All MRAs/Manospherians/PUAs are quite aware that women are hypergamous (i.e. constantly chasing after the the top 20% of males and ignoring the other 80%) and thus how polgyny would just open the door to even more hypergamous behavior by women–thus leaving most men in the dust. They even point out the instability of such societies when it is discussed.

    Most of the Manosphereans lament that today every man can’t be guaranteed a chaste wife for life, and only turn to game as a consolation prize—“if I can’t have a white picket fence, at least I can fool these sluts and get some.”

    But polgyny? Nope, not MRA. Don’t know where you’re getting that from.

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    @whorefinder


    All MRAs/Manospherians/PUAs are quite aware that women are hypergamous (i.e. constantly chasing after the the top 20% of males and ignoring the other 80%) and thus how polgyny would just open the door to even more hypergamous behavior by women–thus leaving most men in the dust. They even point out the instability of such societies when it is discussed.
     
    Yes, every now and then, especially when too many non-elite males cannot find wives, elite males need to feel the pain or start a war (to kill off some of the non-elite males.)
  151. @dfordoom
    @Priss Factor

    Christianity is dead. Any religion that not only fails to oppose ‘gay marriage’ but goes out of its way to embrace it is NOT a true religion. It’s craven and cowardly pile of puss.

    I agree totally, but what about the Orthodox Church in Russia today? Confident, very anti-PC, very traditionalist. Russia may well be the only major Christian nation left. Perhaps a few of the other eastern European countries as well but the EU will soon manage to stamp out true Christianity there. So only Russia will be left.

    It's no coincidence that Russia is the only Christian country with a real leader. A leader who happens to be a Christian.

    Replies: @HA, @Tracy

    “It’s no coincidence that Russia is the only Christian country with a real leader. A leader who happens to be a Christian.”

    Was Putin’s mistress also a Christian? You think maybe he hooked up with her because his wife wasn’t Christian enough?

    I bet that was it.

  152. Steve you’re really angry at homosexuals, aren’t you?

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    @New Reader

    Whoa, Steve.

    They're coming for you.

    Next up you will be accused of transphobia!

  153. @ChrisZ
    This may be a rarified example, but I recall that the comic book writer Alan Moore--generally regarded as the greatest such writer of the 1980s and 90s--was during his heyday involved in a polyamorous relationship involving a legal wife and a live-in mutual "lover." It was apparently public knowledge at the time, at least among his colleagues, although not to us innocent kids who were only interested in heroes and monsters. I was shocked when I learned, relatively recently, that the clever and imaginative stories of my youth had been the fruit of a perverse personal life.

    I note his case because it shows how polyamory has been effectively (albeit quietly) tolerated for decades now, in the most anodyne settings. At the time, Moore was writing stories in the Superman and Green Lantern magazines (nothing remotely perverse about them in those early days, BTW, although later his obsessions would turn up in his own characters); but no one was clamoring for him to resign for immorality. It seems to me that this kind of set-up--a married couple plus one--is the way polygamy will gain legal status. Legal status would merely be "recognizing a reality that already exists and is tolerated"--so the argument would go.

    Incidentally, the joke was on Moore in the end. His legal wife and their "lover" conspired against him, moved out, then sued him for the fortune he had made through his writing in the previous two decades. So there's justice for you!

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Scotty G. Vito

    the comic book writer Alan Moore…

    Terry Jones of Monty Python had a well-known “open marriage” for decades, apparently even inviting the other’s other over for tea.

    What no doubt happened was that, while Mrs Jones’s string of lovers followed her age trajectory, Mr Jones’s did not. At least not as much. When the wife-mistress gap reached a certain point, the deal exploded.

  154. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @New Reader
    Steve you're really angry at homosexuals, aren't you?

    Replies: @The most deplorable one

    Whoa, Steve.

    They’re coming for you.

    Next up you will be accused of transphobia!

  155. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @whorefinder
    @JSM


    . Which is why I’m aghast at the Men’s Rights Activists guys who salivate at the idea of polygyny.
     
    Jigga wha?

    I'm quite active in the manosphere and read most if not all of the major names daily, and I've never come across this. All MRAs/Manospherians/PUAs are quite aware that women are hypergamous (i.e. constantly chasing after the the top 20% of males and ignoring the other 80%) and thus how polgyny would just open the door to even more hypergamous behavior by women--thus leaving most men in the dust. They even point out the instability of such societies when it is discussed.

    Most of the Manosphereans lament that today every man can't be guaranteed a chaste wife for life, and only turn to game as a consolation prize---"if I can't have a white picket fence, at least I can fool these sluts and get some."

    But polgyny? Nope, not MRA. Don't know where you're getting that from.

    Replies: @The most deplorable one

    All MRAs/Manospherians/PUAs are quite aware that women are hypergamous (i.e. constantly chasing after the the top 20% of males and ignoring the other 80%) and thus how polgyny would just open the door to even more hypergamous behavior by women–thus leaving most men in the dust. They even point out the instability of such societies when it is discussed.

    Yes, every now and then, especially when too many non-elite males cannot find wives, elite males need to feel the pain or start a war (to kill off some of the non-elite males.)

  156. @dfordoom
    @Lot

    The ultralogical mind that knows so little about how normals think and emote, it can’t see any reason why acceptance of homosexuality would not lead to acceptance of every other alternative sexuality.

    So you don't think that Hollywood filming Fifty Shades of Grey indicates that there is already a major push to "normalise" every other alternative sexuality?

    If the way ordinary people thought and emoted counted for anything homosexual marriage would never have gotten onto the political agenda. Ordinary people don't and never did support homosexual marriage. They have been intimidated into acquiescence. The arguments for incest will be the same arguments used to normalise homosexuality. "They can't help it, they were born that way." "No-on can help who they fall in love with."

    My prediction is that within a couple of years we'll see Hollyweird making sensitive sympathetic movies about incest.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The arguments for incest will be the same arguments used to normalise homosexuality.

    “Incest” may already be legal between members of the same sex. Read your state’s statutes.

    Iowa’s defines incest as a “sex act”. That requires both sexes.

    Wisconsin’s and Minnesota’s both use the term “sexual intercourse”. Wisconsin makes an effort to redefine–i.e., stretch beyond reason–sexual intercourse to include an explicit Cantonese menu of operations that don’t need both sexes.

    Minnesota does not. Presumably, same-sex incest is not illegal in Minnesota due to its impossibility.

    Then there’s “consanguinity”, or the application of incest taboos to marriage. Traditionally, these have been sex-specific: “A man may not marry his [enter female relative here– oops, I mean don’t enter her, anywhere.]”

    Iowa got same-sex marriage via court order. The legislature did not rewrite the law. Therefore, nothing stops a man from marrying his brother in Iowa.

  157. “New Reader says:

    Steve you’re really angry at homosexuals, aren’t you?”

    That’s completely unsupported by anything Steve has written.

    What is becoming clear is that homosexuals seem to be really angry at and resentful of normal people.

    • Replies: @New Reader
    @Mr. Anon


    What is becoming clear is that homosexuals seem to be really angry at and resentful of normal people.
     
    Me, angry at normal people? Why, some of my best friends are normal people. I don't know any polygamists, although you never know who's in the closet.

    Replies: @Truth

  158. @ChrisZ
    This may be a rarified example, but I recall that the comic book writer Alan Moore--generally regarded as the greatest such writer of the 1980s and 90s--was during his heyday involved in a polyamorous relationship involving a legal wife and a live-in mutual "lover." It was apparently public knowledge at the time, at least among his colleagues, although not to us innocent kids who were only interested in heroes and monsters. I was shocked when I learned, relatively recently, that the clever and imaginative stories of my youth had been the fruit of a perverse personal life.

    I note his case because it shows how polyamory has been effectively (albeit quietly) tolerated for decades now, in the most anodyne settings. At the time, Moore was writing stories in the Superman and Green Lantern magazines (nothing remotely perverse about them in those early days, BTW, although later his obsessions would turn up in his own characters); but no one was clamoring for him to resign for immorality. It seems to me that this kind of set-up--a married couple plus one--is the way polygamy will gain legal status. Legal status would merely be "recognizing a reality that already exists and is tolerated"--so the argument would go.

    Incidentally, the joke was on Moore in the end. His legal wife and their "lover" conspired against him, moved out, then sued him for the fortune he had made through his writing in the previous two decades. So there's justice for you!

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar, @Scotty G. Vito

    That’s interesting, I’m a fan of Moore’s and had never heard about the denouement of that side of his personal saga. It also brings to mind one of the stranger obsessions to crop up in his later (non-mainstream) work, viz. the notion of a latent mob-uprising sentiment against lesbians living together, on a deep social level. Historically lez couples haven’t grabbed the same level of persecution as gay men because the latter are pretty reckless in their lifestyle and quite tenuously committed to domesticism. But to read Moore’s comics you’d think Heather’s mommies constantly quivered in fear of being suddenly lynched. It may be a U.S./U.K. gulf, cuz over here the two-womyn households uniformly hold down non-competitive mid-level government jobs and their avoidance of straights is gladly reciprocated.

    • Replies: @Hare Krishna
    @Scotty G. Vito

    If male anger continues to build up, male participation in the workforce remains low, and a large number of men are unable to find sexual partners, I could envision a backlash against lesbians, who do compete for women with men. I could even envision "corrective rape" existing in the US as it exists in Africa and Asia. Moore's concerns are not so unrealistic,

  159. @Scotty G. Vito
    @ChrisZ

    That's interesting, I'm a fan of Moore's and had never heard about the denouement of that side of his personal saga. It also brings to mind one of the stranger obsessions to crop up in his later (non-mainstream) work, viz. the notion of a latent mob-uprising sentiment against lesbians living together, on a deep social level. Historically lez couples haven't grabbed the same level of persecution as gay men because the latter are pretty reckless in their lifestyle and quite tenuously committed to domesticism. But to read Moore's comics you'd think Heather's mommies constantly quivered in fear of being suddenly lynched. It may be a U.S./U.K. gulf, cuz over here the two-womyn households uniformly hold down non-competitive mid-level government jobs and their avoidance of straights is gladly reciprocated.

    Replies: @Hare Krishna

    If male anger continues to build up, male participation in the workforce remains low, and a large number of men are unable to find sexual partners, I could envision a backlash against lesbians, who do compete for women with men. I could even envision “corrective rape” existing in the US as it exists in Africa and Asia. Moore’s concerns are not so unrealistic,

  160. @Mr. Anon
    "New Reader says:

    Steve you’re really angry at homosexuals, aren’t you?"

    That's completely unsupported by anything Steve has written.

    What is becoming clear is that homosexuals seem to be really angry at and resentful of normal people.

    Replies: @New Reader

    What is becoming clear is that homosexuals seem to be really angry at and resentful of normal people.

    Me, angry at normal people? Why, some of my best friends are normal people. I don’t know any polygamists, although you never know who’s in the closet.

    • Replies: @Truth
    @New Reader

    Hey Homie, Anon went with the "normal people" blast....

    Replies: @New Reader

  161. @SPMoore8
    @jimbojones

    I have already seen a few articles in recent years arguing that sexual attraction to children is innate, like all sexual attractions. Therefore, while it is a crime, it requires understanding and tolerance of those who were so born.

    Of course the end of the road here would be to argue that all tendencies -- including violent ones -- are also innate, and thus cannot be changed, and must be treated with understanding and respect (prison as conversion therapy for violent offenders? How unjust!) It's interesting that on the one hand we are insisting that everyone can do whatever they want (which I suppose is a maximal libertarian position) and on the other hand people are insisting that everything anyone wants to do was genetically determined. I guess the only word I can think of at this point is -- "Diversity."

    From my perspective these are simply games society is playing because we have the wealth and comfort to play them. By the same token, the sometimes absurd laxity of our current moral climate and the absurd "look at me" aspect of so much activism will not wind down until people begin to feel a pinch in their own personal lives. Hasn't happened yet.

    BTW, I don't think the games we are playing socially are due to some conspiracy. People can work hard in the world to this day, they can have children and raise them, and focus on their own lives. And people like that really don't spend too much time worrying about "innate sexuality".

    Replies: @Tracy

    I have already seen a few articles in recent years arguing that sexual attraction to children is innate, like all sexual attractions. Therefore, while it is a crime, it requires understanding and tolerance of those who were so born.

    Of course the end of the road here would be to argue that all tendencies — including violent ones — are also innate, and thus cannot be changed, and must be treated with understanding and respect (prison as conversion therapy for violent offenders? How unjust!)

    I can’t imagine anyone saying it’s “innate.” But I don’t think pedophiles choose their perverse inclination any more than homosexuals choose theirs. I see homosexuality and pedophilia in the same way — as disorders that people don’t choose, but can’t morally act on, with acting on pedophilia also being a crime and a major evil, one of the worst things a person could possibly do. But there are pedophiles who don’t act on their desires, who know it’d be evil to do so, and I think they should be treated with understanding — even as they’re kept far, far from children.

    I think people too often talk about both homosexuality and pedophilia using really sloppy language. For ex., you said that some people have said about pedophilia that “while it is a crime, it requires understanding.” But pedophilia isn’t a crime. Acting on those desires is. Same with homosexuality. Some of my co-religionists (trad Catholics) say things like “homosexuality is sinful.” But it isn’t. Acting on homosexual desires is. Using language loosely like that is a way to make sure that people who have disordered desires and want help for them won’t seek help, but will see themselves as innately bad and “unredeemable.” Not cool. (and not Christian).

  162. @WhatEvvs
    I gave a link from Scribd to the actual decision legalizing polygamy in Utah. No one read it, so here is a link from a news report:

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894145-78/utah-polygamy-waddoups-ruling.html.csp

    A U.S. District Court judge has sided with the polgyamous Brown family, ruling that key parts of Utah's polygamy laws are unconstitutional.

    Judge Clark Waddoups' 91-page ruling, issued Friday, sets a new legal precedent in Utah, effectively decriminalizing polygamy. It is the latest development in a lawsuit filed by the family of Kody Brown, who became famous while starring in cable TV channel TLC's reality series "Sister Wives." The show entered a fourth season at the end of the summer.
     
    It's already here, it's already happened. No one noticed. Perhaps we are in such a state of stunned disbelief that we can no longer register shock?

    Myself, I think the CA law legalizing multiple parents is equally as groundbreaking. But no one here cares to read that. They just love foaming at the mouth, and quoting Kevin MacDonald.

    Replies: @Tracy

    Myself, I think the CA law legalizing multiple parents is equally as groundbreaking. But no one here cares to read that. They just love foaming at the mouth, and quoting Kevin MacDonald.

    Man, what an ass. “Bemused” sounds about right; seems you haven’t figured out that it doesn’t make sense to not like a place but hang out there anyway.

  163. The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that one of them has a victim.

  164. @Glaivester
    @Anonymous 1 am

    Debating over whether polygamy (polygyny) is dysgenic or eugenic misses the point of what those words mean. Eugenics means that you organize society in order to get more of the qualities you want that society to have.

    Polygamous societies will select for different traits than monogamous ones. The issue here is not whether one or the other systems is dysgenic or eugenic on some platonic level, the issue is which system is more likely to select for traits that will sustain the type of society we want to have.

    Replies: @Tracy

    The issue here is not whether one or the other systems is dysgenic or eugenic on some platonic level, the issue is which system is more likely to select for traits that will sustain the type of society we want to have.

    It might be seen that way for folks who don’t have a transcendent concept of the True, Good, and Beautiful. IOW, you seem to be assuming that “the Platonic level” doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter. The lack of a common view of all that is the single worst problem plaguing the West. It’s at the bottom of everything.

  165. @dfordoom
    @Priss Factor

    Christianity is dead. Any religion that not only fails to oppose ‘gay marriage’ but goes out of its way to embrace it is NOT a true religion. It’s craven and cowardly pile of puss.

    I agree totally, but what about the Orthodox Church in Russia today? Confident, very anti-PC, very traditionalist. Russia may well be the only major Christian nation left. Perhaps a few of the other eastern European countries as well but the EU will soon manage to stamp out true Christianity there. So only Russia will be left.

    It's no coincidence that Russia is the only Christian country with a real leader. A leader who happens to be a Christian.

    Replies: @HA, @Tracy

    @K. Arujo

    Christianity is dead. Any religion that not only fails to oppose ‘gay marriage’ but goes out of its way to embrace it is NOT a true religion. It’s craven and cowardly pile of puss.

    The Catholic Church obviously opposes gay “marriage,” and Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the only two strains of Christianity that have any sort of claim to be the real deal. Religions that sprang up because Kings wanted divorces, monks wanted to get laid, etc., can’t really be taken seriously, if you ask me.

    • Replies: @Melendwyr
    @Tracy

    That's a very interesting claim, since both Catholicism and Orthodoxy recognize other strains as being 'Christian' by their standards of their own faith. How do you resolve that little contradiction?

    Replies: @Tracy

  166. @Tracy
    @dfordoom


    @K. Arujo

    Christianity is dead. Any religion that not only fails to oppose ‘gay marriage’ but goes out of its way to embrace it is NOT a true religion. It’s craven and cowardly pile of puss.
     
    The Catholic Church obviously opposes gay "marriage," and Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the only two strains of Christianity that have any sort of claim to be the real deal. Religions that sprang up because Kings wanted divorces, monks wanted to get laid, etc., can't really be taken seriously, if you ask me.

    Replies: @Melendwyr

    That’s a very interesting claim, since both Catholicism and Orthodoxy recognize other strains as being ‘Christian’ by their standards of their own faith. How do you resolve that little contradiction?

    • Replies: @Tracy
    @Melendwyr


    That’s a very interesting claim, since both Catholicism and Orthodoxy recognize other strains as being ‘Christian’ by their standards of their own faith. How do you resolve that little contradiction?
     
    They are "Christian" in that they believe in the divinity of Christ and in the Trinity. But they're not "the real deal."
  167. @Melendwyr
    @Tracy

    That's a very interesting claim, since both Catholicism and Orthodoxy recognize other strains as being 'Christian' by their standards of their own faith. How do you resolve that little contradiction?

    Replies: @Tracy

    That’s a very interesting claim, since both Catholicism and Orthodoxy recognize other strains as being ‘Christian’ by their standards of their own faith. How do you resolve that little contradiction?

    They are “Christian” in that they believe in the divinity of Christ and in the Trinity. But they’re not “the real deal.”

  168. @New Reader
    @Mr. Anon


    What is becoming clear is that homosexuals seem to be really angry at and resentful of normal people.
     
    Me, angry at normal people? Why, some of my best friends are normal people. I don't know any polygamists, although you never know who's in the closet.

    Replies: @Truth

    Hey Homie, Anon went with the “normal people” blast….

    • Replies: @New Reader
    @Truth


    Hey Homie, Anon went with the “normal people” blast….
     
    Excuse me, but what does that comment even mean?
  169. @Truth
    @New Reader

    Hey Homie, Anon went with the "normal people" blast....

    Replies: @New Reader

    Hey Homie, Anon went with the “normal people” blast….

    Excuse me, but what does that comment even mean?

  170. Well I suppose that depends:

    Do you consider yourself a “normal person”? If the answer is “no”, then nothing whatsoever.

  171. , I don’t even understand my own shorthand, much less yours. Humor me and render it in longhand.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS