 |
| From General interwebs |
So trying to get your party whipped up over physician-assisted suicide is probably a good idea. Flogging the infidelity horse? Not so much, because everybody agrees.
Of special note to me, more than half of Americans now have no problem with gay and lesbian relationships, while 86% are morally opposed to "polygamy". Most likely a significant portion of those responders think all plural relationships are theocratic households of prepubescent child brides tyrannized by an old Mormon man.
Note that this is a survey about whether a person thinks the given behavior is morally wrong, not whether there oughtta be a law against it. Me, I think a couple things on that list are morally wrong, but wouldn't support laws against any of them them, with the possible exception of infidelity, which is arguably a breach of contract.
Wonder what a couple more seasons of "sister wives" will do for that polygamy number...
ReplyDeleteA majority thinks porn is inherently morally wrong? REALLY?
ReplyDeleteIan, the poly community consensus is that it's a mixed bag. More exposure, but not the most productive kind of exposure. I'd kind of rather be ignored by the media.
ReplyDeleteLabrat, I have a sneaking suspicion, possibly all in my head, that this "morally unacceptable" rate more accurately measures the "I recall hearing lots of people speak disapprovingly of it, and am not aware of a social movement in good standing trying to brand it as Goodthink" rate. Until this poll, I had no idea anybody still cared enough about porn to have an opinion one way or the other.
Personally, I have no wish to live in a multi-spouse relationship, but I don't have a problem with someone who does. My only requirements would be that 1: everyone is there voluntarily and be of age to make it legally voluntary 2: that everyone can appropriately support the rest of the family (don't care if its one bread winner or five, as long as support is appropriate for the family size), and 3: that any and all children are supported appropriately. From what I've seen (and no I don't watch reality TV) children raised in such households are perfectly stable, and I can certinally see the benefits of having multiple parents to assist in the raising of said children.
ReplyDeleteI have issues with the religions that push multiple spouses as their right, I have yet to see one where multiple HUSBANDS would be allowed, and I have serious doubts about the "choices" allowed some of the young women caught up in these communities, and I don't think that the religion should be the one making the call on who is allowed another spouse.
Of course. As a libertarian, I support people's right to be in patriarchal, stiffly conservative religions... But it's not my thing, it creeps me out, and it becomes everybody else's business when the FLDS is actually forcing minors to get married.
ReplyDeletethat everyone can appropriately support the rest of the family (don't care if its one bread winner or five, as long as support is appropriate for the family size)
On a related note, a common High Feminism criticism of plural marriages is to dismiss proponents with the suggestion that they're men fantasizing about having harems, while in fact only the wealthiest men in polygamous societies can afford multiple wives, which means the average man is in fact competing for a smaller pool of women. This is fucked up in both directions: first, that it's absolutely true of rigid, traditional polygynous societies that treat wives as property, and second, that said High Feminists evidently can't imagine notraditional, uncovertured plural marriages with professional women or multiple husbands. The problem with traditional polygamy is the same women-as-commodities attitude that was wrong with traditional monogamy. Banning plural marriages because they remind us of the bad old days makes no more sense than banning monogamous marriages for the same reason.