Polygamy would reduce poverty without government assistance. Ergo, "liberals" hate polygamy.

[dougtheavenger]

The more bread-winners a family has, the less likely that family is to live in poverty. So, are anti-poverty activists big advocates of polygamy. Nope. Laws against "unlawful cohabitation" survive in this permissive age because, the "Left" wants poverty to persist and serve as an excuse for government intervention in the economy. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by dougtheavenger

[Calm]

4 parents with 6 kids assuming  two kids for each woman vs 6 parents with 6 kids assuming two kids for each woman (assuming it’s one man married to three different women vs 3 man-woman couplings).

It is not 2 kids having 4 parents.  There are less breadwinners per kid for the polygamous family than for the monogamous one.

I don’t think your solution is so simple as you think, especially if the women live in their own homes, decide to keep their own earnings for their own kids, etc, but the dad has to divide his income among three families. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, dougtheavenger said:

The more bread-winners a family has, the less likely that family is to live in poverty. So, are anti-poverty activists big advocates of polygamy. Nope. Laws against "unlawful cohabitation" survive in this permissive age because, the "Left" wants poverty to persist and serve as an excuse for government intervention in the economy. 

Really?

[Eschaton]

5 hours ago, dougtheavenger said:

The more bread-winners a family has, the less likely that family is to live in poverty. So, are anti-poverty activists big advocates of polygamy. Nope. Laws against "unlawful cohabitation" survive in this permissive age because, the "Left" wants poverty to persist and serve as an excuse for government intervention in the economy. 

Since on average men earn more than women even for the same job, and since your premise is based on earning potential, polyandry would be the way to go. But as far as I've seen liberals and conservatives are both opposed to plural marriage. In fact I think conservatives are more opposed to it. 

[pogi]

Because polygamists are the bastions of not relying on government welfare, right?

Are you implying that republicans are therefore pro-polygamy?  I am pretty sure, that of the two, the left is far more open to non-traditional marriages.  I remember the right using anti-polygamy scare tactics to fight against the slippery slope of gay marriage.  

If anti-polygamy = pro-poverty, as you seem to conclude, then the right is as pro-poverty as the left, and I would argue far more so in this case.

You know, it wouldn’t have been that hard to make this topic about polygamy and poverty non-political. 

Thread closing in 3…2…

 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 

[BlueDreams]

This is just dumb. I thought of saying it nicer…but there’s so many uncheck assumptions, counter factuals, and strained logic that dumb just seems like an appropriate word. 
 

Here’s a few of the problems:

1.) many polygamists are on some form of government welfare. 

2.) many have huge families. Disproportionately more so than monogamous families. Even if they have small families they in comparison will still be bigger than a monogamous small family. A family with one kid per woman in a monogamous home has 3 people involved. A polygamous family with one kid each for just 2 wives means there’s 5 people involved. More people means more bills and more pressure for larger incomes and housing to afford it. Some may be able to pull that off, with some wives working and at least one with a well paying job in lower income areas. A lot don’t…thus the welfare. 

3.) this is a stretch for why “liberals” don’t like polygamy. It makes more sense to go with the more obvious concerns: young marriages with larger age gaps due to a small pool of available women, greater likelihood for gender inequality, and cultural mores and history around polygamy. My personal dislike of polygamy is practical: the more people you add to a family the more likely conflict and problems will come in, the weaker bonds tend to get between the partners, the less time children have with parents (particularly fathers). It’s an unnecessary stressor where the pay offs are usually compared more to problematic monogamous marriages rather than the average or healthy ones. There, there’s no comparison imho. Monogamy is better.

but personally this lib would prefer decriminalizing polygamy to hopefully reduce fears of reporting abuse within polygamous communities. 
 

With luv,

BD 
 

Edited November 22, 2022 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

This is stupid. Fundie polygamists are infamous for extensive welfare fraud.

Does polygamy have the potential to add more breadwinners to a family? Yes, and I have seen it happen. However women make less than men so really this is more about polyandry having the potential to destroy poverty which I doubt is your primary goal.

The idea that two breadwinners can’t make enough to support a family isn’t cause for reflection that maybe the system is broken? Instead you suggest just adding more workers and probably making family units even more unstable.

Weirdo.