Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Hypocrisy "No, Polygamy Isn’t the Next Gay Marriage"

Atavistic Autist

Atavistic Autist

Intersectional autistic supremacy
★★★★★
Joined
May 28, 2018
Posts
9,493

I've come across this interesting article, which speaks in explicit material terms about the sexual marketplace and how polygamy is undesirable since it deprives low status men of wives and thereby destabilizes society:

Here's the problem with [polygamy]: when a high-status man takes two wives (and one man taking many wives, or polygyny, is almost invariably the real-world pattern), a lower-status man gets no wife. If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on.

This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold. Those men, denied access to life's most stabilizing and civilizing institution, are unfairly disadvantaged and often turn to behaviors like crime and violence.

This is all true. But the notion that polygamy should therefore remain illegal is dubious, since ensuring a safe and stable society is not the primary mandate of a liberal democratic government, but rather preserving negative rights, otherwise known as "freedoms."

For example, it is a fact that racial desegregation -- allowing Black people the freedom to live and wander wherever they want -- has ended up making American society less safe and stable overall. But this doesn't matter because the US government ostensibly views the rights of its citizens as more important than any considerations of safety and stability. Imagine how absurd it would be to argue in court that Black people should be reverted to second class citizens because they increase crime rates and make society less stable with their perennial rioting and looting!

As a matter of fact, the decisive question of "stability" that the US Supreme Court was concerned with regarding racial desegregation was strictly in the purview of the Cold War: sparing America from continuing to be embarrassed by communist propaganda, which was using the agitation of Black Americans to gain international support and sympathy for its ideology -- particularly in the Third World. Racial desegregation therefore just "looked good" on an international stage where America's main adversaries were now egalitarian communists rather than eugenic fascists -- no matter its deeper domestic consequences such as increased crime and violence!

The fact that Black people demonstrably increase crime rates, and that their individual acts of violence and even collective rioting became worse -- not better -- after the Civil Rights Act, does not factor into the calculus of respecting their rights as US citizens. So why should projected fears about increased crime rates factor into the calculus of respecting the rights of high status males, who wish to formalize their dominance over the sexual marketplace by engaging in polygamous marriage?

Because the proverbial "elephant in the room" here is that monogamy is not really sacrosanct in American culture anymore, as the author of the article implies. High status males already dominate low status males in the sexual marketplace:

Remember: it's legal for a man to live with multiple women, have sex with multiple women, and even raise children with multiple women.
Yes, these things are legal, and they happen a lot. But they actually used to be illegal: "Until the mid-20th century, most U.S. states (especially Southern and Northeastern states) had laws against fornication, adultery or cohabitation."

The author continues:

All the government is doing is denying plural relationships the specific government benefit of a marriage license. This is a well-tailored way to prefer and institutionalize monogamy, without making private consensual conduct illegal

So it is legal to have sex with multiple people, but people who do this should not have their conduct legitimized by marriage certificates?

Hmm... this is exactly the argument that opponents of gay marriage once made: "it's already legal for homosexuals to have sex, but the government shouldn't sponsor it by letting them get married!"

:feelshaha:

The author's hollow retort that opponents of gay marriage could not find a single good reason to claim that society is made worse by homosexual conduct is simply not true. One need only point to the AIDS epidemic to justify emotional disgust towards homosexuals (within the living memory of most boomers and millennials), or use the rational, scientific reasoning that promoting sexual conduct which does not result in the birth of children is degenerate (it spreads STDs, it decreases the fertility rate or is associated with a decreased fertility rate, it is part of a culture where people are expendable to one another, etc.)

Indeed, at least if Chad was forced to marry and provide for all of the women he wished to have sex with under a legally binding polygamous marriage contract (as under Islamic law), this would actually have a moderating influence on his sexual market value. He could only marry as many women as he could afford to marry.

But in the current situation, his ability to monopolize women (and liquidate their assets, if you will) is completely unrestrained, which is literally the main impetus for the rise of incels.

If anything, I would venture to say that the government should view the issue of the sexual marketplace realistically: acknowledge the fact that monogamous marriage is an increasingly bankrupt institution, and seek to "legalize but regulate" the postmodern, polygamous reality -- not unlike what the government should do with regard to narcotics and the War on Drugs!

But even this alternative would require that women be viewed as mere commodities again, which is not something our soyciety is prepared to accept, until it is forced to reset its moral values after some sort of social collapse:

[Polygamy] is not good for women, either, because it places them in competition with other wives and can reduce them all to satellites of the man.

The horror :rolleyes:

Or would this marginalization of women even be required? Couldn't Chads just have a collective harem of foids, where they can bang each other's bitches virtually at will (with the bitches' input) -- perhaps in exchange for favors/barters, like leasing out their Bugatti's or mansions to each other? This would give a new meaning to the phrase "socialism for the rich" :feelskek:

Anyway, until the purifying social collapse to come, it is in our interests as blackpilled incels to accelerate the decline of soyciety, and exacerbate these contradictions in progressive/feminist jurisprudence. Yes, it is true that polygamy makes life worse for low status males, but life already sucks really badly for low status males, and pretending that it doesn't by continuing to prop up the eroding tradition of monogamous marriage (now virtually indistinguishable from cuckoldry) will only prolong the pain.

If gay marriage was made legal because of "muh freedumbs," then so should polygamy.

A C C E L E R A T E
 
Last edited:
That is the cycle of liberalism taken to its logical end. It'll be taken to a point when bestiality is legal and animals and humans can marry. This is what occurs when you allow females to have political power in your country. This is why democracy shouldn't existed
 
That is the cycle of liberalism taken to its logical end. It'll be taken to a point when bestiality is legal and animals and humans can marry. This is what occurs when you allow females to have political power in your country. This is why democracy shouldn't existed
 
Both are shit
 
That is the cycle of liberalism taken to its logical end. It'll be taken to a point when bestiality is legal and animals and humans can marry. This is what occurs when you allow females to have political power in your country. This is why democracy shouldn't existed
Animals will never be able to marry humans, if only because animals cannot contribute any tax revenue to the government. So what interest will the government have in letting it happen?

Indeed, the best argument against the idea that the government will legalize polygamy is that it would simply be too complicated to figure out how it would work bureaucratically :feelskek:

It is a midwit trait to blame "liberalism" and "democracy" for social degeneration, as if this was all a popular choice and not a byproduct of economic developments.

In 2008, gay marriage was voted down by a plebiscite in California. That's about as democratic and liberal as you can get. The mulatto, Barack Obama, got elected US president that very year and not even he endorsed gay marriage yet :feelshaha:

Gay marriage became law simply because homosexuals established themselves in the bourgeois and corporate worlds.

After all, the concept of "marriage rights" is nothing if not bourgeois! Those in the lower classes (e.g., niggers) just fuck, kek. And that's what gays were content with doing back during the AIDS epidemic. You can see just how unaccepted they were back then.

In my OP, I attempt to go past the standard dialectic on this issue, by focusing on how monogamous marriage is a bankrupt institution as a whole, and that the impetus for propping it up to stabilize soyciety is not in the best interests of blackpilled incels.
 
Last edited:
I remember when they tried to make the case HIV has a large risk for transfer during heterosexual liaisons but that claim simply doesn't hold up under intense scrutiny. The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS does a pretty good job at dispelling this false notion. It's more accurate to state that HIV depends more on a bloodborne viral vector than sexual fluids. The reason sodomites are so likely to contracting it is due to the fact that anal sex is simply much more likely to produce tears and fissures that allow opportunities for the virus to come into contact with the bloodstream.
 
I remember when they tried to make the case HIV has a large risk for transfer during heterosexual liaisons but that claim simply doesn't hold up under intense scrutiny. The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS does a pretty good job at dispelling this false notion. It's more accurate to state that HIV depends more on a bloodborne viral vector than sexual fluids. The reason sodomites are so likely to contracting it is due to the fact that anal sex is simply much more likely to produce tears and fissures that allow opportunities for the virus to come into contact with the bloodstream.
It's funny to see how 'murican political polarization produced liberals who were downplaying AIDS and eventually outright celebrating homosexuality, while being fanatically in favor of measures to "stop the spread" of Covid-19.

Inversely, conservatives opposed faggotry, but their disgust sensitivities disappeared when it came to Covid.
 
It's funny to see how 'murican political polarization produced liberals who were downplaying AIDS and eventually outright celebrating homosexuality, while being fanatically in favor of measures to "stop the spread" of Covid-19.

Inversely, conservatives opposed faggotry, but their disgust sensitivities disappeared when it came to Covid.
Disease prevention can become politicized when they disproportionately affect certain demographic groups more than other. Very noticeble trend.
 
Disease prevention can become politicized when they disproportionately affect certain demographic groups more than other. Very noticeble trend.
:feelsthink:


This reminds me of the article in the OP, when it quotes Justice Kennedy:

"Their hope," he says of same-sex couples, in his final peroration, "is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions."

The "disease" of loneliness (if you will) matters when it comes to homosexuals and trannies. But heterosexual incels? Who cares! They just need more bootstraps to hang themselves with!

This is what the average foid and soy believes, just because they hate our demographic that much (our interests being in contradiction to their own).
 
Last edited:
My sister-mom said touching my peninsula when peeing is sinful and for me to hurry up and clean the bathrooms before dinner.
 
My sister-mom said touching my peninsula when peeing is sinful and for me to hurry up and clean the bathrooms before dinner.
Trad af
 
Indeed, the best argument against the idea that the government will legalize polygamy is that it would simply be too complicated to figure out how it would work bureaucratically
It’s actually very simple
 
Animals will never be able to marry humans, if only because animals cannot contribute any tax revenue to the government. So what interest will the government have in letting it happen?
Good old autistic incapability to understand slippery slope, progression, hidden intentions, patterns etc
It’s so embarassing and annoying to be listed together with you guys since you are retard af in this regard while i officially should have asperger syndrome but i am way different than this
 
Good old autistic incapability to understand slippery slope, progression, hidden intentions, patterns etc
It’s so embarassing and annoying to be listed together with you guys since you are retard af in this regard while i officially should have asperger syndrome but i am way different than this
In reality, you are exhibiting the dichotomous thinking typical of lower functioning autists and congratulating yourself for your own cognitive rigidity in a Dunning-Kruger fashion.

"Muh animal marriage" is literally a turbo low IQ cuckservative meme.

Same with Covid being a "hoax" (whatever that means -- the lockdowns were a hoax? Or the virus itself? This generality is a perfect example of dichotomous thinking, JFL)
 
Last edited:
It’s actually very simple
:feelstastyman:

From the article in the OP:

[Legalized polygamy] also forces the government to redefine marital relationships in all kinds of ways, because there is no existing template for polygamy. Think about it. Does a polygamous license marry all the wives in a polygynous combination to each other, or each separately to the man? Among multiple spouses, who has primacy in medical decision-making? When kids are born into multiples, do all spouses get some form of parenting rights? How would divorce and alimony work?
 
It makes sense to claim that bestiality (the sex act) will become more culturally accepted, but going so far as to say that marriage with animals will be accepted by the state is a caricature, since there is literally no financial incentive for the government to recognize this -- not to mention no legal or rational basis to give animals the rights of marriage @Cybersex is our hope

You do a disservice to whatever truth there is to the slippery slope by unironically taking this position. It's literally boomer-tier retarded

How could an animal sign a marriage contract, for example? Even if it were granted human rights/privileges, it could not exercise them :feelskek:

I honestly think that this is just another example of your dichotomous thinking. You assumed that because I pushed back on a hyperbolic narrative, that I was negating the whole premise. Which I wasn't.
 
Last edited:
It makes sense to claim that bestiality (the sex act) will become more culturally accepted, but going so far as to say that marriage with animals will be accepted by the state is a caricature, since there is literally no financial incentive for the government to recognize this -- not to mention no legal or rational basis to give animals the rights of marriage @Cybersex is our hope

You do a disservice to whatever truth there is to the slippery slope by unironically taking this position. It's literally boomer-tier retarded

How could an animal sign a marriage contract, for example? Even if it were granted human rights/privileges, it could not exercise them :feelskek:

I honestly think that this is just another example of your dichotomous thinking. You assumed that because I pushed back on a hyperbolic narrative, that I was negating the whole premise. Which I wasn't.
I am the most anti-normie anti-boomer here dude. You are actually focusing on irrelevant details rather than looking at the whole picture and historical progression til now (very autistic behaviour).
If that is the trend and they WANT to make polygamy legal they will find a way like they did in the past like ALL THE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE LEGALIZED POLIGAMY DID. Simple as that...

You really think your formalistic question would even be a minor problem when faced with this kind of wave os social change/pushing/funding?
 
In reality, you are exhibiting the dichotomous thinking typical of lower functioning autists and congratulating yourself for your own cognitive rigidity in a Dunning-Kruger fashion.

"Muh animal marriage" is literally a turbo low IQ cuckservative meme.

Same with Covid being a "hoax" (whatever that means -- the lockdowns were a hoax? Or the virus itself? This generality is a perfect example of dichotomous thinking, JFL)
No, actually i have extreme cognitive malleability. That's why it's very difficult to me to find the perfect political representation. You are more than dead wrong.
What i kinda excel at is pattern recognition (spoiler: it requires cognitive malleability) something i noticed litterally ALL the asperger people lack.
Low iq low functioning autist? No, you are wrong again. I checked my IQ and scored very well every single time (especially verbal and analytical thinking).

Saying legalizing bestiality is "cuckservative meme" just shos you are extremeley retarded when it comes to pattern recognition, intention detection and other kind of understandings since you keep failing for technicalities while not realizing where things are obviously headed at, what kind of intentions people in power/degenerates have, how they enacted any single of their wishes to the madness we have today (ironically enough with pattern recognition retards like you keeping saying "not gonna happen" "muh they can't do that legally!!11" et cetera).
If they need to legalize bestiality, or easier, polygamy, they will just do it. It starts from removing the taboo to the point where you get that into law. Just like the fact that homosexual couples can not conceive nor have a normal intercourase like straight couples do never has been a obstacle in the slippey slope shit that get them to be basically regarded as legally protected individuals.

When it comes to covid i don't even waste my time in trying to get someone who didn't realize the whole thing was fabricated/fake/puppet play by the powerfull elites at this point. Again: some level of patter recognition retardation is unsavable. I just am kinda pissed to be lumped into the same group as you all do. I am more and more convinced neuro-psychology is horseshit and i don't have asperger, just some kind of different awareness
 
the lockdowns were a hoax?
This one means you are eithe particularly retarded or using bad phatic language. Of course the LOCKDOWN was not a hoax, but the whole narrative behind it was OBVIOUSLY fabricated, wrong many times, consisting in lies and double standards etc etc.

The whole thing was NOT done with the people's best interest in minds and it has been made obvious as fuck. Of course if you are a pattern recognition/intent detection retard it will be difficult.

Probably that's why the WEF is pushing the autists into the "mental healt" part of their program. They just cannot detect evil intention masked as helpfull so they just asslick whatever they sell as long as it's properly explained in the right way with enough camouflage
 
This one means you are eithe particularly retarded or using bad phatic language. Of course the LOCKDOWN was not a hoax, but the whole narrative behind it was OBVIOUSLY fabricated, wrong many times, consisting in lies and double standards etc etc.
In typical autistic fashion, you think that I was being literal here when I was being metaphorical. There is nothing bad about the language I used so long as you understand context clues.

Who would claim that the Covid lockdowns, which obviously happened, were in themselves a hoax? :feelshaha:

I concede it's plausible that much of the reasoning behind the Covid lockdowns was flawed or fabricated, but I didn't really care because I'm a NEET and soyciety becoming more NEET-friendly only benefited me.
 
In typical autistic fashion, you think that I was being literal here when I was being metaphorical. There is nothing bad about the language I used so long as you understand context clues.
No. I just think you meant what you said. Since people like you reasonee SAME WAY when arguing with me several fucking times it’s just normal for me to assume you were yet again falling for technicalities while failing to see the bigger picture.
Also, i probably am not autistic but have adhd or other different consciousness shit. So stop putting me together with your group
 
Who would claim that the Covid lockdowns, which obviously happened, were in themselves a hoax?
Because you were explicitly listing it in the examples. So either you were being stupidly provocative or you were being socially retarded. In either way you were using phatic language and expressions
 
I concede it's plausible that much of the reasoning behind the Covid lockdowns was flawed or fabricated, but I didn't really care because I'm a NEET and soyciety becoming more NEET-friendly only benefited me.
I also love neeting and preferred the lockdown to working/going out (besides of not being able to train), what do you think i am some kinda of hypersocialized wageslave? LoL
I am just saying most of what they are doing it's obviously not aimed at our well being
 
Polygamy will be the end of the species. Humans aren't made to go full polygamy.

Gay marriage is different because it involves a different sexual market place. It doesn't have the negative effect polygamy has, where a chad takes a women another man could get. Gay marriage is bad though because it's a corruption and a mockery of the institute of marriage (which was based). I'm not forbidding them to live together, but I don't support their marriage. They needed a new institution.
 
Last edited:
Here's the problem with [polygamy]: when a high-status man takes two wives (and one man taking many wives, or polygyny, is almost invariably the real-world pattern), a lower-status man gets no wife. If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on.

This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold. Those men, denied access to life's most stabilizing and civilizing institution, are unfairly disadvantaged and often turn to behaviors like crime and violence.

Here the thing : it’s already happening. Just replace “wife” with “girlfriend”.
 
That is the cycle of liberalism taken to its logical end. It'll be taken to a point when bestiality is legal and animals and humans can marry. This is what occurs when you allow females to have political power in your country. This is why democracy shouldn't existed
Democracy, I haven't a problem with if it was ran how it was was 150 years ago. All men, no women or LGBt faggots and no niggers or other subhumans present.
 
"Girlfriend" with "partner" :lasereyes:
1720729644977
 

Similar threads

highschoolcel
Replies
22
Views
523
highschoolcel
highschoolcel
AsiaCel
Replies
5
Views
219
Uninvited
Uninvited
P
Replies
4
Views
178
Copexodius Maximus
Copexodius Maximus
AsiaCel
Replies
13
Views
339
smegma producer
smegma producer

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top