The majority of people are heterosexual, every other orientation is in the minority. The natural state is 50% male, 50% female. Roughly meaning most people will find a match. We are not at some enlightened stage where genders are truly equal, this scenario at this stage would just lead to a situation where we just regress to multiple wives to one husband. 25% of the male population have two wives that's 25% of the population with no prospect of funding a partner, stretch that to three wives and that means half of men have no prospect of finding a partner.
This stuff is well studied in countries that allow polygamy, men become angry sex offenders and jealous spouses take it out on other partners children. It's not good stuff, were not there as a society, we'd need to be at a stage where we all just date other humans and I don't see anyone doing that anytime soon.
>A comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. Almost all of the few polyandrous societies practice what anthropologists call fraternal polyandry, where a group of brothers shares a wife. Nonfraternal polyandry, where a group of unrelated men shares a wife, is virtually nonexistent in human society. Why is nonfraternal polyandry so rare? [0]
While human nature can change, something as fundamental as human sexual family unit preferences radically change from favoring polygny over an order of magnitude more than polyandry seems unlikely to be overthrown simply because of changes in democratic opinion on legitimacy of polyamory. Using history as an imperfect precedent, one could make an educated assumption the balance will tip towards leaving lots of unmarried men on the sidelines rather than unmarried women. Evolutionary constraints may also push against having women on the sidelines, since the sexual reproduction throughput is rate-limited by females. There is little evidence to suggest polyandry is as common as polygny.
We're only now discovering that a significant chunk of society is not cis, because we've been forcing them to hide this fact over the past centuries because of religious anachronisms. Why assume it's different with polyandry?
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it seems fairy reasonable to assume if a strong pattern emerges across a variety of different disjoint and poorly connected traditional societies with unique religious systems, that the pattern isn't likely to be explained away by simply pointing to recent (past few centuries) religious anachronisms.
Of course if a pattern were to emerge in the vast majority of religions across time and cultures I may be tempted to speculate it's a display of common human traits and rather than something to be assigned to a particular religion. In that same vein one draws the conclusion favoring non-cis behavior is probably a minority (but common) human trait (all humans may enjoy some non-cis behavior but most seem to favor cis behavior) and polyandry is unlikely to counterbalance polygny.
"over the past centuries because of religious anachronisms" is your words. Were you lying? YOU were the one that attributed this persecution as 'anachronisms' of 'past centuries.'
>Religiously motivated persecution of sexual minorities
When did anyone say minorities haven't been persecuted? Total straw man out of left field.
I guess I was foolish enough to think you would have said "millenia" or better if you were referring to more than a few (roughly 1-9 IMO, but that's semantics) centuries. Mea culpa.
In my parts people rarely use the word 'centuries' to refer to periods larger than 1000 years, and numbers less than 10 are generally ok to think of as a 'few.'
With your follow-up clarification, I amend my statement:
>I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it seems fairy reasonable to assume if a strong pattern emerges across a variety of different disjoint and poorly connected traditional societies with unique religious systems, that the pattern isn't likely to be explained away by simply pointing to recent (past few centuries) religious anachronisms.
TO
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it seems fairy reasonable to assume if a strong pattern emerges across a variety of different disjoint and poorly connected traditional societies with unique religious systems, that the pattern isn't likely to be explained away by simply pointing to "past centuries" religious anachronisms.
Sharing a household with a genetically unrelated adult is one of the biggest risk factors for experiencing child abuse. This is well known and well supported by evolutionary psychology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect
Therefore, introducing additional genetically unrelated adults into a family would likely increase the risk of child abuse.
The fallacy is to say that we can't have legalized polyamory because it's negative for the children, while we allow sistemic issues to have a much greater negative effect on said children.
> and nobody is abolishing your civil rights
Hello Texas? What are we even talking about?
> Civil rights don't mean you can do whatever you want.
I never said this, but if you needed to remind yourself of it go ahead.
While I don't necessarily agree with your stance about systemic issues, I would like to point out that solving them would take a lot more work than simply not legalising polygamy, and I don't see why we should neglect taking measures we are actually capable of implementing in favour of a pipe dream that might never be implemented.
I agree. You do both. If revolution is not immediately possibile, you fight for reform instead, hoping that it will sow the seeds of the revolution in those who fought with you. Any small victory for social movements generates a strong taste for solidarity and the expectation that the victory can be repeated.
