4 ms·

If you actually read the article, you'll notice that it's on your side of 'what won't those hippies do next.'

• dropit_sphere 11y ago
  I don't get that vibe. As far as I can tell, the tone is more, "Regrettably we had to demonize polygamy to avoid guilt by association, but it's time to pay the technical debt and extend marriage equality to all."
• ewzimm 11y ago
  That's definitely the tone, but it's pretty funny since it's talking about the erosion of traditional marriage. Polygamy is almost certainly the most traditional marriage there is. Groups of people dedicated to each other who shared the responsibility of raising children definitely came before people decided to partner-up. For an example, I'm not saying you have to believe the Bible literally, but most of the men in the early parts of it had multiple wives. Now, maybe it's a radical idea for the majority of the population to consider Biblical marriage traditional, but even if you don't believe in that particular religious text, it's at least evidence that plural marriages were pretty common thousands of years ago. I'm not saying they're better or worse, but they're definitely traditional.
  • yeahdude 11y ago
    If most men had many wives, there must have been a lot less men than women, and/or a lot of men with no wife at all. Or perhaps wife sharing would account for it.
    • ewzimm 11y ago
      Or, like a lot of books, most of the stories were about rich men who had things others didn't. That part isn't glossed over at all. But that's just about the Bible stories. If you're talking about my comments on early humans, I think it's likely that sharing partners was more common.