Here’s the gist of his argument as to why Polygamy won’t follow this decision:
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. The situation 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.
He then links to a study here:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/uobc-mrm012312.php
According to the research, “monogamy’s main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems.”
The study found that monogamous marriage “results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict.” And: “by shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment.”
Yes, well, every time two lesbians marry, two normal Chinese men are denied wives.
Wouldn’t this mean more men to marry one another? Seems to me he’d be all for it.
I do not recall the court decision being based on the pragmatic advantages of monogamy.
“If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on.”
ok, so the liberal argument is: polygamy can’t be allowed because it has the same destructive effects as sex selection abortion...
...hey, wait a minute...!