View Full Version : Polygamy: For or Against? Why?
Boost
07-31-2007, 12:54 PM
Thought this was a good spur off topic from the prostitution thread.
Do you think polygamy should continue to be outlawed?
Back in the day polygamy was widely accepted by the Mormon church as long as all wives maintained an equal lifestyle i.e. same size house and living comforts. It has since been publicly renounced by the church though it is well known that it still goes on today. So do you think it is up to the individuals involved if they desire to live that lifestyle, or should it remain against the law?
I personally do not agree with the lifestyle, and wonder why you would want more then one wife? One is expensive enough! Plus as Temp pointed out in the other thread, current polygamous family's put a strain on the welfare system and other such programs do to their inability to support the number of children that can be produced with multiple wives. So I think it should remain against the law.
TheNoNamedOne
07-31-2007, 12:59 PM
Aside from my true belief, I am going to take the position that polygamy should be permitted.
It seems that the male species of any animal seeks to spread his seed far and wide in an effort to promote the spread of his species. It was once thought that some animals were monogomous, and we seemed to enjoy attatching some kind of good attribute to that. But recent studies by ethologists are pointing to more and more deception in the animal world and that animals once thought to be monogomous were indeed actually cheating behind their mate's back.
As for humans, historically, if the man were well off enough to provide for more than one wife, societies often accepted that there was nothing wrong with it. If an adult man and several adult women agree without coercion to enter into a polygamous lifestyle, then why should that not be permitted by society, and even recognized by the state through a polygamous union of marriage between the parties? And why not the opposite as well, if several men decided to marriage with one woman?
What is marriage anyway outside of church or religious conventions? It is merely a paper sanctioned by the government that recognizes a merger of human entities for the purposes of legal and tax considerations. Why should the government be permitted to define the number of the parties in a merger that protects each person individually? If they all never married and just lived together in a commune, the parties would be less protected when they decide to disolve their merger. The job of the government is to protect its citizens, not make it so that they live pricariously due to government discrimination.
Tempestuous
07-31-2007, 01:14 PM
I am against the modern day practice of polygamy.
If you look into the practice of those practicing at this time you will see many of the wives and children are neglected in many ways as well as abused.
Wives & children cannot be provided for in a manor above the poverty level. They falsely claim child support from the state claiming they don't know the father of the child. They get welfare and food stamps to provide....ready for this...... the HUSBAND with money. (WTF?!?!?! That one blew me away!)
I watched a PBS (or some brand) documentary about polygamy and abuse both physical, mentally, financial and sexual abuse in polygamy sects is disgusting!
Brothers at an early age start "practicing" on sisters to prepare them for their husbands.
Daughters are given away at young ages (10-14 usually) to uncles, fathers, elders, even to multiple men.
I would like to believe when the original practices of polygamy & 1 man have a large amount of "wives" it was different/ more humane (that could be naivety/hopeful thinking on my part). They were considered a "wife" because they slept together. And didn't they all commune together in one house? Seems more like Hugh Heffner to me. :) He doesn't abuse his girls, they each seem well cared for, though could be a facade. ???
Tempestuous
07-31-2007, 01:16 PM
Hey you should have left the two posts.....would have gone well with the idea/practice of polygamy! We would of had two threads to fully support :)
TheNoNamedOne
07-31-2007, 01:25 PM
Let's agree that the LDS's polygamy is not the correct model to follow. I don't think there is too much disagreement there. However, it is not incumbant that polygamy will devolve into that style.
In general, why shouldn't people be allowed to marry into polygamous relationships? Why not put stipulatons on it, such as a certain amount of combained wealth between the parties? This could easily be done by making the cost of the marriage license quite high.
Boost
07-31-2007, 01:31 PM
Let's agree that the LDS's polygamy is not the correct model to follow. I don't think there is too much disagreement there. However, it is not incumbant that polygamy will devolve into that style.
Agreed! :) Unfortunetly for the most part, their model of polygamy is the dominant one when speaking about the subject.
Why not put stipulatons on it, such as a certain amount of combained wealth between the parties? This could easily be done by making the cost of the marriage license quite high.
That would be a must if they were to permit multiple marriages. Perhaps develop an application form and have to show proof you can properly care for all members involved and future children.
Another issue that comes up with this one though is wouldn't polygamy also potentially impact the population level if it were to be legalized? I don't think Okinawa would be a prime spot for this sort of thing.
Tempestuous
07-31-2007, 01:32 PM
In general, why shouldn't people be allowed to marry into polygamous relationships? Why not put stipulatons on it, such as a certain amount of combained wealth between the parties? This could easily be done by making the cost of the marriage license quite high.
Do you think that would make people actually abide by it, or would they just practice common law marriages under the table?
Hmmmmm, in a perfect world void of the human defunct factor....with set stipulations......sure why not?!??! If he so desired to be married to 2 or more women of legal age and could provide physically, monetarily, etc for them all. Then I suppose that would be ok....
socalheart
07-31-2007, 03:25 PM
I don't see why a person would want more than one spouse. If a person can afford to maintain more than one spouse, then the employer is paying him or her too much. heh. In theory, multiple spouses is plausible to me, not for me. In practice, it doesn't work ideally.
As stated previously by others, most polygamous families rely on the government welfare system for financial support. I don't agree with that at all. If you can't support a family, don't have one. Unlike the TV show Big Love (http://www.hbo.com/biglove/about/index.html), not every polygamist has a middle class lifestyle.
Polygamy seems to work well for the wealthy only. I don't see it going over well in most western cultures, because religion plays such a big part in making the law (regardless of what they all say - heh). It seems to work in the middle east well enough for wealthier families.
I don't say that I know a lot about polygamy, but I wouldn't hold it against a neighbor who was a polygamist, as long as the families were financially well supported. It does seem somewhat prejudicial to be for polygamy based on money, but I don't believe it's right for someone to claim responsibility for so many people, yet be irresponsible for their well-being.
TheNoNamedOne
07-31-2007, 08:46 PM
Do you think that would make people actually abide by it, or would they just practice common law marriages under the table?
Then out of fairness in the courts, the rights given under common law marriages for polygamists should be applied, too.
TheNoNamedOne
07-31-2007, 08:54 PM
I don't see why a person would want more than one spouse.
All three or four of them may love one another and want that recognized by society as a commitment backed up by law.
If a person can afford to maintain more than one spouse, then the employer is paying him or her too much. heh.
That has just got to be at least one logical fallacy or another, or just a non-serious crack. I geuss the latter.
socalheart
07-31-2007, 10:38 PM
All three or four of them my love one another and want that recognized by society as a commitment backed up by law.
That has just got to be at least one logical fallacy or another, or just a non-serious crack. I geuss the latter.
As suggested by the "heh", the part preceeding the "heh" is a light-hearted comment on the topic. :)
pmtswife
08-01-2007, 11:55 AM
umm why would you want another man!! One is enough of a pain!!!!!! HAHAHA!!!!
zeldan
08-01-2007, 03:04 PM
Hm, personally, I like committed relationships (I'm a jealous little girl, what can I say?), but I don't think it should be outlawed. People should be able love who they want to, regardless of how many "whos" are involved. I think it would cut back on people cheating on each other, and as long as all parties agree, then it really shouldn't matter.
okinawapaul
08-01-2007, 09:49 PM
I see no problem with it. Obviously all parties involved are for it, what is it any of my business to judge them? If a man finds 2, 3 or 4 women who don't mind, let him go for it. Who knows, maybe their all freaks in the bedroom and love being together?
I see no problem with it. Obviously all parties involved are for it, what is it any of my business to judge them? If a man finds 2, 3 or 4 women who don't mind, let him go for it. Who knows, maybe their all freaks in the bedroom and love being together?
What more could anyone ever want?!
If I had multiple wives I'd rename them each after the days of the week. "Your name is Monday". "Your name is Thursday". "Your name is afternoon quickie!"
TheNoNamedOne
08-01-2007, 10:07 PM
If I had multiple wives I'd rename them each after the days of the week. "Your name is Monday". "Your name is Thursday".
LMAO!
We've already agreed that polygamy, if allowed, should not be LDS's style of slavery -- where you'd even get to name them.
"Your name is afternoon quickie!"
At least allow her to have upper case letters for the first letters in her names.
Afternoon Quickie.
If you're gonna name them on some kind of preference, why not do so with postions?
Doggie Style, Missionary, ....
At least that way when you call them you wouldn't have to explain your taste for that moment of fun.
Hmm, I don't think it'd be a good idea to limit them by position. Best to just stick with the days of the week and expect them to know all of them!
And hey, if they don't have them all memorized, teach them!
TheNoNamedOne
08-01-2007, 10:14 PM
But with positions you'd get 69 wives. Days of the week gets you only 7.
TheNoNamedOne
08-01-2007, 10:15 PM
Man, we gotta get back on topic.
But with positions you'd get 69 wives. Days of the week gets you only 7.
But I don't need all the positions! 5 or so is enough!
Man, we gotta get back on topic.
Ok. Polygamy is a good thing. Because you can have a sexy party with lots of women whenever you want.
DoctorP
08-01-2007, 10:45 PM
Ok. Polygamy is a good thing. Because you can have a sexy party with lots of women whenever you want.
...and not get into trouble for doing it! :p
...and not get into trouble for doing it! :p
Exactly! :D
Tempestuous
08-02-2007, 03:30 AM
"Your name is afternoon quickie!"
LoL!!!!!! Dieing here! That was funny!
I think I am gonna have to nominate that for the post of the week!
Boost
08-02-2007, 03:59 AM
Ok. Polygamy is a good thing. Because you can have a sexy party with lots of women whenever you want.
But what if the roles got switched on you? What if your wife wanted to have 2,3, or 4 husbands?
zeldan
08-02-2007, 04:20 AM
Haha, I was thinking throughout this entire thread that, pfft, I'd be the one with the multiples, haha. I think it would be best for everyone if every person involved had at least one other person, so that way they weren't completely committed to one person, because, hey, if they wanted to be committed to one person, then they'd be in a monogamous relationship.
Tempestuous
08-02-2007, 04:28 AM
So polygamy & swinging kind of hand in hand......kind of make sense because you would have 1 that was totally committed to only one partner while the partner was not committed.
honestly I believe that there would become favorites.....you cannot carry on 2,3,or 4 relationships all on the equal level for a long period of time.
I see you being drawn in closer to one particular person that you get the closest to. Granted you may have one that you like this about, and another you like that about, I believe you would develop more intense feelings for one.
TheNoNamedOne
08-02-2007, 12:28 PM
honestly I believe that there would become favorites.....you cannot carry on 2,3,or 4 relationships all on the equal level for a long period of time.
I see you being drawn in closer to one particular person that you get the closest to. Granted you may have one that you like this about, and another you like that about, I believe you would develop more intense feelings for one.
Some people may be ok with that.
But I am not sure if it is necessarily true that ultimately one favorite would come about. And even if it did, that does not mean it would have to manifest itself in the open.
Even amongst monogomous couples, some spouses share a desire to be more with an old lover or possibly be with someone new than with their current spouse. But, they can suppress that well enough so that the marriage does continue succesfully and happily for both of them.
Is it the happiest of all possibilities? Maybe not, but then that is a different topic.
But what if the roles got switched on you? What if your wife wanted to have 2,3, or 4 husbands?
Then I'd want 4,6, or 8 more wives! And they'd all have to have full-time jobs with steady incomes!
I can't be having a sausage party at the house, you know! Gotta keep that ratio balanced. 2:1 or better!
Granted you may have one that you like this about, and another you like that about, I believe you would develop more intense feelings for one.
I agree completely. People are unique, and under different circumstances you'd want to hang out with a different spouse (or two). For instance, if one drinks and another doesn't, when I'm in the mood to drink it's pretty obvious who I'd want to be hanging out with.
And this is exactly how I am even with people I know. If I want to talk business, I hang out with open minded smart people. If I just want to let loose, I don't hang out with buzzkills. :o
Boost
08-03-2007, 06:58 AM
I still can't see the benefits of having more then one spouse outweighing the downside. Like I said, I have no interest in having a second wife...a concubine maybe, but not another wife! :D
TheNoNamedOne
08-03-2007, 12:31 PM
I still can't see the benefits of having more then one spouse outweighing the downside. Like I said, I have no interest in having a second wife...a concubine maybe, but not another wife! :D
Funny you should mention concubines. For the most part concubines were taken by people in high status positions where multiple marriages were not permitted by the laws or customs of that society. Because of that concubines lived quite vicariously. Once out of favor with their Lord they had no recourse or way for redress. They were simply at the mercy of their Lord.
A marriage license on the other hand would protect them with rights on equal footing with anyone in the marriage -- particularly in today's society.
That is a great benefit -- one that protects one from exploitation.
Tempestuous
08-03-2007, 05:41 PM
But multiple wives as enticing as it sounds .............
Honestly.....it is the fact of having permission, more like acceptance, to have sex with more than woman that make the idea appear as slightly enticing/appealing, isn't it?
Otherwise one envisions the possibility of :7: at the thought of wife finding out you were sleeping with someone else.
:D
Norobizaka
08-05-2007, 04:36 PM
Some aspects of this seem to be appealing. But In the long run, I don't think I would be able to afford and handle more than one wife.
DougP
08-05-2007, 05:07 PM
I guess if you can't be happy with just one glass whether it be half full or half empty then more power to you
okibill
08-08-2007, 09:47 PM
As I see it, with 5-6 wives (even with all making minimum wage), I can make a pretty good living! :p
Boost
08-09-2007, 01:16 AM
As I see it, with 5-6 wives (even with all making minimum wage), I can make a pretty good living! :p
You would think so, but then think of all the added expenses of having 5-6 wives let alone the children you could/would have with them! Food, clothes, hygiene items...man the list could go on and on!
But think of all the money you could make with video production! Dude, your mind is in the wrong place.
Boost
08-09-2007, 01:35 AM
But think of all the money you could make with video production! Dude, your mind is in the wrong place.
OMG! I never thought of that! Now I feel ashamed I didn't think of it.
Speaking of, JU Productions Inc. does have a nice ring to it. :)
Heh, we'll think of a better name in Second Life. Can't post my idea here. My monitor might start sweating, and that wouldn't be a good thing. :p
Boost
08-09-2007, 01:41 AM
Heh, we'll think of a better name in Second Life. Can't post my idea here. My monitor might start sweating, and that wouldn't be a good thing. :p
LoL-Reminds me of an e-mail I recieved. Supposedly it was a taped phone call between Paris and Lindsey when Paris was still in jail. It was real quite so you had to turn up the speakers to hear it and then all of the sudden, it started playing "I'm looking at gay porn" very, very loudly.
But yeah, with a little colaboration I'm sure we could make it hot!
okibill
08-09-2007, 02:54 AM
You would think so, but then think of all the added expenses of having 5-6 wives let alone the children you could/would have with them! Food, clothes, hygiene items...man the list could go on and on!
I never mentioned children....:scared:
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d22/ws61/image005.jpg
(just kidding people)
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.