What's so wrong with polygamy" (states, Idaho, women, news)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kind of like Nazi Germany , right ? If your philosophy is correct then Hitler wasnt objectively wrong for he had a great following that believed in what he was trying to accomplish.
*Yawn*
An argument based on some strained similarity to the Nazi Germany, otherwise known as Reductio ad Hitlerum, is a logical fallacy. Go ahead, read it -- so you may better understand what kind of nonsense you wrote above. Above all, it's a fallacy of irrelevance. The Nazi's promoted a good work ethic; so according to you, anyone who is a conscientious worker is emulating the Nazi Germany. The Nazi's also promoted patriotism; so according to you, anyone who loves his or her country is a Nazi. I could go on. I didn't say that people who have a great following are never objectively wrong by reason of that following. I said that the criteria for eligibility to marry, other than racial, are governed by social consensus.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 08-15-2010 at 08:55 AM..
Reason: Please discuss the topic, not each other.
Well it might work in some third world countries and countries where women have no say in anything but in democratic countries where women have rights it is a no go, just think if all 3 wives suddenly want out these guys could have very large money problems having to support all the families he has created or is the tax payer going to be stung again for his irreponsiblity. Any woman who has half a brain surely wouldn't fall for this way of life. He wants his cake and eat it.
Polygamy that is truly consenual, and really amoung adults who are capable of making their own decisions, should not be illegal. Those who state, quite correctly, that the face and perception of polygamy comes from cultures where misogony is rampant are quite correct.
I have always felt that I would be very happy as a co-wife, with a loving and willing husband and co-wife. Many of my most emotionally intimate relationships have been with women, and I believe that with people who do not tend towards jealousy, and who can make a real committment to two other people, that might be an ideal solution to the problems of lonliness and isolation posed by a "modern" society.
Most people don't understand what you are saying but it is the truth in a polygamous lifestyle.
busta
No, what most people don't understand is that any kind of arrangement looks as good as pumpkin pie IF it's between loving, willing, and emotionally stable people who tend neither towards jealousy nor towards promiscuity, are real adults who are capable of making their own decisions, and willing to make a commitment. Don't you realize that the argument in the comment that you've quoted could just as easily have been made in favor of monogamous marriages? Hey, if it's between two emotionally stable, mature people who aren't looking for unpaid domestic servants or multiple sex partners, monogamous marriage is THE ideal solution to the problems of loneliness and isolation posed by a "modern" society -- especially since unlike polygamy, it doesn't threaten to leave lots and lots of men without wives. In fact, you know what would be the ideal solution to loneliness and isolation and all those other societal ills? If everyone was just a mature, emotionally stable, loving adult. As it is, however, we don't live an in ideal world, and people are imperfect, including people who enter polygamous relationships. In the real world, people tend to take advantage of each others' weaknesses, sometimes with catastrophic consequences, not only for the family, but for society at large. Polygamy greatly exacerbates those risks.
An argument based on some strained similarity to the Nazi Germany, otherwise known as Reductio ad Hitlerum, is a logical fallacy. Go ahead, read it -- so you may better understand what kind of nonsense you wrote above. Above all, it's a fallacy of irrelevance. The Nazi's promoted a good work ethic; so according to you, anyone who is a conscientious worker is emulating the Nazi Germany. The Nazi's also promoted patriotism; so according to you, anyone who loves his or her country is a Nazi. I could go on. I didn't say that people who have a great following are never objectively wrong by reason of that following. I said that the criteria for eligibility to marry, other than racial, are governed by social consensus.
I reiterate : If there are NO absolute moral laws in society, then nothing is objectively wrong and only ones opinion --- The Halocaust can be an illustration or 4,000 babies while still in the womb being sucked into a sink ( per day ) in the name of sexual hedonism for America . Polygamy , adultery, euthanasia, and all other social ills are not objectively wrong if moral relativism is true. That is the point im trying to make. Dont read more into it than that .
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 08-15-2010 at 08:56 AM..
Reason: Please discuss the topic, not each other.
Your post makes little sense to me. Why would multiple adults have any harder time taking care of each other and children than just two adults? Why are you talking about it as (1) there would necessarily be only one man involved, and (2) it's only the man's responsibility to take care of others??
Because in polygamy the multiple adults are actually multiple women but still ONE man. With more women in the picture the chances of more children being born are a given. Unlike in a monogamous relationship, the children ages won't be spaced out so it's possible to come home to a daycare of babies, toddlers, and teens for the next 30+ years or until the man dies. That's much harder than a monogamous couple taking care of their children. 1) We're taking about "polygamy" which is one man with more than one woman. This translates into many children with a mother, another woman (or women) in the home but still only one DAD. In practical terms, how does ONE man take care of the needs of multiple children and multiple women in a 24 hour day?? How will that work for seven days a week 52 weeks a year? 2) Yes, it is ONLY the man's responsibility to take care of the others in the role of the "husband" and "father". The women can not fill that role although they have their own responsibilities as wives and mothers.
I live a polyamorous life. I've a husband I've been with for 10 years, and a boyfriend I've been with for 12 years. They in turn have OSO's as well (Other Significant Others).
For us personally, I don't care of polygamy/polyandry is ever made legal, especially because the implied "closed triad/quad/etc." nature of polygamy/polyandry doesn't really fit us.
Our eventual goal is to buy 50+ acres and build a few houses on the land. One for me and my husband, one for my boyfriend and his (eventual) wife, one for my husband's girlfriend and her (eventual) husband, etc. Probably with one or two other houses for whomever else happens to join the "Family."
For that dream, "marriage" isn't really suitable. There are other legal means that are much better suited to keeping everything fair and balanced and ensuring rights of inheritance, etc.
There are a million different permutations of how people stylize their polyamorous lives. Polygamy and polyandry are just two of them, and when people hear either word, they immediately picture "one man/multiple women" or "one woman/multiple men." Outside of some rather odd cult-like religious sects, those "closed groups" are actually pretty rare in the polyamory culture.
Mine, which is referred to as a "W" (and really ends up becoming a series of interconnected WWWW's) is a lot more common. Why a "W"? Ok, trace the points of the letter - top left, bottom left, top center, bottom right, top right. In our relationship - I'm the top center. My husband would be the bottom left, my boyfriend the bottom right. My husband's girlfriend would be the top left, my boyfriend's girlfriend the top right. That's because none of the relationships are connected except through me - I don't have a relationship "with" my husband's or boyfriend's girlfriends, my husband and my boyfriend don't have a relationship between them... other than friendship all around. But we "share" my husband or my boyfriend, and my husband and boyfriend "share" me.
It becomes interconnected WWWs if/when the girlfriends also have additional relationships besides the ones they have with my husband or my boyfriend. And it can continue to grow out from there.
It's not nearly as confusing as it sounds... at least not when you're living it. What it IS, however, is a legal logistical nightmare if you're trying to write laws about it. I honestly can't even imagine the kind of massive changes that would have to take place in our current laws to accommodate marriage between more than two people - and keep in mind, I'm a huge huge huge huge huge advocate for the legalization of gay marriage.
Not so much when it comes to poly, though. Not because I have moral objections (obviously), but because I honestly can't see a way for our laws to cover the dozens of different relationship styles that exist just among people I consider close friends!!!!!
Would I like it to be easier to ensure that all of our legal/financial concerns can be addressed in a simplified manner? Sure. Do I think such a thing is truly practical? No, not really... or at least I haven't seen a policy suggested that would actually work. It'd take a much finer mind than mine to come up with it, that's for sure.
Marriage conveys over 1,100 legal rights and benefits... changing legal marriage to include more than one spouse requires an enormous overhaul of our system. The rights of inheritance issues alone are enormous. Kinship, medical coverage, medical decisions, laws regarding leases, automobile ownership and liability, auto insurance, mortgage laws, credit laws, public assistance, anything involving dependents...
This isn't a simple matter of changing one or two words (husband and wife to spouse and spouse, for example... as with gay marriage) here and there. It's a massive revamping of hundreds of laws.
That doesn't even begin to address issues of "priority."
A & B meet and marry. B meets C and B & C get married. Do A & C want to marry? Yes? No? C meets D and C & D get married. A & D decide they want to be married, too.
B dies. A was there first... but isn't C also entitled to spousal death benefits? Who gets more? A because they were there first, or C because C & B ended up having children together? What if A has children with B & with D? How are A's death benefits divided up?
On and on and on...
Do you make only certain "styles" of polyamorous marriages legal? Limit the number? Set guidelines on who can have children with whom? No way that'll fly.
It's a logistical nightmare of epic proportions...
Would I vote for it to be legalized? Possibly. If the logistics made sense, likely. As I said, I obviously have no moral objection to it. But I'm big on logic, and as yet, I've not seen a logical way of making it legal and fair.
I think at most I'd like to see laws enacted (or repealed) in such a way that makes it so employers, schools, businesses, etc. cannot discriminate against those in polyamorous relationships... and so that we can't be prosecuted by some archaic law against adultery... if everyone is consenting adults, it's none of the government's business (or Mrs. Grundy's). But beyond that... yeah, I'm just not seeing it. Nor will I be crying in my milk if things stay exactly as they are with regards to poly relationships.
I just don't feel driven to change things in that regard.
I reiterate : If there are NO absolute moral laws in society, then nothing is objectively wrong and only ones opinion --- The Halocaust can be an illustration or 4,000 babies while still in the womb being sucked into a sink ( per day ) in the name of sexual hedonism for America . Polygamy , adultery, euthanasia, and all other social ills are not objectively wrong if moral relativism is true. That is the point im trying to make. Dont read more into it than that.
I didn't say that there should be no "absolute" moral laws in society, only that eligibility for legally recognized marriage is governed by social consensus. Your little rant is simply irrelevant to what I was saying. Reiterate all you want; all you do is demonstrate yet again that you don't understand what I am saying, or choose not to. Apart from the simple issue of irrelevance, there is much in your rant that's debatable (who decides what "sexual hedonism" is? you?), but I will not help you derail this thread, which is what you are doing now. I do ask you, though, to cool it with the references to the Holocaust. As I've explained, Nazi-themed hyperbole lends no support to whatever argument you are trying to make.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 08-15-2010 at 08:57 AM..
Reason: Please discuss the topic, not each other.
I live a polyamorous life. I've a husband I've been with for 10 years, and a boyfriend I've been with for 12 years. They in turn have OSO's as well (Other Significant Others).
For us personally, I don't care of polygamy/polyandry is ever made legal, especially because the implied "closed triad/quad/etc." nature of polygamy/polyandry doesn't really fit us.
Our eventual goal is to buy 50+ acres and build a few houses on the land. One for me and my husband, one for my boyfriend and his (eventual) wife, one for my husband's girlfriend and her (eventual) husband, etc. Probably with one or two other houses for whomever else happens to join the "Family."
For that dream, "marriage" isn't really suitable. There are other legal means that are much better suited to keeping everything fair and balanced and ensuring rights of inheritance, etc.
There are a million different permutations of how people stylize their polyamorous lives. Polygamy and polyandry are just two of them, and when people hear either word, they immediately picture "one man/multiple women" or "one woman/multiple men." Outside of some rather odd cult-like religious sects, those "closed groups" are actually pretty rare in the polyamory culture.
Mine, which is referred to as a "W" (and really ends up becoming a series of interconnected WWWW's) is a lot more common. Why a "W"? Ok, trace the points of the letter - top left, bottom left, top center, bottom right, top right. In our relationship - I'm the top center. My husband would be the bottom left, my boyfriend the bottom right. My husband's girlfriend would be the top left, my boyfriend's girlfriend the top right. That's because none of the relationships are connected except through me - I don't have a relationship "with" my husband's or boyfriend's girlfriends, my husband and my boyfriend don't have a relationship between them... other than friendship all around. But we "share" my husband or my boyfriend, and my husband and boyfriend "share" me.
It becomes interconnected WWWs if/when the girlfriends also have additional relationships besides the ones they have with my husband or my boyfriend. And it can continue to grow out from there.
It's not nearly as confusing as it sounds... at least not when you're living it. What it IS, however, is a legal logistical nightmare if you're trying to write laws about it. I honestly can't even imagine the kind of massive changes that would have to take place in our current laws to accommodate marriage between more than two people - and keep in mind, I'm a huge huge huge huge huge advocate for the legalization of gay marriage.
Not so much when it comes to poly, though. Not because I have moral objections (obviously), but because I honestly can't see a way for our laws to cover the dozens of different relationship styles that exist just among people I consider close friends!!!!!
Would I like it to be easier to ensure that all of our legal/financial concerns can be addressed in a simplified manner? Sure. Do I think such a thing is truly practical? No, not really... or at least I haven't seen a policy suggested that would actually work. It'd take a much finer mind than mine to come up with it, that's for sure.
Marriage conveys over 1,100 legal rights and benefits... changing legal marriage to include more than one spouse requires an enormous overhaul of our system. The rights of inheritance issues alone are enormous. Kinship, medical coverage, medical decisions, laws regarding leases, automobile ownership and liability, auto insurance, mortgage laws, credit laws, public assistance, anything involving dependents...
This isn't a simple matter of changing one or two words (husband and wife to spouse and spouse, for example... as with gay marriage) here and there. It's a massive revamping of hundreds of laws.
That doesn't even begin to address issues of "priority."
A & B meet and marry. B meets C and B & C get married. Do A & C want to marry? Yes? No? C meets D and C & D get married. A & D decide they want to be married, too.
B dies. A was there first... but isn't C also entitled to spousal death benefits? Who gets more? A because they were there first, or C because C & B ended up having children together? What if A has children with B & with D? How are A's death benefits divided up?
On and on and on...
Do you make only certain "styles" of polyamorous marriages legal? Limit the number? Set guidelines on who can have children with whom? No way that'll fly.
It's a logistical nightmare of epic proportions...
Would I vote for it to be legalized? Possibly. If the logistics made sense, likely. As I said, I obviously have no moral objection to it. But I'm big on logic, and as yet, I've not seen a logical way of making it legal and fair.
I think at most I'd like to see laws enacted (or repealed) in such a way that makes it so employers, schools, businesses, etc. cannot discriminate against those in polyamorous relationships... and so that we can't be prosecuted by some archaic law against adultery... if everyone is consenting adults, it's none of the government's business (or Mrs. Grundy's). But beyond that... yeah, I'm just not seeing it. Nor will I be crying in my milk if things stay exactly as they are with regards to poly relationships.
I just don't feel driven to change things in that regard.
holy crap that gives me a headache just reading it, so your going to start your own commune?
holy crap that gives me a headache just reading it, so your going to start your own commune?
If by commune you mean the dictionary definition of "a group of people living together and sharing possessions and responsibilities" - then I suppose that's as good a word as any, since it's synonymous with "family."
If by commune you mean a la David Koresh or Warren Jeffs'esque - then no. Especially since none of us have been so indoctrinated by religion that we think we have some holy mission or are the earthly embodiment of the messiah... or have some sick interest in sexually abusing young children under the guise of "marriage."
We're a group of family and friends who love each other, who think it makes a lot more sense to share the expense involved in owning a large plot of land/property, who actually enjoy spending time together, and who enjoy taking care of each other... and being in close proximity makes that a lot easier.
What's so wrong with polygamy if all the partners are adult and consent to it? Yes it's illegal, but on moral grounds, what makes it so wrong?
I couldn't give a rip about it from a morality point of view. I'm opposed to it cause for the most part, the average guy couldn't afford all of the children and wives and they'd end up on welfare.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What it IS, however, is a legal logistical nightmare if you're trying to write laws about it. I honestly can't even imagine the kind of massive changes that would have to take place in our current laws to accommodate marriage between more than two people - and keep in mind, I'm a huge huge huge huge huge advocate for the legalization of gay marriage. 
holy crap that gives me a headache just reading it, so your going to start your own commune?
