"it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights."
The debate on polygamy and gay-marriage share very similar arguments.. Gay rights activists argue that marriage should not discriminate against gender. So if we were to not discriminate against gender.. why should we discriminate against number choices in marriage? I mean gay rights activists believe they should be able to marry whoever they love. Same argument is shared with polygamy.
So how can you possibly argue against Polygamy? Gay activists argue that homosexuality is basically a deeper level of love which "occupies a deeper level of human consciousness" while polygamy is simply an "activity". But doesn't this contradict Gay activists' argument for the legalization of gay marriage? That they want to get rid of any distinction of love.. that all forms of love are equal.
Article:
http://www.washingto...opinion/columns
Well I'm against gay-marriage for personal reasons and obviously am against polygamy as well..
But all of you for gay-marriages.. how can you argue against this?
Discuss
0
Polygamy
Started by
Grizzly
, May 15 2006 02:41 PM
57 replies to this topic
#1
Grizzly
-
- Retired Member
-
- N/A Positive Feedback
- 0 0 0
- 4,926 posts
<img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>
Posted 15 May 2006 - 02:41 PM
#2
Posted 15 May 2006 - 03:12 PM
Polygamy would be saweet, no lie. 
||POWERTHIRST (AB)USER||
pyke, on Jun 7 2008, 12:55 PM, said:
How the fuck are you doing coke at work, are you a lawyer or something?
illicit, on Jul 9 2008, 01:43 AM, said:
Real men solve problems via LPC, word. :thumbsup:
#3
Posted 15 May 2006 - 03:15 PM
Gay mariiage, fine. I don't care. Polygamy, is wrong, but if you want to do it I don't care. Just because we find something morally wrong does not mean those who find it morally right shouldn't be able to do it.
This one is Cata's.
▲
▲ ▲
▲
▲ ▲
#4
Posted 15 May 2006 - 03:20 PM
Until polygomists start being anything other than backwoods pedophiles, I don't really see the point in asking about their rights at all.
RandomSignatureIgnoreIt
#5
Posted 15 May 2006 - 03:32 PM
If this is the polygamy as in more then two spouses at once, then I know what you're talking about .. 
Well I dont see why not .. if the wife/wives agree to it then why the heck not ...
What I dis-like about some peoples arguements is something like 'it's wrong, not natural'. Well who're we/you to say what's 'natural' and/or 'right' or 'wrong? I understand it's your opinion, but seriously, you should really back so it's more then that ...
Anywho .. if all the spouses agree to it, then let them do whatever they want ..
Well I dont see why not .. if the wife/wives agree to it then why the heck not ...
What I dis-like about some peoples arguements is something like 'it's wrong, not natural'. Well who're we/you to say what's 'natural' and/or 'right' or 'wrong? I understand it's your opinion, but seriously, you should really back so it's more then that ...
Anywho .. if all the spouses agree to it, then let them do whatever they want ..
#6
Posted 15 May 2006 - 03:38 PM
Cody, on May 15 2006, 07:35 PM, said:
yes cara... brake it down.. poly meaning more than one.. and gamy the suffix for marriage... put them together... the marriage of more than one...
Har har, I wasn't sure, no one really explained what it was .. lol ..
I actually had to look it up to reassure myself a little more .. god am I dork .. lol ..
http://dictionary.re...arch?q=polygamy
#7
Posted 15 May 2006 - 03:40 PM
Cara, on May 15 2006, 07:38 PM, said:
Har har, I wasn't sure, no one really explained what it was .. lol ..
I actually had to look it up to reassure myself a little more .. god am I dork .. lol ..
http://dictionary.re...arch?q=polygamy
I actually had to look it up to reassure myself a little more .. god am I dork .. lol ..
http://dictionary.re...arch?q=polygamy
I kind of disagree with it. Love should be shared between two individuals, not one and many others xD
#8 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
-
- Guests
Posted 15 May 2006 - 03:47 PM
Not all polygamists are backwoods pedophiles. That is a false stereotype. There were a couple back in the 70's and 80's, but they were taken care of, and urban legend and centuries of Judeo-Christian organization has done the dirty work, anyway. A negative stereotype, completely unfounded, like most are. =P
There's actually quite a few polygamists in America - while, not legally married to more than one spouse, are spiritually married. And they aren't all Mormons. =P There really aren't that many Mormons in America who really practice polygamy, although some still do support it (in theory).
There's nothing in the Bible against polygamy; rather, there's plenty in the Bible that supports polygamy. However, most Christians and Jews today see that as a necessity of long ago, and no longer needed nor allowed. Saint Augustine was the one who really wrote about the wrongs of polygamy, and like many things he wrote, it became a doctrine of the Catholic church, and later, the Protestant spin-offs.
More Westernized Muslims see polygamy in the same way that Christians and Jews do - no longer necessary. However, in some Muslim countries, it's still commonly practiced. In others, it's very rare. But there is more of a tolerance amongst Muslims for it (as long as it follows the rules, so to speak) than amongst many other religions in Western civilization (even if those religions once practiced it, themselves).
In the far East, while it's not as common, and in some places forbidden in the past century, there's still polyamory going on. That is, the taking of multiple sex partners (a man with many females), without marriage. A man will have one wife, and perhaps a mistress or two.
Of course, all of these don't really support polygamy - they support polygyny - a man with multiple spouses. Very few societies actually do support polyandry - a woman with multiple husbands - and normally it is not an empowering thing for the woman. Rather, she is being shared amongst two or more men (normally brothers or cousins). Once again, this is because the male to female ratio is out of proportion.
Anyway, what do I think of it? Once again, I'll state that I don't think that the government should have a hand in regulating marriage at all. But whatever, most people don't seem to accept that view. While I, certainly, could not have a polygamous relationship, far be for me to deny others who wish to partake in such. Their private lives do not affect mine.
There's actually quite a few polygamists in America - while, not legally married to more than one spouse, are spiritually married. And they aren't all Mormons. =P There really aren't that many Mormons in America who really practice polygamy, although some still do support it (in theory).
There's nothing in the Bible against polygamy; rather, there's plenty in the Bible that supports polygamy. However, most Christians and Jews today see that as a necessity of long ago, and no longer needed nor allowed. Saint Augustine was the one who really wrote about the wrongs of polygamy, and like many things he wrote, it became a doctrine of the Catholic church, and later, the Protestant spin-offs.
More Westernized Muslims see polygamy in the same way that Christians and Jews do - no longer necessary. However, in some Muslim countries, it's still commonly practiced. In others, it's very rare. But there is more of a tolerance amongst Muslims for it (as long as it follows the rules, so to speak) than amongst many other religions in Western civilization (even if those religions once practiced it, themselves).
In the far East, while it's not as common, and in some places forbidden in the past century, there's still polyamory going on. That is, the taking of multiple sex partners (a man with many females), without marriage. A man will have one wife, and perhaps a mistress or two.
Of course, all of these don't really support polygamy - they support polygyny - a man with multiple spouses. Very few societies actually do support polyandry - a woman with multiple husbands - and normally it is not an empowering thing for the woman. Rather, she is being shared amongst two or more men (normally brothers or cousins). Once again, this is because the male to female ratio is out of proportion.
Anyway, what do I think of it? Once again, I'll state that I don't think that the government should have a hand in regulating marriage at all. But whatever, most people don't seem to accept that view. While I, certainly, could not have a polygamous relationship, far be for me to deny others who wish to partake in such. Their private lives do not affect mine.
Edited by Casilla, 15 May 2006 - 03:48 PM.
#9
Posted 15 May 2006 - 03:58 PM
Casilla, on May 15 2006, 05:47 PM, said:
Not all polygamists are backwoods pedophiles. That is a false stereotype. There were a couple back in the 70's and 80's, but they were taken care of, and urban legend and centuries of Judeo-Christian organization has done the dirty work, anyway. A negative stereotype, completely unfounded, like most are. =P
As true as that may be, my hatred for what they stand for prevents me from saying anything non-slanderous about them
If it were up to me they'd be lined in up the square and shot, post-haste 
Quote
Anyway, what do I think of it? Once again, I'll state that I don't think that the government should have a hand in regulating marriage at all. But whatever, most people don't seem to accept that view. While I, certainly, could not have a polygamous relationship, far be for me to deny others who wish to partake in such. Their private lives do not affect mine.
Ah, but there's always the question of do their private lives affect society, and will that then impact you or someone close to you in the future?
RandomSignatureIgnoreIt
#10 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
-
- Guests
Posted 15 May 2006 - 04:14 PM
BrknPhoenix, on May 15 2006, 03:58 PM, said:
As true as that may be, my hatred for what they stand for prevents me from saying anything non-slanderous about them If it were up to me they'd be lined in up the square and shot, post-haste
Ah, but there's always the question of do their private lives affect society, and will that then impact you or someone close to you in the future?
If it were up to me they'd be lined in up the square and shot, post-haste Ah, but there's always the question of do their private lives affect society, and will that then impact you or someone close to you in the future?
If a friend of mine wants to enter a polygamous relationship, I honestly wouldn't care. Of course, there's a paranoia with abnormal conditions such as these, what if it wasn't a consentual relationship - but there's far more monagamous, even incestuous, abuse than there is this sort of thing; because it's so rare, and there's pre-determined social norms to fall back upon when you're not sure. That's also why there's so few homosexual abuses, unless, once again, it's incestuous (or in prison).
That's the thing about abuse - rape and etc happens far more often with people that you know, who have some position of authority over you, then with strangers.
So I'm not worried about abuse within polygamous relationships, even less so incest. If anything, molestation should be more rare amongst large families (which polygamists tend to have), because there's more people around to notice when something is wrong.
And many polygamists will tell you - they feel they have a very happy homelife, that they enjoy it, because there's a large household of adults, a firm network of support. There's always someone there to help, and they feel like the a superior family unit because of it. And you can't fault that, in America, where the family unit is an endangered species.
And this also goes back to the homosexuals adopting kids debate. Here's the thing. It doesn't matter your sexual orientation, or how many mommys or daddys a kid has. There's good parents, and there's bad parents. Just because you're straight and monogamous does not automatically make you great parents (rather, quite the opposite in a lot of cases), and just because you're gay and polygamous doesn't mean you're a bad parent (although I'm going to be stereotypical and say that lesbians more often have the stability to raise kids than gay men do, but whatever, off-topic).
Edited by Casilla, 15 May 2006 - 04:15 PM.
#11
Posted 15 May 2006 - 04:21 PM
AliasXNeo, on May 15 2006, 07:06 PM, said:
You said that if someone finds something morally right, they should be allowed to do it. Well, what if I found killing morally right? I should be able to do it. A common answer would be "Well it's illegal". Why is it illegal? Because OTHER people thing it's morally wrong, but not me, so it should be right. That's basically what you said.
1) It's in my religion, although this is not why. I just feel that my thoughts should be considered, and although alot of people take it all defensivly, there are those who do actually take it into consideration and reply with a calm answer.
2) And what if the things that we opened up to went corrupt and ended up putting the world into an even worse state then before? It's these things we must no ignore.
3) I'm not telling someone who they can and can't love. I'm telling them that it's not right for them to get married, as well as have any type of sexual relation. Alot of people define love as having a relationship that includes kissing, sex, and all that other stuff. This kind of relationship is not for a man and a man. Now a man and a man can love eachother, sure, I love alot of men, but it doesn't mean i'm going to go have sex with them.
1) It's in my religion, although this is not why. I just feel that my thoughts should be considered, and although alot of people take it all defensivly, there are those who do actually take it into consideration and reply with a calm answer.
2) And what if the things that we opened up to went corrupt and ended up putting the world into an even worse state then before? It's these things we must no ignore.
3) I'm not telling someone who they can and can't love. I'm telling them that it's not right for them to get married, as well as have any type of sexual relation. Alot of people define love as having a relationship that includes kissing, sex, and all that other stuff. This kind of relationship is not for a man and a man. Now a man and a man can love eachother, sure, I love alot of men, but it doesn't mean i'm going to go have sex with them.
Not so with polygamy. Both parties would have to go into it willingly for it to exist anyway, so the idea that anyone is harmed is poppycock.
Oh, I live to be the ruler of life, not a slave.
Spoiler
#12
Posted 15 May 2006 - 04:32 PM
Casilla, on May 15 2006, 07:14 PM, said:
Everything you said.
Sorry I quoted like that, but I just didn't want to have the big wall of text when your post is right up there for anyone to see, lol.
Anyway, I don't think that polygamous children will be raised badly, or even that their relationships will be abusive. However, I also don't think the fact that the make a more "productive" family because there are more people in it is a proper justification. The prime factor in marriage, as intended, is to love. To love one more than any other.
As productive and efficient as a polygamous marriage may be, there is only so much love the man can give each wife, and it's certain the amount he loves each would not be balanced. The whole thing goes against the very concept of marriage, it's a paradox. You're supposed to love your wife more than anyone, yet you have many wives, all of which you love differently. It's just a mockery of the whole thing.
Love and loyalty is the driving force behind marriage, not having enough wives to get all the house chores done before you get home. You can hardly say you truly love when your love is so divided, and you can hardly call yourself loyal when you had to lower standards in order to make the claim.
Any man could be with multiple wives, but it takes a real man, and a strong person to be with one for all their life. The same goes for women of course, although as you said, it's usually the man on the "good" end, lol. But anyway, their lack of love and loyalty disgusts me.
To the original point of the topic, the difference between polygamy and gay marriage: Gays can still meet the basic criteria of love and loyalty. In polygamy, it's just not that way. You can't give all of your love to multiple women all of the time, and still fool yourself into thinking because you bent the rules down to your low level, you are loyal.
String em up
Edited by BrknPhoenix, 15 May 2006 - 04:33 PM.
RandomSignatureIgnoreIt
#13 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
-
- Guests
Posted 15 May 2006 - 04:46 PM
BrknPhoenix, on May 15 2006, 05:32 PM, said:
As productive and efficient as a polygamous marriage may be, there is only so much love the man can give each wife, and it's certain the amount he loves each would not be balanced. The whole thing goes against the very concept of marriage, it's a paradox. You're supposed to love your wife more than anyone, yet you have many wives, all of which you love differently. It's just a mockery of the whole thing.
You speak of love as a zero-sum equation. That someone only has so much ability to love, and they have to spread it accordingly, and they will only be able to love one person the most. If you asked a mother, which child do you love the most, most often their response would be, "I love them all equally." And what rivals the power of a mother's love?
So why is that not possible for multiple spouses? If it is possible to have multiple sex partners (no one denies that), and it is possible to love more than one person very fiercely, then it is completely possible to have more than one spouse, and love them equally and as strongly as any other married couple.
The problem with most Americans is that, they cannot fathom being able to do it themselves, so therefore, they do not believe it is possible. While I certainly could not do it - I do not doubt that others could, and have a happy marriage.
And furthermore, I beg the question, that marriage is not completely about love. That is a Hollywood dramatization. There are many factors that come into a successful marriage and home life - and if people are happy with polygamy, then what does it matter if you don't think that the man is spreading his love equally (or the woman spreading hers)? Certainly, not every married monogamous man devouts himself to his wife, just because he he has one. If people are truly happy, then it shouldn't matter how many people are within that relationship.
#14
Posted 15 May 2006 - 04:50 PM
[quote name='AliasXNeo' post='639002' date='May 15 2006, 05:17 PM']
And what does that teach society?
[/quote]
[quote name='Cody' date='May 15 2006, 05:22 PM' post='639004']
tolerance.
I couldn't have said it better myself Cody. Our country is built on the acceptance of different cultures and religions. It is NOBODY'S plac to tell somebody that their practices (that don't affect anybody but themselves) are morally wrong. If a person can find somebody that they love that deeply and that loves them back, they should hve no opposition from others about their life choices.
~Anna~
And what does that teach society?
[/quote]
[quote name='Cody' date='May 15 2006, 05:22 PM' post='639004']
tolerance.
I couldn't have said it better myself Cody. Our country is built on the acceptance of different cultures and religions. It is NOBODY'S plac to tell somebody that their practices (that don't affect anybody but themselves) are morally wrong. If a person can find somebody that they love that deeply and that loves them back, they should hve no opposition from others about their life choices.
~Anna~
Thank you Ali for the siggy!
"when you see two dogs humping, kinda takes all the magic outta sex" - Lee
#15 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
-
- Guests
Posted 15 May 2006 - 04:52 PM
AliasXNeo, on May 15 2006, 05:37 PM, said:
And for people who say the Bible does not say polygamy is wrong:
They were a few others that i'm still looking for.
They were a few others that i'm still looking for.
Alias! Do NOT quote the Bible out of context! <scowls> <pinch!>
(1 Timothy 3:2)
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(1 Timothy 3:12)
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
(Titus 1:5-7)
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Edited by Casilla, 15 May 2006 - 04:52 PM.
#16 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
-
- Guests
Posted 15 May 2006 - 05:04 PM
AliasXNeo, on May 15 2006, 06:00 PM, said:
I'm just doing it through a search program. I didn't mean too. Like I said, give me a little while, I can't find the one that specifically says it. I know it's in there though.
Fuck off. I didn't mean too, that's all the program gave me. You want to get angry, MSN me and we can settle this, else you can go suck a dick.
Fuck off. I didn't mean too, that's all the program gave me. You want to get angry, MSN me and we can settle this, else you can go suck a dick.
And let us not forget, that the Bible, even the New Testament, isn't exactly always correct when it comes to marital affairs. For example...
Quote
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
If my husband ever told me to submit to his will, oh boy, he'd be retching on the ground after I put my foot between his legs.
#17
Posted 15 May 2006 - 05:06 PM
Cody, on May 15 2006, 07:04 PM, said:
it's a nifty little concept you know.. I think it's called Tolerance
The problem with tolerance is most people that promote tolerance don't know when to stop being tolerant
RandomSignatureIgnoreIt
#18
Posted 15 May 2006 - 05:09 PM
Cody, on May 15 2006, 07:08 PM, said:
is there a point at which tolerance is a bad thing concerning matters that do no harm to another person physically or financially?
I notice emotionally didn't make your list, and that's the one that counts in most of these issues
RandomSignatureIgnoreIt
#19
Tetiel
-
- Retired Member
-
- N/A Positive Feedback
- 0 0 0
- 14,322 posts
<img src ='http://i32.tinypic.com/302oyrp.jpg'>
Posted 15 May 2006 - 05:10 PM
Ooooookay... with this subject there need not be a religion debate at all, hehe... all you gotta do is look at human nature Look... people are jealous creatures. Look at the number of murders and crimes related to passion. I'm not nessesarily saying that legalizing polygamy will increase the numbers of murders because I am no statistical sociologist, however I wouldn't be surprised. As a woman I would be horrified if my husband had another wife besides me but perhaps that is just my beliefs and by no means am I trying to say that is the norm But basically throughtout history we have needed marriage. It began in ancient times because we needed to understand ownership between others. The reason polygamy started is because many times men died because they were responsible for the dangerous jobs of hunting or fighting. In order for the population to survive one needed to have a man breed with many women. I think we all understand that one. However as it is in America currently we do not need this and can go on happily with monogamy because our population is about 50/50.
Though then again it seems that in America many people practice serial monogamy. We have many many partners and we divorce and remarry. So because of this our views of marriage are not incredibly strong and it can be bent. Perhaps this is a reason that polygamy is even considered because we hardly ever do just have one partner. However there is a severe problem. And that my friends is called favoritism among husband to wives and then something called jealousy. Casilla I must disagree with you on the spreading love amongst husband to wives equally. While there may be a rare case where one may find that to be true throughout history that has not been the case. Looking at a couple cases proves otherwise. Many kings from Egypt to China to Greece favored one wife over other wives. This was almost always the case. In fact because of the unfavored wife's jealousy occasically conspiracies for murder occured. But then again I understand that this is royalty and I cannot judge the average person by this.
I am merely stating some severe problems that could come with legalization of polygamy. To be honest if we have so many troubles with human emotions in monogamy with jealousy and such then I really don't even understand how polygamy would work. Judging by my observations it just doesn't seem plausable. After a while I do think that people would become unhappy. Of course these are my observations and I am no psychologist. I do not mean to start a fight, but I just forsee some major problems if people participate in polygamy :\
Look... people are jealous creatures. Look at the number of murders and crimes related to passion. I'm not nessesarily saying that legalizing polygamy will increase the numbers of murders because I am no statistical sociologist, however I wouldn't be surprised. As a woman I would be horrified if my husband had another wife besides me but perhaps that is just my beliefs and by no means am I trying to say that is the norm But basically throughtout history we have needed marriage. It began in ancient times because we needed to understand ownership between others. The reason polygamy started is because many times men died because they were responsible for the dangerous jobs of hunting or fighting. In order for the population to survive one needed to have a man breed with many women. I think we all understand that one. However as it is in America currently we do not need this and can go on happily with monogamy because our population is about 50/50.Though then again it seems that in America many people practice serial monogamy. We have many many partners and we divorce and remarry. So because of this our views of marriage are not incredibly strong and it can be bent. Perhaps this is a reason that polygamy is even considered because we hardly ever do just have one partner. However there is a severe problem. And that my friends is called favoritism among husband to wives and then something called jealousy. Casilla I must disagree with you on the spreading love amongst husband to wives equally. While there may be a rare case where one may find that to be true throughout history that has not been the case. Looking at a couple cases proves otherwise. Many kings from Egypt to China to Greece favored one wife over other wives. This was almost always the case. In fact because of the unfavored wife's jealousy occasically conspiracies for murder occured. But then again I understand that this is royalty and I cannot judge the average person by this.
I am merely stating some severe problems that could come with legalization of polygamy. To be honest if we have so many troubles with human emotions in monogamy with jealousy and such then I really don't even understand how polygamy would work. Judging by my observations it just doesn't seem plausable. After a while I do think that people would become unhappy. Of course these are my observations and I am no psychologist. I do not mean to start a fight, but I just forsee some major problems if people participate in polygamy :\
Nostalgia.
Spoiler
#20
Grizzly
-
- Retired Member
-
- N/A Positive Feedback
- 0 0 0
- 4,926 posts
<img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>
Posted 15 May 2006 - 05:11 PM
Casilla, on May 15 2006, 05:47 PM, said:
Anyway, what do I think of it? Once again, I'll state that I don't think that the government should have a hand in regulating marriage at all. But whatever, most people don't seem to accept that view.
*completely agrees* I don't think its in the power of the government to redefine the definition of a marriage. Because by law.. marriage is defined as being only between one man and one woman. And marriage falls under the scope of religion, and it isn't in the power of the government (According to the first ammendment) to impose upon religious rules.
As for polygamy. Right now it's not much of an issue because how many polygamists are out there in the US.. or rather people looking for polygamy. It's far from being accepted in our society as homosexuality is and the resistence for polygamy is even growing stronger compared to the past.
But theoretically speaking. What if the idea of polygamy spreads and more and more people want it? What if it were accepted more widely? Would you guys be okay with it being legalized?
If not.. how can you be for homosexual marriage and be against polygamy. What argument would you make against it that would not collide or contradict your arguments for homosexual marriage.
That's what I was trying get out of this debate but it seems like people are just arguing whether polygamy is right or wrong or natural and whatnot. blah blah blah blah blah.
#21
Posted 15 May 2006 - 05:18 PM
Freak, on May 15 2006, 07:11 PM, said:
What if it were accepted more widely? Would you guys be okay with it being legalized?
I will lead the charge to slaughter them all before it gets out of control
heheheQuote
If not.. how can you be for homosexual marriage and be against polygamy. What argument would you make against it that would not collide or contradict your arguments for homosexual marriage.
Well I already said it in another post, but to me marriage is love and loyalty. You can have that between two people of the same sex equally as much as you can between two people of the opposite sex, but in the situation of polygamy the amount of love coming from one end of the marriage is obviously diminished as it is divided amongst many. Let's face it, you can't pay as much attention to a woman if you have multiple wives as you could if you just have one.
And I can't help but see that it would have to require a bit of deadening of emotion to be in one of these relationships. "Gee, I'm the most special woman to him in the world! ......and so is Suzy... and so is Sally... and so is Gwen.... *sigh* Gwen gets to f**k him tonight, I wish it was my turn..."
RandomSignatureIgnoreIt
#22
Grizzly
-
- Retired Member
-
- N/A Positive Feedback
- 0 0 0
- 4,926 posts
<img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>
Posted 15 May 2006 - 05:20 PM
Tetiel, on May 15 2006, 07:10 PM, said:
Ooooookay... with this subject there need not be a religion debate at all, hehe... all you gotta do is look at human nature Look... people are jealous creatures. Look at the number of murders and crimes related to passion. I'm not nessesarily saying that legalizing polygamy will increase the numbers of murders because I am no statistical sociologist, however I wouldn't be surprised. As a woman I would be horrified if my husband had another wife besides me but perhaps that is just my beliefs and by no means am I trying to say that is the norm But basically throughtout history we have needed marriage. It began in ancient times because we needed to understand ownership between others. The reason polygamy started is because many times men died because they were responsible for the dangerous jobs of hunting or fighting. In order for the population to survive one needed to have a man breed with many women. I think we all understand that one. However as it is in America currently we do not need this and can go on happily with monogamy because our population is about 50/50.
Though then again it seems that in America many people practice serial monogamy. We have many many partners and we divorce and remarry. So because of this our views of marriage are not incredibly strong and it can be bent. Perhaps this is a reason that polygamy is even considered because we hardly ever do just have one partner. However there is a severe problem. And that my friends is called favoritism among husband to wives and then something called jealousy. Casilla I must disagree with you on the spreading love amongst husband to wives equally. While there may be a rare case where one may find that to be true throughout history that has not been the case. Looking at a couple cases proves otherwise. Many kings from Egypt to China to Greece favored one wife over other wives. This was almost always the case. In fact because of the unfavored wife's jealousy occasically conspiracies for murder occured. But then again I understand that this is royalty and I cannot judge the average person by this.
I am merely stating some severe problems that could come with legalization of polygamy. To be honest if we have so many troubles with human emotions in monogamy with jealousy and such then I really don't even understand how polygamy would work. Judging by my observations it just doesn't seem plausable. After a while I do think that people would become unhappy. Of course these are my observations and I am no psychologist. I do not mean to start a fight, but I just forsee some major problems if people participate in polygamy :\
Look... people are jealous creatures. Look at the number of murders and crimes related to passion. I'm not nessesarily saying that legalizing polygamy will increase the numbers of murders because I am no statistical sociologist, however I wouldn't be surprised. As a woman I would be horrified if my husband had another wife besides me but perhaps that is just my beliefs and by no means am I trying to say that is the norm But basically throughtout history we have needed marriage. It began in ancient times because we needed to understand ownership between others. The reason polygamy started is because many times men died because they were responsible for the dangerous jobs of hunting or fighting. In order for the population to survive one needed to have a man breed with many women. I think we all understand that one. However as it is in America currently we do not need this and can go on happily with monogamy because our population is about 50/50.Though then again it seems that in America many people practice serial monogamy. We have many many partners and we divorce and remarry. So because of this our views of marriage are not incredibly strong and it can be bent. Perhaps this is a reason that polygamy is even considered because we hardly ever do just have one partner. However there is a severe problem. And that my friends is called favoritism among husband to wives and then something called jealousy. Casilla I must disagree with you on the spreading love amongst husband to wives equally. While there may be a rare case where one may find that to be true throughout history that has not been the case. Looking at a couple cases proves otherwise. Many kings from Egypt to China to Greece favored one wife over other wives. This was almost always the case. In fact because of the unfavored wife's jealousy occasically conspiracies for murder occured. But then again I understand that this is royalty and I cannot judge the average person by this.
I am merely stating some severe problems that could come with legalization of polygamy. To be honest if we have so many troubles with human emotions in monogamy with jealousy and such then I really don't even understand how polygamy would work. Judging by my observations it just doesn't seem plausable. After a while I do think that people would become unhappy. Of course these are my observations and I am no psychologist. I do not mean to start a fight, but I just forsee some major problems if people participate in polygamy :\
Well if the legalization of homosexual marriages were to come first.. polygamy could be between homosexuals too. I guess if it were between 4 homosexual guys.. there would be less of a jealousy issue compared to a polygamy involving 1 man and 3 women. And I would think that polygamy marriages would be between homosexuals more rather than straight couples.
BrknPhoenix, on May 15 2006, 07:18 PM, said:
I will lead the charge to slaughter them all before it gets out of control hehehe
Well I already said it in another post, but to me marriage is love and loyalty. You can have that between two people of the same sex equally as much as you can between two people of the opposite sex, but in the situation of polygamy the amount of love coming from one end of the marriage is obviously diminished as it is divided amongst many. Let's face it, you can't pay as much attention to a woman if you have multiple wives as you could if you just have one.
And I can't help but see that it would have to require a bit of deadening of emotion to be in one of these relationships. "Gee, I'm the most special woman to him in the world! ......and so is Suzy... and so is Sally... and so is Gwen.... *sigh* Gwen gets to f**k him tonight, I wish it was my turn..."
heheheWell I already said it in another post, but to me marriage is love and loyalty. You can have that between two people of the same sex equally as much as you can between two people of the opposite sex, but in the situation of polygamy the amount of love coming from one end of the marriage is obviously diminished as it is divided amongst many. Let's face it, you can't pay as much attention to a woman if you have multiple wives as you could if you just have one.
And I can't help but see that it would have to require a bit of deadening of emotion to be in one of these relationships. "Gee, I'm the most special woman to him in the world! ......and so is Suzy... and so is Sally... and so is Gwen.... *sigh* Gwen gets to f**k him tonight, I wish it was my turn..."
What about polygamy between homosexuals? *points up*
But even so that's not much of an argument
Can we really say no you can't be in a marriage of 3 people because we don't think you can handle it. Sorry
#23
Posted 15 May 2006 - 05:20 PM
Freak, on May 15 2006, 07:19 PM, said:
Well if the legalization of homosexual marriages were to come first.. polygamy could be between homosexuals too. I guess if it were between 4 homosexual guys.. there would be less of a jealousy issue compared to a polygamy involving 1 man and 3 women. And I would think that polygamy marriages would be between homosexuals more rather than straight couples.
You seem to be wrongly implying that men are less jealous than women... As a matter of fact it seems more often the case that a man commits crimes of passion over a cheating lover, so I wouldn't just assume 4 gay guys could all be married and there wouldn't be jealousy.
RandomSignatureIgnoreIt
#24
Grizzly
-
- Retired Member
-
- N/A Positive Feedback
- 0 0 0
- 4,926 posts
<img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>
Posted 15 May 2006 - 05:22 PM
BrknPhoenix, on May 15 2006, 07:20 PM, said:
You seem to be wrongly implying that men are less jealous than women... As a matter of fact it seems more often the case that a man commits crimes of passion over a cheating lover, so I wouldn't just assume 4 gay guys could all be married and there wouldn't be jealousy.
No no what I meant was..
In a polygamy with 1 man and 3 women. The women would not like each other.. only the one man. So they would all be kinda bitching over the 1 guy.
As oppposed to a homosexual polygamy where everyone basically loves everyone.
Didn't mean to imply anything about gender.
#25
Posted 15 May 2006 - 05:26 PM
Freak, on May 15 2006, 08:22 PM, said:
No no what I meant was..
In a polygamy with 1 man and 3 women. The women would not like each other.. only the one man. So they would all be kinda bitching over the 1 guy.
As oppposed to a homosexual polygamy where everyone basically loves everyone.
Didn't mean to imply anything about gender.
In a polygamy with 1 man and 3 women. The women would not like each other.. only the one man. So they would all be kinda bitching over the 1 guy.
As oppposed to a homosexual polygamy where everyone basically loves everyone.
Didn't mean to imply anything about gender.
For the record, I don't think any polygamy is right, gay or hetero or whatever. So it's a moot point, it's wrong either way because it's polygamy. And I can't say anything for certain about how a relationship like that would go, but human nature tends to show that if there is true love involved, people don't like to share.
RandomSignatureIgnoreIt
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
