yes ,because it is a matter of freedom and it must be legalized
it must be legalized for only men
it must be legalized for both men and women
no ,it is a kind of perversion and it has nothing to do with freedom
it is just a marginality which may harm society
it was a tradition in many ancient cultures and defending it doesnt seem so liberalal
being against it is a bigotry and l defend polygamy as an enlightened person
it is better than monogamy
l dont care
Are you unfamiliar with word CONSENSUS? After 16,000 posts I'm really surprised that you're unfamiliar with that terminology. So, today, you will learn a new word!
Consensus decision-making - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Originally Posted by specklebang
Consensus of course.
As a libertarian, though this is far from exclusive to any one ideology, I do not think that you should be able to enter into a contract whereupon one human hires a second human to aggressively kill a third human. The act of killing another human in aggression should always be illegal. Currently, it is not always illegal.
It is simply a matter of putting the non-aggression principle into action. The former involves no harm. The latter involves direct and obvious harm.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
And how does the "freedom to enter a contract" work together when there isn't unanimous agreement? If I and another male are "married" to two females, each of us having 25% ownership in property, liabilities, etc, and I meet someone I want to enter into a contract with, but the others do not? Does my freedom of contract allow me to shift half of that (ie 12.5%) to this other person, thus altering the relationship with the pre-existing three (w/o their consent), or are we saying that there are limits to our freedom to contract (which is the basis of allowing polygymous marriages)?
you may think it is not ethical but you have no right to dictate your moral belief to women and decide for them although you have no possibility to be in place of them .but thats why you dont feel any empathy for those women that have to struggle with lots of difficulties in the life .do you think women who usually have maternal instinct are always willing to abort their babies ?
if you can tolerate a legalized polygamy ,please try to understand why a woman may have to abort his baby........
the second one is not a perverse pleasure , but just a necessity................
"Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK
The advantage of polygamy is that it required a much more thought out agreement than traditional marriage. Traditional Marriage (TM) often occurs for the stupidest reasons. Do you know people come here (Vegas) get dunk and decide to get married at 2 AM? No contract, no agreement just tie the knot.
Polygamy requires a far more complex written agreement. So, your question is one of the issues that will have to be agreed upon by the original founders or subsequently, additions may or may not have a say depending on the effective Constitution of the marriage.
General agreement is effectively the same thing as unanimous agreement. Let's not let semantics to over-rule our discussion.
Freedom is not an unlimited term. That's why thousands of rulings are made every year about its definition.
And you're wrong. I am quite capable of being in the place where a lack of respect for human rights would be helpful, where being morally capable of killing others could result in personal benefit. Most folks are capable of being in those circumstances. They just don't do it.
On the contrary, there is no reason whatsoever for a voluntary contract of joint property to be prohibited by law. There is no harm involved, no aggression. No ones rights are abridged in such a situation.
To me, this seems like the antithesis of freedom.
..and this differs from TM how?
Let's say that 6 of us have entered into a polygamous marriage contract. One of us (probably you) commits murder. Other than disappointment, this affects the rest of us how?
Let's say one of us wins the lottery (probably me). Then, it depends on the financial structure of our contract. Maybe it goes into our marriage account, maybe I keep all of it and give you a box of chocolates.
How can you say that you didn't agree to these burdens? You did - or you didn't. You're liable or you aren't. Please refer to the 3rd Amendment of out Polygamous Marriage contract (PM). Oh, look, it says that I keep any lottery winnings. Touth titty said the kitty.
Where did freedom come into this anyway? TM or PM are sacrifices of certain freedoms to create a group situation.
And please put your shirt on. You look like you're freezing.