polygamy ? [W: 267,434]

JayDubya said:

Yes, the practice of abortion also needs to end.

Good job going waaaay off topic on your own thread.

Click to expand...

no off topic

on the contrary it is a chance to talk somebody into defending every kind of freedom if he is really a liberitarian

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.

Click to expand...

sangha said:

So a majority of the parties can alter the terms of the minoritys' contract without the minoritys' consent?

Click to expand...

Medusa said:

no off topic

on the contrary it is a chance to talk somebody into defending every kind of freedom if he is really a liberitarian

Click to expand...

As a libertarian, I think you should be to enter into a voluntary contract to jointly own property with another human or other humans as you and the other consenting parties see fit.

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.

sangha said:

So a majority of the parties can alter the terms of the minoritys' contract without the minoritys' consent?

Click to expand...

Yep. That accounts for just about all of our laws. Perfect examples are "sin" taxes placed on alcohol and tobacco, soon to be extended further for firearms onwership, sales and transfers. BTW, nobody is proposing bigamy, or forced polygamy; note that mutual consent is still required for a marriage contract.

specklebang said:

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

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand the term. It means "general agreement", not "unanimous agreement"

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)?

JayDubya said:

As a libertarian, I think you should be to enter into a voluntary contract to jointly own property with another human or other humans as you and the other consenting parties see fit.

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.

Click to expand...

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................

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.

sangha said:

Yes, I understand the term. It means "general agreement", not "unanimous agreement"

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)?

Click to expand...

Medusa said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have every right to want to live in a society with a government that protects human rights with a rule of law. I want laws against theft, I want laws against assault, I want laws against fraud, and rape, and yes, I want laws against murder. I want to live in a society where the law is enforced equally, no matter the age of the victim.


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.

specklebang said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm not being "semantic" (the proper term is "pedantic") about it. I'm concerned with what you actually mean (which is both "semantics" and a legitimate concern when disccussing something with another person). I don't care what you call it. What concerns me is that one party can become personally liable for the actions of another even though they at no time agreed to take on such a burden.

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.

sangha said:

I'm not being "semantic" (the proper term is "pedantic") about it. I'm concerned with what you actually mean (which is both "semantics" and a legitimate concern when disccussing something with another person). I don't care what you call it. What concerns me is that one party can become personally liable for the actions of another even though they at no time agreed to take on such a burden.

To me, this seems like the antithesis of freedom.

Click to expand...

specklebang said:

..and this differs from TM how?

Click to expand...

In TM, I cannot be forced to endure a "marriage" to someone without my consent.

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.

Click to expand...

Certainly, there will be many instances in which the issue I'm concerned about will not arise. However, I don't think you've got a full understanding of what I'm concerned about, which is probably due to my not being clear enough

Let's say I am one of eight people who are all married to each other. One of the eight meets someone and wants to marry them. The other 6 agree that this person is a swell person, and give their consent. I, on the other hand, have knowledge which makes me certain that this is not a good idea, but I can not prove it to the others (Maybe I saw this person do something that demonstrates a violent or psychopathic trait)

I can tell the others what I witnessed, but I cannot force them to withold consent. By being overruled by the other 7, I am now forced to allow a psychopathic and violent person to have access to, not only my home and personal possessions, but also to my children.

It is difficult to reconcile my very liberal philosophies to my revulsion at polygamy. The majority of polygamists are members of a fundamentalist Mormon cult that is based along the Utah-Arizona border (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.) Although I really have no interest in how consenting adults behave towards each other as long as they do no harm to others, I make an exception when polygamy enters the picture. As a longtime journalist who has written the book 'plygs,' I know only too well the dangers of polygamy. It is almost never a matter of consenting adults as little girls, some as young as 12, are forced into marriage with much older men as soon as they become fertile. Women are subjected to degradation as being merely the possessions of their husbands. Young boys are taken from school and forced to work in the fields or in the church-owned businesses for no pay. They adhere to the practice of what they call 'bleeding the beast,' which is an economic fraud perpetrated against the government to receive everything from health care benefits to food stamps. The sister wives have been trained to write 'father unknown' on the birth certificates of their newborns, which greases the tracks for their eligibility for public assistance. They have stockpiles of highi-powered weapons and explosives in caches hidden throughout the Utah-Arizona community of Short Creek (Hildale Utah and Colorado City, Arizona) for use against law enforcement in the event of a major raid on the community similar to the one in 1953 when Arizona cops went in and arrested everybody in town for violating polygamy laws.

This is a dangerous, violent, perverted society run by evil pedophiles. Their leader, self-proclaimed prophet Warren Jeffs, is in a Texas prison, serving two life-plus-20-year terms for sexual abuse of a child--his 12-year-old and 14-year-old brides, one of whom he impregnated. A dozen other men were also convicted along with Jeffs.

If this was simply a matter of sexual/relationship consent among adults, much like gay marriage, I would have no qualms, but there are few polygamous communities that leave it as such.

Polygamy is not as represented by the reality show 'Sister Wives' or 'Big Love.' It is an ugly, perverted culture based on fear and greed.

Not if your contract requires consensus. Certainly, I would not enter into a contract where my consent was not required.

Obviously, the larger the marriage group, the more definition will be required. Potentially, the contract could be that no more people are admitted to the marriage or that unanimous consent was the only term under which anyone else could be added.

I doubt there will be much demand for PMs that exceed 3 or 4 people. And PM may also not be valid for some personalities. Earlier, I was kidding about thg tida wave of PMs. There probably isn't much demand. But if there is demand, why should it be forbidden? And just as with TM, there is always the option of divorcing from the group.

I know we can work this out. :roll:

sangha said:

In TM, I cannot be forced to endure a "marriage" to someone without my consent.



Certainly, there will be many instances in which the issue I'm concerned about will not arise. However, I don't think you've got a full understanding of what I'm concerned about, which is probably due to my not being clear enough

Let's say I am one of eight people who are all married to each other. One of the eight meets someone and wants to marry them. The other 6 agree that this person is a swell person, and give their consent. I, on the other hand, have knowledge which makes me certain that this is not a good idea, but I can not prove it to the others (Maybe I saw this person do something that demonstrates a violent or psychopathic trait)

I can tell the others what I witnessed, but I cannot force them to withold consent. By being overruled by the other 7, I am now forced to allow a psychopathic and violent person to have access to, not only my home and personal possessions, but also to my children.

Click to expand...

specklebang said:

Not if your contract requires consensus. Certainly, I would not enter into a contract where my consent was not required.

Obviously, the larger the marriage group, the more definition will be required. Potentially, the contract could be that no more people are admitted to the marriage or that unanimous consent was the only term under which anyone else could be added.

Click to expand...

Yes, the contract could *potentially* require unanimous consent. It could potentially not require unanimous consent, which means that other people could force me to become contractually obligated without my consent, thus going against the notion of people having the freedom to enter into a contract (which implies the freedom to not enter into a contract too)

We could avoid this problem by requiring that marriage contracts can only be altered if all parties agree, but that would be a restriction peoples' freedom to enter any contract as long as they consent.

And I agree that most PMs would not be so large but the point is as applicable to marriages of two as it is to marriages of twenty.

And I doubt that the problems that PM brings up are amenable to being worked out. Not because I have any moral qualms or revulsion at the idea of alternate lifestyles or promiscous sex, but because of the way PM causes the problems of bonding to multiply exponentially.

I doubt there will be much demand for PMs that exceed 3 or 4 people. And PM may also not be valid for some personalities. Earlier, I was kidding about thg tida wave of PMs. There probably isn't much demand. But if there is demand, why should it be forbidden? And just as with TM, there is always the option of divorcing from the group.

I know we can work this out. :roll:

Click to expand...

Believe me, I don't think that PM is a wise choice. But all marriages have contracts, implied or not, and limitations. That's why we have a 50% divorce rate.

But the OP topic is the legality, not necessarily the practicality. The "freedom" aspect is the right of choice, not the PM in its inherent self. It's no different than the freedom to borrow money. You don't then have the freedom not to repay the loan.

Brsides, you're not my type

sangha said:

Yes, the contract could *potentially* require unanimous consent. It could potentially not require unanimous consent, which means that other people could force me to become contractually obligated without my consent, thus going against the notion of people having the freedom to enter into a contract (which implies the freedom to not enter into a contract too)

We could avoid this problem by requiring that marriage contracts can only be altered if all parties agree, but that would be a restriction peoples' freedom to enter any contract as long as they consent.

And I agree that most PMs would not be so large but the point is as applicable to marriages of two as it is to marriages of twenty.

And I doubt that the problems that PM brings up are amenable to being worked out. Not because I have any moral qualms or revulsion at the idea of alternate lifestyles or promiscous sex, but because of the way PM causes the problems of bonding to multiply exponentially.

Click to expand...

specklebang said:

Believe me, I don't think that PM is a wise choice. But all marriages have contracts, implied or not, and limitations. That's why we have a 50% divorce rate.

But the OP topic is the legality, not necessarily the practicality. The "freedom" aspect is the right of choice, not the PM in its inherent self. It's no different than the freedom to borrow money. You don't then have the freedom not to repay the loan.

Click to expand...

I see we have much to agree on, and marriage being a contract is definitely one of them, regardless of how often some insist that it is a religious institution. I mean, if two (or more) people want to consider their union a religious institution, I don't really give a rats' patootie, but according to our system, it is undeniably a type of contract. However, I do admire the notion that people should be allowed to commit themselves to ech other, in any number.

And I agree that the issue here is legality and not the practicality, at least not practicality on the individual level. However, "practicality" (for lack of a better term) does come into play when talking about the basis of many laws. A good deal of contract law is justified by asking "Does it serve the publics' interest?" While there is definitely a public interest in allowing people to join in to a contract with their consent, it is not in the publics interest to set no limits on what sort of agreements can be enforced (contract to kill, prostitution, etc)

So I guess, my point here is that the whole issue is not simply one of "We should allow people the freedom to enter into contracts with their consent being the only consideration". IMO, if one were to closely consider these other issues (ex property division, child well being, societal order, etc), the whole topic becomes too complex and contentious to be manageable.

Brsides, you're not my type

Click to expand...

Whatsamatta? You afraid my whiskers will irritate your inner thighs? :wink:

Medusa said:

the rate of polygamic women is lower than men's

thats why it is usually the men who have much more cheating tendencies.

Click to expand...

Cheating by whose standards? I am poly and I have dated many other women aside from my wife. My wife knows of each and every one and even has veto power. My wife does not believe me to be cheating and I don't believe me to be cheating. So am I cheating?

You also need to get more in touch with the poly community as a whole. There are a lot more poly women out there than I think you suppose.

Crosscheck said:

Of course polygamy should be legal , everybody know every 14 year old girl just dreams about having sex with a man older than her father.

Click to expand...

Wow! Way to misconstrue the reality with the exception.

Henrin said:

I would say the desire for incest is decreased by children living together from an early age that desensitizes sexual attraction. If this doesn't occur than sexual attraction for your siblings will be normal as it would between anyone else. Anyway, I would agree that it is an evolved process of the species to improve the survival of the species.

Click to expand...

Granted, this is slightly off-topic, but it has been shown that the incest taboo develops from growing up with another individual. That is why siblings who were separated at birth can end up being attracted to each other and why non-blood related kids growing up together will not be sexually attracted to each other. A study done in India, showed this to be true where the bride child of an arranged marriage was sent to live with the groom child and his parents until they were old enough to be married. Many of the couples refused to consummate the marriage.

Medusa said:

yes older men prefer younger ones but that is not love if he is married to more than one wife

a heart belongs to only one person .but l think l am being bigot again :lol:

Click to expand...

Ignorant, but not necessarily bigoted. However, you are wrong in that a heart can only belong to one person. The poly community as a whole proves you wrong daily.

ttwtt78640 said:

Yep. That accounts for just about all of our laws. Perfect examples are "sin" taxes placed on alcohol and tobacco, soon to be extended further for firearms onwership, sales and transfers. BTW, nobody is proposing bigamy, or forced polygamy; note that mutual consent is still required for a marriage contract.

Click to expand...

It also accounts for the way unions work. If I am part of a union and I and several others like our contract the way it is but the rest of the union want a change, then the majority with change the contract on the minority.

sangha said:

Yes, I understand the term. It means "general agreement", not "unanimous agreement"

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)?

Click to expand...

I would have to say that it would depend upon how the contract between the initial 4 was set forth. If there was a clause that all current members must unanimously agree to allow another person in then you are only limited by that which you agreed to be limited by.

specklebang said:

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.

Click to expand...

For all that I am a supporter of poly marriages, I find this argument somewhat lacking. While yes, we in the poly community try to educate so that those entering into this lifestyle will create such contracts, what is there that would prevent a poly marriage from happening at 2 AM in Vegas the same way a mono marriage does?

sangha said:

Certainly, there will be many instances in which the issue I'm concerned about will not arise. However, I don't think you've got a full understanding of what I'm concerned about, which is probably due to my not being clear enough

Let's say I am one of eight people who are all married to each other. One of the eight meets someone and wants to marry them. The other 6 agree that this person is a swell person, and give their consent. I, on the other hand, have knowledge which makes me certain that this is not a good idea, but I can not prove it to the others (Maybe I saw this person do something that demonstrates a violent or psychopathic trait)

I can tell the others what I witnessed, but I cannot force them to withold consent. By being overruled by the other 7, I am now forced to allow a psychopathic and violent person to have access to, not only my home and personal possessions, but also to my children.

Click to expand...

How would this be much different from an ex marrying the same person of concern which would still give him access to your children? Until you have proof, there isn't much you can do either way.

Ed Kociela said:

Polygamy is not as represented by the reality show 'Sister Wives' or 'Big Love.' It is an ugly, perverted culture based on fear and greed.

Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we in the poly community rather detest the foul practices of those in that minority Mormon subset. We are a lot more prevalent that we publicly show, much as those who are within the BDSM community are larger than those who publicly "out" themselves. Polygamy as practiced by those particular Mormons are not represented by such shows, but the rest of us are rather decent folks who do not abide by child abuse, sexual or otherwise.

maquiscat said:

How would this be much different from an ex marrying the same person of concern which would still give him access to your children? Until you have proof, there isn't much you can do either way.

Click to expand...

That step parent would have no right to have access to the child, and they would not necesarily be living in the same house

maquiscat said:

Cheating by whose standards? I am poly and I have dated many other women aside from my wife. My wife knows of each and every one and even has veto power. My wife does not believe me to be cheating and I don't believe me to be cheating. So am I cheating?

You also need to get more in touch with the poly community as a whole. There are a lot more poly women out there than I think you suppose.



Wow! Way to misconstrue the reality with the exception.



Granted, this is slightly off-topic, but it has been shown that the incest taboo develops from growing up with another individual. That is why siblings who were separated at birth can end up being attracted to each other and why non-blood related kids growing up together will not be sexually attracted to each other. A study done in India, showed this to be true where the bride child of an arranged marriage was sent to live with the groom child and his parents until they were old enough to be married. Many of the couples refused to consummate the marriage.



Ignorant, but not necessarily bigoted. However, you are wrong in that a heart can only belong to one person. The poly community as a whole proves you wrong daily.

heheh .)

It also accounts for the way unions work. If I am part of a union and I and several others like our contract the way it is but the rest of the union want a change, then the majority with change the contract on the minority.



I would have to say that it would depend upon how the contract between the initial 4 was set forth. If there was a clause that all current members must unanimously agree to allow another person in then you are only limited by that which you agreed to be limited by.



For all that I am a supporter of poly marriages, I find this argument somewhat lacking. While yes, we in the poly community try to educate so that those entering into this lifestyle will create such contracts, what is there that would prevent a poly marriage from happening at 2 AM in Vegas the same way a mono marriage does?



How would this be much different from an ex marrying the same person of concern which would still give him access to your children? Until you have proof, there isn't much you can do either way.



Sorry to burst your bubble, but we in the poly community rather detest the foul practices of those in that minority Mormon subset. We are a lot more prevalent that we publicly show, much as those who are within the BDSM community are larger than those who publicly "out" themselves. Polygamy as practiced by those particular Mormons are not represented by such shows, but the rest of us are rather decent folks who do not abide by child abuse, sexual or otherwise.

Click to expand...

you seem to be a manufacturing defect of evolution if we consider your posts in incest thread

:mrgreen:

Medusa said:

l would like to know your points of view on polygamic marriages which include more than two spouses .

Click to expand...

Id be totally fine with granting this new right as long as it follows the basics of marriage now.

SOund mind consenting adults.


IMO the only real hurdles polygamy has is the perception that its always forced and involves minors and how to write the law.

FOr example one man 4 wifes, one large house, 3 kids between to 3 wifes and one wife with no kids.

Man dies, now what? what happens to house, befits etc etc etc Does the first wife become the highest ranked, women with kids? all equally?

Is there anything in the polygamy handbook that decides this?

again im fine with polygamy and support it but it has a legal hurdle to clear.

IMHO, everything, everyday is a form of contract. We have a contract to drive on our side and we bet our life that everyone will honor that contract. We contract our labor so you don't find out at the end of the week what your pay rate was. In fact, we're all experienced contractors and the only place we don't use those skills is in affairs of the heart.

People get married for the dumbest reasons. You were good in bed so you'll also be good at life? We dive into a veritable swamp of legal and structural repercussions on vague assumptions. The only people that have any chance of having a fulfilling long term arrangement are people who know what the damn deal is. Polygamy would force people to give a lot more thought to how they entangle themselves.

A better and happier world filled with rainbows and unicorns.

sangha said:

I see we have much to agree on, and marriage being a contract is definitely one of them, regardless of how often some insist that it is a religious institution. I mean, if two (or more) people want to consider their union a religious institution, I don't really give a rats' patootie, but according to our system, it is undeniably a type of contract. However, I do admire the notion that people should be allowed to commit themselves to ech other, in any number.

And I agree that the issue here is legality and not the practicality, at least not practicality on the individual level. However, "practicality" (for lack of a better term) does come into play when talking about the basis of many laws. A good deal of contract law is justified by asking "Does it serve the publics' interest?" While there is definitely a public interest in allowing people to join in to a contract with their consent, it is not in the publics interest to set no limits on what sort of agreements can be enforced (contract to kill, prostitution, etc)

So I guess, my point here is that the whole issue is not simply one of "We should allow people the freedom to enter into contracts with their consent being the only consideration". IMO, if one were to closely consider these other issues (ex property division, child well being, societal order, etc), the whole topic becomes too complex and contentious to be manageable.



Whatsamatta? You afraid my whiskers will irritate your inner thighs? :wink:

Click to expand...

Objective-J said:

Id be totally fine with granting this new right as long as it follows the basics of marriage now.

SOund mind consenting adults.


IMO the only real hurdles polygamy has is the perception that its always forced and involves minors and how to write the law.

FOr example one man 4 wifes, one large house, 3 kids between to 3 wifes and one wife with no kids.

Man dies, now what? what happens to house, befits etc etc etc Does the first wife become the highest ranked, women with kids? all equally?

Is there anything in the polygamy handbook that decides this?

again im fine with polygamy and support it but it has a legal hurdle to clear.

Click to expand...

you read the posts in the thread

in my opinion no one who cares about love ,loyality or woman rights must approve this..

Medusa said:

l would like to know your points of view on polygamic marriages which include more than two spouses .

Click to expand...

It should remain banned, but I also don't see any point in marriage to one person, let alone multiple people.

Medusa said:

you read the posts in the thread

in my opinion no one who cares about love ,loyality or woman rights must approve this..

Click to expand...

sorry i didnt ready any posts in the thread yet i just post my opinion.

As for your opinion i totally disagree

while, me or you may not want to have anything to do with polygamy that most certainly doesn't mean people in those relationships don't love each other and are not loyal.

ALso if its available for all, what does woman's rights have to do with it? what happens if a woman has multiple husbands? or if this happens after equal rights are granted for gays what about a multiple partner all girl relationship.

Objective-J said:

sorry i didnt ready any posts in the thread yet i just post my opinion.

As for your opinion i totally disagree

while, me or you may not want to have anything to do with polygamy that most certainly doesn't mean people in those relationships don't love each other and are not loyal.

ALso if its available for all, what does woman's rights have to do with it? what happens if a woman has multiple husbands? or if this happens after equal rights are granted for gays what about a multiple partner all girl relationship.

Click to expand...

you cant be loyal when you have more than one spouse.

it is a well known fact that men usually tend to have polygamic desires...

and it (women having multiple husbands )sounds more disturbing than the other kind