I am fine with polygamy. Bigamy is different as its when one man is married to 2 or more women that don't know about each other - thus no consent.
That wouldn't be bigamy. That would be polygamy.
No it's not. There are good odds that such might be the case, but that is not what bigamy is. And for that matter the bigamist might be the woman who is married to two or more men. Bigamy is only about whether or not an individual falls under 2 or more different legal marriage recognitions, be they called license or certificates or whatever. Whether or not the spouses of the bigamist are aware of each other is irrelevant to the issue. Polygamy and bigamy may exist together or they may not. Polygamy would apply if all involved are spouses to each other.
Do you have any information to back up that it isn't also the most common form as of now? While I know that there are polyamorous people out there, there simply aren't that many from what I've heard about. While I think most people are pretty good people, polyamory requires people to be more unselfish than the average person tends to be, especially when it comes to love and relationships. In cases of polygamy where it is one man with multiple wives, especially wives that have been taught from basically birth that their place is to marry young, take care of their husband, and have many kids, and that their husband will have other wives, that unselfishness is not needed.
While I think it would be a great thing if those that I described weren't the majority or most common, the pessimistic side of me doubts I am wrong, unless it happened really recently.
Peruse around the various polyamory sites. Remember that most of these polygamous families are not legally recognized, and because of the negativity that the FLDS and others generate, they tend to stay "underground". But more and more are coming out (I wonder what kind of closet we can call this one?). You have the Sister Wives show, which admittedly, they are FLDS, but they seem to me not to be as extremist as the Jeffs group. Mind you I've only seen a few episodes, so I am not as up on them as I could be. There was an Our America episode that focused on polygamous families, including one woman who had two husbands. Sadly you can only get clips from the shows. I don't have cable or I would have made sure I saw the whole thing. I know of one family personally, and my wife and I are looking for a third ourselves.
Now admittedly, polyamorous people are much more common, but I have to wonder if that is more of a symptom of younger people not wanting to marry as much. And some of the polygamist I know from my online chats don't want to call themselves that due to the negativity, but will refer to their various spouses by husband and wife.
I'm also not sure what "my religion" is? I'm not religious. The quote in my signature line was a play on Halloween. I'm not a witch and observe no religion.
You have my apologies on that then. I don't have issues with any religion, especially with a Druid brother and several Wiccan sisters. But please note that without a reference, your sig line does imply that you are a witch.
The word extreme has become a bumper sticker response to anyone who has conservative values. You never hear anyone on the left called extreme.
Bull****! I've heard of plenty of extremest environmentalist, extremist anti-Christians, and many other groups that are "liberal". Quite honestly, it seems any more that if you are conservative or liberal then the other side views you as extreme.
You marry in order to start a family and have kids, IMO. It's saying that you're both consenting to a relationship that will provide the best atmosphere for kids to grow up in.... which is a mom and a dad, a white picket fence, and all that jazz.
Nobody else should even bother getting married... including gays.
Right there is the only important part. Kids may or may not be a part of it.
Actually it has more to do with consistency. 18 or older should be the age of marriage since that is the age when we are legally adults. The very fact that someone needs their parents to sign before that shows most teens aren't really mature enough to be married.
Disagree. You are using a circular argument. 18 is an arbitrary number. Even if 18 is the peak of the maturity bell curve, there are those younger who are as mature and those older who are not. The fact that they need their parents to sign has nothing to do with their maturity and everything to do with the selected age at which we say they are magically no longer required to get the parents signature. I'm not saying that it's not legally convient to use a common point as the legal line. Just that we shouldn't confuse that legal fiction with actual maturity.
No, I call you extreme because of the absurdity of the argument you tried to make, not because I disagree with you.
I've seen you call people you've agreed with their end point extreme due to the absurdity by which they arrived there. Well I'm pretty sure that it was you.
That would be unfair to someone like me, who had a difficult time finding any mates. Just because you are a super stud, doesn't mean that I should have to be lonely the rest of my life. Not really, but it's a viewpoint.
Which makes me wonder if this discussion is really economic in nature - the study of distribution and scarcity.
If you are having difficulty in finding a mate then maybe availability is not the issue.