• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Polygamy: Why not?

Would You Support Polygamy

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 41.3%

  • No

    Votes: 23 30.7%

  • Undecided but open to either side.

    Votes: 3 4.0%

  • I couldn't care less either way.

    Votes: 18 24.0%
  • Total voters
    75
Toothpicvic said:
Having multiple partners is already totally legal. "Legal polygamy" would just be legal marriage benefits awarded to each spouse (which would just add to the overcomplicated BS that is govt-sponsored "legal marriage")
Click to expand...

Anyways, like I said, if the legislators are too stupid to figure solutions to the legal problems of polygamy, they should be replaced with smarter legislators.

For some reason, its really not necessary to waste the time and effort to specify that the debate over polygamy is a discussion of the marriage laws.

Really, it's not.
 
Dav said:
As long as the male/female ratio continues to stay so close to 1:1- and there's no reason for it to stop now- polygamy should not be legalized.
Click to expand...

So.....you're saying a guy shouldn't have more than one main squeeze so long as there's barely enough squeezes to go around?

Feeling left out?
 
Actually, I would say there is far and away more historical precedent for polygamy (which has been commonplace in many cultures during many periods of history), than for gay marriage (extremely rare even in cultures that were accepting of homosexual behavior).
 
Goshin said:
Actually, I would say there is far and away more historical precedent for polygamy (which has been commonplace in many cultures during many periods of history), than for gay marriage (extremely rare even in cultures that were accepting of homosexual behavior).
Click to expand...

probably because gay men are still men.
 
I'm in favor of clan marriages, where there are more than one male and more than one female.

Run it economically like a Corporation, where each member has an equal share. If a new member doesn't have the money to buy a share, they can take out a loan and pay it. When a member leaves, they pull cash out of the Corp. Each member joins for a contractually agreed amoutn of time: 1 year, 5 years, etc.. Penalties for breaking the contract. Children stay with the clan.

Advantages: security, economic leverage, tax advantage, child care responsibility shared, support for non-economic producing activities (education, travel, research, home management), sexual variety.

Disadvantages: clan dissolution, sexual/emotion troubles, external prejudice.
 
Dav said:
It seems like common sense to me. Do you have proof that it isn't true?
Click to expand...

Not proof just an opinion that won't go away, i must lack common sense.
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
Run it economically like a Corporation, where each member has an equal share. If a new member doesn't have the money to buy a share, they can take out a loan and pay it. When a member leaves, they pull cash out of the Corp. Each member joins for a contractually agreed amoutn of time: 1 year, 5 years, etc.. Penalties for breaking the contract. Children stay with the clan.
Click to expand...
Seems like the Corp would make a LOT more money if you kicked all the men out and restricted your membership to young, attractive females. :mrgreen:

Seriously - why would a nice, young woman of child-bearing years need to "buy in" to such an arrangement when men would be falling all over themselves to get you to join them in a "contractually agreed amount of time."

Men and their absurd fantasies!
 
Taylor said:
Seems like the Corp would make a LOT more money if you kicked all the men out and restricted your membership to young, attractive females. :mrgreen:

Seriously - why would a nice, young woman of child-bearing years need to "buy in" to such an arrangement when men would be falling all over themselves to get you to join them in a "contractually agreed amount of time."

Men and their absurd fantasies!
Click to expand...

There is nothing absurd about having more than one wife so long as they are close to each other's age.
 
Taylor said:
Seems like the Corp would make a LOT more money if you kicked all the men out and restricted your membership to young, attractive females. :mrgreen:

Seriously - why would a nice, young woman of child-bearing years need to "buy in" to such an arrangement when men would be falling all over themselves to get you to join them in a "contractually agreed amount of time."

Men and their absurd fantasies!
Click to expand...

I think that security, economic leverage, child care responsibility shared, and support for non-economic producing activities would all play a factor.

The part I haven't worked out is what happens to the elderly.
 
reefedjib said:
I think that security, economic leverage, child care responsibility shared, and support for non-economic producing activities would all play a factor.

The part I haven't worked out is what happens to the elderly.
Click to expand...


Have you ever read much Heinlein? The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or Friday?

Both had family arraingments similar to what you propose, but not with a specified time limit. The elderly were, as in the old days, kept and taken care of by the extended family.
 
Goshin said:
Have you ever read much Heinlein? The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or Friday?

Both had family arraingments similar to what you propose, but not with a specified time limit. The elderly were, as in the old days, kept and taken care of by the extended family.
Click to expand...

Ding, ding, ding!! That is exactly where I got this from!! I think Friday was the one that was most explicit about it although the Number of the Beast and the Cat who Walks through Walls were pretty open about it as well. I did add the time-limit thing myself.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is my favorite book of all time and I keep hearing they are going to make a movie...
 
reefedjib said:
I think that security, economic leverage, child care responsibility shared, and support for non-economic producing activities would all play a factor.

The part I haven't worked out is what happens to the elderly.
Click to expand...
That doesn't answer the question. Why would a young female need to buy in? This would quickly devolve into groups of old horny men (the ones with money and 'security,' etc.) putting out bids for contractual sex. And like the Eagles song goes...

City girls just seem to find out early
How to open doors with just a smile
A rich old man
And she won't have to worry
She'll dress up all in lace and go in style

Late at night a big old house gets lonely
I guess ev'ry form of refuge has its price
And it breaks her heart to think her love is
Only given to a man with hands as cold as ice

So she tells him she must go out for the evening
To comfort an old friend who's feelin' down
But he knows where she's goin' as she's leavin'
She is headed for the cheatin' side of town

You can't hide your lyin' eyes
And your smile is a thin disguise
I thought by now you'd realize
There ain't no way to hide your lyin' eyes
 
Taylor said:
That doesn't answer the question. Why would a young female need to buy in? This would quickly devolve into groups of old horny men (the ones with money and 'security,' etc.) putting out bids for contractual sex. And like the Eagles song goes...
Click to expand...

I am sure there will be some of that, and it probably would attract a certain type of woman, but there would also be more wholesome clan's, shall we say. Some women won't be interested at all. Like marriage now, it would probably be a good idea to get to know your suitors.
 
reefedjib said:
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is my favorite book of all time and I keep hearing they are going to make a movie...
Click to expand...

That's a shame. They haven't been able to turn a single one of Heinlein's books into a decent movie yet, and they haven't been able to make the movie resemble the book anyway.

Heinlein boycotted Hollyweird after they botched one attempt, and only after he died was Hollyweird allowed another chance.

Look at the awful mess they made of "Starship Troopers".
 
Dav said:
As long as the male/female ratio continues to stay so close to 1:1- and there's no reason for it to stop now- polygamy should not be legalized.
Click to expand...

What sense does that make? Where does the ratio come in to play?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
That's a shame. They haven't been able to turn a single one of Heinlein's books into a decent movie yet, and they haven't been able to make the movie resemble the book anyway.

Heinlein boycotted Hollyweird after they botched one attempt, and only after he died was Hollyweird allowed another chance.

Look at the awful mess they made of "Starship Troopers".
Click to expand...

That movie was freaking hilarious! At least they got the co-ed showers right.
 
Goshin said:
Actually, I would say there is far and away more historical precedent for polygamy (which has been commonplace in many cultures during many periods of history), than for gay marriage (extremely rare even in cultures that were accepting of homosexual behavior).
Click to expand...

Check my initial link-laden post from earlier, It shows some interesting stats...


nm, here's the link:

http://www.eioba.com/a70153/monogamy_and_polygamy
 
Jerry said:
I invite anyone with strong objections or support of polygamy to make their arguments known.

  • Do you think legalized polygamy in society would affect you in any way? If so, in what way and to what degree?
  • Do you think polygamy could help lower the divorce, juvenile crime or runaway rates; or improve academic performance?
  • If you can argue the polygamy brings increased economic security, how would polygamy affect the abortion rate?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with polygamy or polandry(sp?). The only problems I see in it is that the wives/husbands might get jealous if they are not open to such things.

As for your questions...

No polygamy would not affect me at all. No ones marriage but my own does.

Don't know if it would effect divorce rates or not as it probably brings with it it's own type of stresses even though it would probably relieve others..so in effect it would probably balance out. I do think that it would reduce juvenile crime as there would be more people in the family to watch over and teach kids proper respect for people and property. Because of this it would more than likely reduce runaways and increase academic performance as more time would be spent on the kids.

As for abortion rates? It might drop it some as I would imagine anyone that is willing to get into such a marriage would be extremely family oriented. Because of this it would probably be made up of people that want kids.
 
reefedjib said:
Ding, ding, ding!! That is exactly where I got this from!! I think Friday was the one that was most explicit about it although the Number of the Beast and the Cat who Walks through Walls were pretty open about it as well. I did add the time-limit thing myself.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is my favorite book of all time and I keep hearing they are going to make a movie...
Click to expand...

:thumbs: Ah, I suspected so. Heinlein was always deep and thought-provoking, even in the novels he considered his "juveniles". Still, over time he did not prove to be much of an oracle about actual future events. Not that I think good science-fiction writers have to be, just that I know people who practically revere RAH as a prophet.

There is a certain appeal to the idea; the continuity and safety in numbers. Sometimes the modern "nuclear family" seems a little lonely and isolated.

My own extended family is relatively tight, twenty of us total counting the kids and most of us live within 30 minutes drive. Last week my sister and BIL drove me to the hospital for an emergency appendectomy, and stayed with me all day long, since they were the closest available family (and my son doesn't drive yet, etc.). That's not unusual for us... but I know of families where brothers haven't spoken on the phone for ten years, nobody lives in the same state and each "nucleus" faces everything alone... I could see the appeal.
 
Goshin said:
There is a certain appeal to the idea; the continuity and safety in numbers. Sometimes the modern "nuclear family" seems a little lonely and isolated.
Click to expand...

I think we'll see the "nuclear family" redefined or replaced soon.
 
EpicDude86 said:
What sense does that make? Where does the ratio come in to play?
Click to expand...

Unequal gender ration in marriages = certain population of one gender left in the dust. I'm pretty sure this has been true with every polygamous society, plus it's just common sense.

EpicDude86 said:
I think we'll see the "nuclear family" redefined or replaced soon.
Click to expand...

...And I don't. But I'm curious, what makes you think that we will?
 
Dav said:
Unequal gender ration in marriages = certain population of one gender left in the dust. I'm pretty sure this has been true with every polygamous society, plus it's just common sense.
Click to expand...

These are from my earlier post:

About 78% of human societies are polygynous, in which some men marry more than one wife.

-Murdock, George Peter. Ethnographic Atlas.

Only 22% of societies are strictly monogamous. No modern societies are polyandrous, in which one woman marries several husbands (not counting extramarital sex, and a poor region of India and Tibet where women marry brothers because the work of several men is needed to provide resources to raise a family). Only 3% of mammal species in general are monogamous, although at least 15% of primate species are.

-Insel, T.R., Winslow, J.T., Wang, X., Young, L.J. "Oxytocin, Vasopressin, and the Neuroendocrine Basis of Pair Bond Formation," in Vasopressin and Oxytocin: Molecular, Cellular, and Clinical Advances, (Plenum, 1998, ISBN 0-306-45928-0), p. 217.


Dav said:
...And I don't. But I'm curious, what makes you think that we will?
Click to expand...

The ever increasing trend of older people moving back in with their elderly parents, increases in extended families living together, the increase in divorce and repeat divorce rates, increase in publica acceptance of single parents. In general society is shifting as a whole in terms of relationships. We're beginning to open up to new ideas instead of the same old stereotypes and norms.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom