• 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 ? [W: 267,434]

must polygamy be legalized ?

  • it is better than monogamy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    68
If you can put together a multi-party relationship with all its complexities at 2 AM, you're a better man than I MacDuff.

I find my argument brilliant and elegantly put.



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?


e.
 
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.

Yes, and those things happen in "illegal" polygamist unions.
 
1.)you cant be loyal when you have more than one spouse.

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

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

1.) of course you can, polygamist view it as one unit, they are all part of the same team.

2.) true, i also not many many woman that would love to have more than one guy at a time too, its just usually thier standards are higher. THey would like to have a "the Rock" and "Vin diesel" sandwich while guys are fine with a neighbor girlfriend sandwich LOL

3.) again, we may think that but its not for us to decide.
 
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

And nobody HAS to have multiple spouses. That would be a personal choice. If somebody feels that is the right situation for them, as long as they are not doing anything illegal, why would you care?
 
1.) of course you can, polygamist view it as one unit, they are all part of the same team.

2.) true, i also not many many woman that would love to have more than one guy at a time too, its just usually thier standards are higher. THey would like to have a "the Rock" and "Vin diesel" sandwich while guys are fine with a neighbor girlfriend sandwich LOL

3.) again, we may think that but its not for us to decide.

1- it is against teh nature of the romantic love and loyalty

2-

3_ only if they want it to be legalized ..
 
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.

Correct me I'm wrong, but you're saying that protecting individuals from their own bad decisions is not the role of govt?

If so, I'll surprise you and say that I agree. However, that's not my argument. My argument is not about protecting individuals, but protecting (and promoting) the social order, and by "social order", I do not mean "cultural norms".
 
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

What is the difference of a man having 5 wives at once or being divorced 4 times and having 5 wives one at a time? Certainly I wouldn't think there was any loyalty there with the divorced ones. The papasan of my apartment complex in Bangkok, late 60's, early 70's had 5 wives and all were well taken care, each had their own apartment and car. But if I understood it right, the first wife was considered the major wife and all the rest minor wives. I never noticed any jealously, but the younger ones, four and five would fool around from time to time.
 
Will there be a huge run on these marriages - assuming we get rid of bull**** like allowing anybody under 21 to marry ever under any circumstances - I seriously doubt it. Who is going to take the time and effort to figure out how this marriage will function long term? Very few I assure you. Why you'd lose all the fun and drama of the impulse marriage!

Not only should it be legalized, it should be idolized.
 
And nobody HAS to have multiple spouses. That would be a personal choice. If somebody feels that is the right situation for them, as long as they are not doing anything illegal, why would you care?

l am not liberitarian :mrgreen:

l find such traditions and tendencies so destructive for the future of the society..

they are allowed to live together at the same house ? yes

at least they have enough freedom to do it .

legalization of such marginal things may destroy a society faster than the other societies .

their personal choices will affect their children too and again we come to a conclusion that the family union is important for the future and stability of the society
 
Of course it's not the role of government. It's the role of the contractees to figure out how, exactly and definitively, to make this valuable. In our beautiful polygamized world we will have more options so we will be forced to give things more thought.

Let me give you an analogy(?). Some people are spendthrifts and some are accumulators. Who is better off in the long term? Accumulation requires planning. Wastefulness does not.

More thinking = more results


Correct me I'm wrong, but you're saying that protecting individuals from their own bad decisions is not the role of govt?

If so, I'll surprise you and say that I agree. However, that's not my argument. My argument is not about protecting individuals, but protecting (and promoting) the social order, and by "social order", I do not mean "cultural norms".
 
l am not liberitarian :mrgreen:

l find such traditions and tendencies so destructive for the future of the society..

they are allowed to live together at the same house ? yes

at least they have enough freedom to do it .

legalization of such marginal things may destroy a society faster than the other societies .

their personal choices will affect their children too and again we come to a conclusion that the family union is important for the future and stability of the society

Polygamy was actually quite common in the past and didn't destroy societies. You are assuming that many people would even want this type of marriage.
 
Polygamy was actually quite common in the past and didn't destroy societies. You are assuming that many people would even want this type of marriage.

so islamist backward life style is not destructive ?
 
I don't understand how polygamy being legalized would "destroy society." :confused: It can't be any worse than single parent households, right? Those children have even MORE people to fuss over them.
 
so islamist backward life style is not destructive ?

Only because of child marriage. Like I said, of course they would be required to follow our age of consent laws like any other marriage.
 
Polygamy, Pedophiles, Priests, Poles, Penn state----obviously another issue to hide behind the skirt of the 10th amendment

as Romney tried to hide behind his wife's skirt so many times

Romney never could touch the issue of his GGF being launched to Mexico by Lincoln, the anti--10th crusader
 
Only because of child marriage. Like I said, of course they would be required to follow our age of consent laws like any other marriage.

unless the states' riders take over, as with other social issues
 
..and those age of consent laws ned to be moved to 21. It's disgusting that teenagers are allowed to make such a critical decision while still having zits and hormonal issues.




Only because of child marriage. Like I said, of course they would be required to follow our age of consent laws like any other marriage.
 
Of course it's not the role of government. It's the role of the contractees to figure out how, exactly and definitively, to make this valuable. In our beautiful polygamized world we will have more options so we will be forced to give things more thought.

Let me give you an analogy(?). Some people are spendthrifts and some are accumulators. Who is better off in the long term? Accumulation requires planning. Wastefulness does not.

More thinking = more results

You're arguing a point I agree with you on.

The analogy you gave does not threaten the social order; it only threatens the financial security of the individuals involved
 
I don't understand how polygamy being legalized would "destroy society." :confused: It can't be any worse than single parent households, right? Those children have even MORE people to fuss over them.

If I had a daughter, I'd rather she die an 80 year old virgin spinster than spend 1 day as a sister wife. You get why or you'll never get why.
 
..and those age of consent laws ned to be moved to 21. It's disgusting that teenagers are allowed to make such a critical decision while still having zits and hormonal issues.

I agree to an extent. I think it should be 18 across the board. I think it should be that way for everything too. Not, oh you're old enough to fight in a war but not old enough to have a beer crap.
 
I'm not arguing, I'm pontificating. Let an old man have his pleasures.

So you think TM people don't have financial problems? How do they stack up against a 4 income household? See? It's better than TM. Just harder to sort out.
You're arguing a point I agree with you on.

The analogy you gave does not threaten the social order; it only threatens the financial security of the individuals involved
 
If I had a daughter, I'd rather she die an 80 year old virgin spinster than spend 1 day as a sister wife. You get why or you'll never get why.

That would be her choice though, not yours.
 
What is the difference of a man having 5 wives at once or being divorced 4 times and having 5 wives one at a time? Certainly I wouldn't think there was any loyalty there with the divorced ones. The papasan of my apartment complex in Bangkok, late 60's, early 70's had 5 wives and all were well taken care, each had their own apartment and car. But if I understood it right, the first wife was considered the major wife and all the rest minor wives. I never noticed any jealously, but the younger ones, four and five would fool around from time to time.

Pero, I enjoy the movie "The King and I," which I rewatch from time to time. Since you saw firsthand, was the movie reasonably accurate? The number one wife produced the heir, which seemed reasonable. Great movie! :)
 
I don't think you should be allowed to enlist at the age of 21 either. But at least it's a good thing. Marriage OTOH is just as problematical as evading IEDs.

I agree to an extent. I think it should be 18 across the board. I think it should be that way for everything too. Not, oh you're old enough to fight in a war but not old enough to have a beer crap.
 
Polygamous societies are less stable, less productive, and less peaceful than monogamous ones. Unmarried young men are the most socially destructive demographic. No thanks.
 
Back
Top Bottom