Polygamy, right or wrong?

[GhostWriter16]

Wouldn't polygamy be just two or more marriages, two or more lifelong partnerships with a person?

The italicized part contradicts the bolded part.

It fit were legal, it needs to be equal. If a man can have a two wives, then a woman can have two husbands. None of this Mormon B.S. where everything is only legal for the male.

I kind of think the whole purpose of it originally was so some guys had an excuse to have multiple women without being accused of cheating. Then again, we men are scum when it comes to religion.

Are you aware Mormons don't believe in polygamy anymore?

 

[Disgustipated]

Allowing polygamy could create situations where there aren't enough women for every man. Then you get into situations like China. What makes it worse for us is we have guns. In China they only go crazy with knives from being unable to find a mate. We don't need more White and Asian men going crazy in the U.S. shooting up Universities, gyms, and other places. I'm against polygamy only for that reason. Although if you legalize prostitution, then it's okay to legalize polygamy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

This combination, applied with this line of thinking, would end with a MASSIVE STD crisis.

If nothing else, polygamy would increase STDs, which is objectively not a good thing for the govt. to support. Thus, I'd be against the government supporting this type of relationship. I'd really rather see the government support monogamous marriages (And no gay ones either, although I'm willing to compromise on benefits) for this type of reason (not to mention personal morality reasons.)

 

[ArneHD]

Laissez faire, laissez passer, that's my attitude in these cases anyway.

 

[Core Imposter]

Allowing polygamy could create situations where there aren't enough women for every man. Then you get into situations like China. What makes it worse for us is we have guns. In China they only go crazy with knives from being unable to find a mate. We don't need more White and Asian men going crazy in the U.S. shooting up Universities, gyms, and other places. I'm against polygamy only for that reason. Although if you legalize prostitution, then it's okay to legalize polygamy.

To prevent mass murder then, would you support a law that allowed men without mates to have the right of sexual congress with your girlfriend, wife, or ....mother?

To take the edge off, so to speak?

 

[Core Imposter]

Oh, left out your sister. Oops, nothing personal. Her too.

 

[_random_]

Allowing polygamy could create situations where there aren't enough women for every man. Then you get into situations like China. What makes it worse for us is we have guns. In China they only go crazy with knives from being unable to find a mate. We don't need more White and Asian men going crazy in the U.S. shooting up Universities, gyms, and other places. I'm against polygamy only for that reason. Although if you legalize prostitution, then it's okay to legalize polygamy.

Alternatively, more and more American men will turn to Monastic vocations, bringing about spiritual renaissance in the United States. Thus the moral decline of western civilization will be its salvation.

Or maybe neither of those things would happen, since both sound remarkably far-fetched when you think about it. Even if polygamy were allowed, I can't see it becoming especially popular in America.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

It is not the state's business to either ban or endorse either polygamous or monogamous marriages.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Why not?

 

[mangxema]

I think people need to relax and realize that it will never catch on with the majority of the population, for the simple reason that it would take a lot of work, and to an extent, would be unstable. It would be like trying to make three (or more!) relationships work, with the added challenge of making sure that all of them stay more or less on equal footing. There is only a small group of people who could possibly make that work.

This combination, applied with this line of thinking, would end with a MASSIVE STD crisis.

If nothing else, polygamy would increase STDs, which is objectively not a good thing for the govt. to support.

I'm not sure if you referring to polygamy + prostitution here, or just polygamy. If the latter, that's just not true. If people had closed relationships and were responsible, they wouldn't be at a greater risk than they are now.

 

[classical_hero]

If it was good enough for the Old Testament, it's good enough for us now, amirite?

Your lack of biblical understanding is very disturbing to say the least.

 

[Ramius75]

i really like the Idea of Polygamy but on the account that both men and women can get multiple partners.

 

[Arwon]

There's no in principle reason to deny polyamorous relationships the legal recognition of marriage.

I wonder at two things. The first is the practicalities of the legal arrangements involved, the second is whether it enables religious/misogynist/cultist abuse in situations were consent is very compromised.

I don't think either of those are conclusive arguments against, however.

In western societies it's a fairly niche concern. The poly community's concerns at marginalisation are entirely valid and there's an argument that same sex marriage advocates are throwing poly interests under a bus in order to claim greater social acceptability for the cause.

And mere legalisation wouldn't promote more multi-person marriages. So the "break down of whatever" arguments are silly. I can see an argument that widespread polygamy with one male and many females is socially destabilising, but it's just not a realistic concern in a relatively liberated western context.

Neither do I accept the argument about exploitability. We don't question why people get married currently - I can get married for literally any reason I choose (money, tax benefits, property transfer, love, citizenship, mocking your anachronistic views of the institution by getting divorced a month later) or none at all, no questions asked. That shouldn't change... the state querying people's motivations to marry is a dangerous path indeed.

 

[Synobun]

Your lack of biblical understanding is very disturbing to say the least.

Your lack of self-thought is very disturbing to say the least.

 

[classical_hero]

Where will it stop? Will this one day b e recognised as being legal?
Toowoomba man marries dog

"You’re my best friend and you make every part of my day better," Mr Guiso’s vows read.

Link to video.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't know. Will people one day learn to use their effing god given intellect to prevent them from putting up absurd and repeatedly debunked objections?

I'm not counting on it based on evidence I have seen.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

The italicized part contradicts the bolded part.

What do you mean?

Where will it stop? Will this one day b e recognised as being legal?
Toowoomba man marries dog

Yeah, it must be annoying when organized religions don't have a monopoly on the usage of word "marriage." Why should you care if someone calls his/her relationship with another man/woman or other people or even other animals a marriage? Isn't it enough if you know what a marriage truly means and you live in a right kind of marriage?

 

[El_Machinae]

Arwon, there certainly are some legal complications. The main one I can think of is alimony. The alimony concern is even greater in the situation you suggested - where consent is not as robust as we'd like. A 16 y.o. tricked into becoming a 'housewife' for 10 years loses a lot of resume-building time. If she then 'no-fault' divorces out, who owes her alimony?

My main requirement for being 'pro-legal-polygamy' is that all parties have to consent. A husband cannot foist another wife onto the first wife.

 

[Arwon]

Yeah I'd have thought that was a given. Genuine consent is the single most important thing in romantic and sexual relationships generally. No different here. (It also makes posts like classical hero's dog post stupid to the point that it's not even worth dignifying with a response)

 

[Leoreth]

The italicized part contradicts the bolded part.

You know that all quotes are italicized?

Also, nothing about the word "partnership" implies "two people", if that's what you meant. See legal partnership, for example.

Your lack of biblical understanding is very disturbing to say the least.

... coming from a literalist and YEC