Do you think polygamy should be legalized?

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix
no because you have to find something to do with all the single men or they will do something, usually not good, themselves.

Why does everyone always assume that polygamy is only one man with multiple wives? That's polygyny. Polygamy includes all forms of plural marriage.

I dunno, but I did too. 🙁 Probably because it's the dominant form.

Ultimately, we should probably just get rid of Marriage altogether, at least as a Legal entity. I'm just unsure that Society is ready for that kind of change yet.

Sounds good to me.

In response to your other post, I think it might increase gradually, but I doubt it's ever going to be so widespread that it has a noticeable effect on genetic diversity. I can't back that claim up with any proof though, so...

The wealthy already are babe magnets to some extent, thus the term gold digger. I doubt there would be a sudden influx of gold diggers if polygamy were legal. Even if there was, why would the average Joe want to marry a gold digger?

The fact that something isn't a benefit to society isn't a good reason to outlaw it.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sure, why not? It's truly none of my business.

You might change your mind about that when:

1. Your company's health care costs skyrocket because they have to cover that perk for your co-worker's seven wives and 27 children on the back of his one salary . . . so they cut EVERYONE'S coverage, including yours.

2. Your taxes go up because that guy's 27 dependent deductions mean that not only does he pay zero income tax but he and his lovely family are now eligible for a WIDE variety of free social services . . . which you are now paying for.

3. Your wife, with whom you are not currently getting along, secretly marries the guy who cuts your lawn one night in Vegas while you thought she was visiting her Mom, and, after the divorce, YOU have to pay 18 years of child support for the twins she was carrying that he had fathered when he legally married YOU and her.

And, and, and . . .

Legal polygamy would be a legal nightmare.

Your tying of legal rights to a religious ceremony is your problem, not mine.

If you make polygamy legal, then YOU HAVE to deal with all these legal ramifications.

One way or the other, YOU JUST DO.

If, for instance, you allow polygamy but say that NOTHING WILL CHANGE LEGALLY, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING when you say you would tie NO legal rights to it, then you would have women as wives having children with men who have ZERO legal obligation to support them at all.

Only the first wife and her children would inherit anything or have any legal rights if the husband died.

Nice try, Chief, but YOU have obviously not thought this through even one little bit. :roll:



Edit: Damn, but your reply is one endlessly stupid statement. What exactly would YOU do, Chief, with a family where the first wife and her children with a guy had health insurance under the husband's job but the second and third wife and the children he fathered with them, under the same roof, didn't?

Well?

Do you even stop to think before you post?

ALL the many other LEGAL ramification are endless and varied and, one way or the other, WOULD have to be dealt with and WOULD incur a legal nightmare, whether you think so or not.

Damn, you're dumb. :|

Just realized why your Title includes "Elite" in it. 😀

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: thirtythree
The fact that something isn't a benefit to society isn't a good reason to outlaw it.

Agreed, which is why documented child abuse is the rationale employed.

In the really (really really) long view, I can see polygamy becoming legalized as the government just steps the hell out of people's personal lives and simply prosecutes those who actually abuse children instead of those who enter into formal relationships where such abuse might occur.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
no because you have to find something to do with all the single men or they will do something, usually not good, themselves.

All those single men could take advantage of the newly legalized gay marriage. 😉

 

[BoberFett]

This thread is pure gold. Look at all the little Democrat bigots crawling out from under their rocks.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: thirtythree
The wealthy already are babe magnets to some extent, thus the term gold digger. I doubt there would be a sudden influx of gold diggers if polygamy were legal. Even if there was, why would the average Joe want to marry a gold digger?

The fact that something isn't a benefit to society isn't a good reason to outlaw it.

Be fair, nothing would help with the wealth disparity more than billionaires marrying hundreds of hot women who then divorce him and make off with $10 million a pop. Being beautiful could become a very lucrative career... much like it is now, come to think of it.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
This thread is pure gold. Look at all the little Democrat bigots jumping off the top of their pedestals.

Fixed.

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Polygamy is not the same issue as gay marriage. Banning gay marriage deprives gay Americans of the same right as other citizens to marry one other person. Polygamy is not legal anywhere in the Union. Whether or not you agree with that ban, it applies universally and equally to all citizens so it does not fall under the equal protection clause of the U.S. or any state Constitution.

Originally posted by: spidey07

The trend IS NOT toward legalizing gay marriage. In fact the trend is strongly against it. It is your very question as to why the trend is strongly against gay marriage as that line of thinking leads to marrying whatever the hell you want. That is wrong. So very, very wrong.

Polygamy, gay marriage, having kids out of wedlock are all the same - they are wrong. Do not allow this behavior or line of thinking.
.
.
Nobody is born gay. It's a freaking choice. And if you're born gay that is natural selection saying "you don't get to play in the gene pool or influence a child". aka, marriage.

Thanks for all the hard facts and documentation to support your vapor headed bigotry. :thumbsdown: :frown:

but why is a definition of marriage as between two people any more proper a definition then between man and a woman? You say allowing someone to marry only one other person doesn't violate the equal protection clause becuase it applies to everyone equally, but under the law gay people have the same right to marry somone of the opposite sex the same as straight people; its not like straight people can marry someone of the same sex either. Just because it doesn't make any sense for gay people to marry someone of the opposite sex the opportunity is not denied to them and they will receive the same benifits. For it truly to defy equal protection then the definition of marriage must change (which you already did to make your point) so again I ask why not get rid of the requirement of marriage being between two people? Seems like it is the same issue to me; changing the definition of marriage.

edit: thirtythree beat me to the point...lol

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: Harvey

Polygamy is not the same issue as gay marriage. Banning gay marriage deprives gay Americans of the same right as other citizens to marry one other person. Polygamy is not legal anywhere in the Union. Whether or not you agree with that ban, it applies universally and equally to all citizens so it does not fall under the equal protection clause of the U.S. or any state Constitution.

That sounds an awful lot like the line "Gays have the same rights as straight people -- to marry someone of the opposite sex."

Not at all. Regardless of whether you think polygamy should be legal, civil marriage confers specific legal rights, privileges and duties on couples that are not available to single individuals or to those living in larger domestic arrangements. Banning gay marriage denies those rights, privileges and duties only to gay couples.

If you believe those same legal rights, privileges and duties should be provided to polygamous unions, your First Amendment right to free speech allows you to campaign for such changes in the law that would grant them.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: sandorski
Polygamy introduces many elements into Society that cause longterm problems:

1) Lack of Genetic Diversity. Probably the best reason to not allow it. A mentally and physically healthy Society needs to avoid this.

You're assuming that one man is going to have multiple wives who only bear his children. Hell, in today's world a man isn't guaranteed to have ONE wife to only bear his children. And a woman with multiple husbands can only have children so often. If anything, polygamy may assist the genetic strength of homo sapiens. Biologically, we've become somewhat genetically deficient. Due to political/economic/religous, etc reasons people who should not be procreating due to genetic flaws, are. Our modern medicine keeps people alive who should die and helps people reproduce who shouldn't. (1) Scientists say that humanity has reached a point where we have ceased to evolve. Maybe that's our own damn fault...

2) Changes the Social Order. The Wealthy will become Babe Magnets, literally. A Sub-Culture of Men may form unable to attract a Mate. This will cause conflict within Society which will often result in violence and some of that violence could be widespread.(latter part is rather over dramatic, but violent tendancy will increase).

The 'wealthy' won't be babe magnets, (2)the genetically superior will. Overall though, if spouses in the plurality are allowed to leave a marriage at will, the balance should not be tipped in favor (or against) either sex. The only reason you can observe the 'lost boys' of existing polygamist societies is because the wives are NOT allowed free will. Current polygamists get it wrong by using arranged marriage.

3) In a Modern Prosperous Society, there really is no good reasons why Polygamy is a Benefit to Society. So why have it at all?

This is true only if you believe 'polygamy' means 'Fundamentalist LDS'.

1) Source

2) Who determines Genetic Superiority and why would that motivate those seeking a Mate?

1. Source

2. Source

Mates determine what is Genetically Superior. It's hardwired into their brains.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The only women in numbers who are interested in such an arrangement were raised to think that it's is Normal. They were also raised to think of themselves as Lesser than Men.

That's just ignorant, and untrue. I've seen and read interviews with intelligent, independent women in polygamous relationships, and these women neither consider themselves "lesser" to men nor exploited in the relationship. One was even an MD! In fact, the women had considerable control within their family structure. For example, it was the women, and not the man, who decided who was going to be in the man's bed that night - he had no say, and if he didn't like it, there was always the couch.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: Harvey

Polygamy is not the same issue as gay marriage. Banning gay marriage deprives gay Americans of the same right as other citizens to marry one other person. Polygamy is not legal anywhere in the Union. Whether or not you agree with that ban, it applies universally and equally to all citizens so it does not fall under the equal protection clause of the U.S. or any state Constitution.

That sounds an awful lot like the line "Gays have the same rights as straight people -- to marry someone of the opposite sex."

Not at all. Regardless of whether you think polygamy should be legal, civil marriage confers specific legal rights, privileges and duties on couples that are not available to single individuals or to those living in larger domestic arrangements. Banning gay marriage denies those rights, privileges and duties only to gay couples.

If you believe those same legal rights, privileges and duties should be provided to polygamous unions, your First Amendment right to free speech allows you to campaign for such changes in the law that would grant them.

You're missing his very valid point (with which I agree). One could argue that gays are as free as anyone to get married, as long as its to a member of the opposite sex. While that's technically true, you'd probably argue that a gay man doesn't want to marry a woman, he wants to marry another gay man, which he can't do, so it's a denial of equal protection. That's fine, but then, by the same logic, how is it not a denial of equal protection not to let a trio (or more) marry each other?

 

[Muse]

I don't know if polygamy should be legalized but I'm all in favor of 5 18-year-old hotties in my bedroom at once giving me the attention I deserve! 😀

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix
no because you have to find something to do with all the single men or they will do something, usually not good, themselves.

Why does everyone always assume that polygamy is only one man with multiple wives? That's polygyny. Polygamy includes all forms of plural marriage.

it's by far the most dominant form that's been practiced. why not assume reality?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Muse
I don't know if polygamy should be legalized but I'm all in favor of 5 18-year-old hotties in my bedroom at once giving me the attention I deserve! 😀

What are the guy's names, in this fantasy? Adam, Mark, Stephen, etc.?

 

[dyna]

Legalizing polygamy and gay marriage would certainly solve our healthcare problem. Everybody that didn't have health insurance would get married to someone that did and they are all covered. How would 1 man married to 5 other men be classified on their taxes? Joint?

 

[mugs]

I don't object to polygamy or homosexual marriage, but polygamist relationships would have tricky implications with regard to taxes, spousal benefits, etc. I think you'd have to define two people in the polygamist relationship as the "primary" couple for those purposes. Of course that could cause legal problems.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
No. I would have thousands of wives and you introverted little cup cake geeks wouldn't have any. It wouldn't be fair.

I can hear them now, " Harcourt!
Harcourt Fenton Moonbeam, what have you been up to?
Have you been drinking again?
You answer me!
You miserable, conniving toad!
Giving me silly stories.
Harcourt!
Harcourt Fenton Moonbeam,
you've been overeating again and drinking."

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I think only 1 poster had anything worth while . If ya have the polygamy gene . Than you should have same rights as gays. Same as the killer gene . the Lieing Gene The stealing gene . If we have genes that makes same sex look good . It stands to reason these other genes exist . Were are these peoples rights. They can't help who they are . When I say same rights . I mean Killers kill . They can't help it poor dears. You can't argue for the gay gene and forget the rest . That means your being selective and thats not equal rights.

Because stealing, lying (in some cases), and killing infringes on the rights of an unwilling participant... Polygamy is a consenting relationship.

That still doesn't change the fact that they can't help themseves. We all know right from wrong or we should . But once ya start making exceptions to the rule . GAY gene . Than you show prejudice. YOU say draw the line somewhere . But you have the choice . Isay If these genes exist. Than prejudice should not be shown . Just get rid of law and order. That fixes everthing. It really wouldn't be much differant than what we already have.

So the spreading of sexual diesease is OK in your book. Doesn't that infringe. I mean Doing another guy has to be dirty stinky business. So disease is likely. So ya see unwilling participant also apply to the gay community.

The spreading of sexual disease causes harm, and people don't generally consent to receiving an STD from someone. If they choose to have sex with someone they don't know well without taking precautions, then they assume a certain level of risk. Someone who has an STD and doesn't tell their partner beforehand is behaving unethically. Is it generally possible to prosecute this sort of thing? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it's "OK." I can't quite make sense of the rest of that paragraph.

It's debatable that people can't help themselves from committing a crime -- in fact, people attracted to the same sex can probably resist acting on that too. However, same-sex relationships don't cause harm to anyone, so there's no reason to prevent them from acting on it. Now, even if people can't control themselves, we can still punish them for their crimes to prevent other such acts. Even in a determinist world, it would make sense to have laws against crimes to prevent them from taking place, even if there's no personal responsibility.

thirtythree
Diamond Member

Posts: 8473
Joined: 08/07/2001

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
That BS and you know it . Guy has boy friend . Has sex . Gets disease goes home does wife. Tell me all about it.

:s

I have no idea what you're saying, seriously.

Ok . I am talking about a married couple . Guy is having Gay Affair. Does his boy friend contracts aid . Goes home And does his wife . Giving her Aids. Were did the wife become a willing victim . Also wife gets pregnant. Child contracts aids. Now we have 2 unwilling victims.

Another mistake your making is this. SEX and responsiable don't work well together.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
no because you have to find something to do with all the single men or they will do something, usually not good, themselves.

What left over men you talking about . They have there boy friends.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: OrByte
cultures have lived with (and made work) polygamous relationships for 100s of years (maybe 1000s im no historian)

it is possible.

We are growing and learning in a western civilization (post modern "Nuclear Family")Because of this we know next to nothing of how other cultures in previous generations made "polygamy" work. The "Nuclear Family" is our experience, it is our model. But that isn't to say there are other models out there that did work and in some places they still do work.

The issue would be complex, and the legal system we have today would be turned over on its head...but at a fundamental level people can and should be able to form these relationships because they do.

Nothing stops people from forming such Relationships. They just don't get Legal benefit. It certainly is a Gray area, you gotta weigh the benefit to Society either way(Pro/Con). Personally I think the Cons of Polygamy outweigh the benefits. The Pros for Same Sex Marriage outweigh the Cons.

Polygamy introduces many elements into Society that cause longterm problems:

1) Lack of Genetic Diversity. Probably the best reason to not allow it. A mentally and physically healthy Society needs to avoid this.

2) Changes the Social Order. The Wealthy will become Babe Magnets, literally. A Sub-Culture of Men may form unable to attract a Mate. This will cause conflict within Society which will often result in violence and some of that violence could be widespread.(latter part is rather over dramatic, but violent tendancy will increase).

3) In a Modern Prosperous Society, there really is no good reasons why Polygamy is a Benefit to Society. So why have it at all?

The bolded part your kidding right . I can think of lots of benefits for guys.

15 wivies all working . All bringing home the bacon . The man stays home and takes care of children . Who ever is doing the job right now . Sucks at it. I think men would do well at child care. Thats just one benefit.

Now give 1 benefit of gay marriage.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Now give 1 benefit of gay marriage.

You first. Give 1 benefit of straight marriage.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: sandorski
Polygamy introduces many elements into Society that cause longterm problems:

1) Lack of Genetic Diversity. Probably the best reason to not allow it. A mentally and physically healthy Society needs to avoid this.

You're assuming that one man is going to have multiple wives who only bear his children. Hell, in today's world a man isn't guaranteed to have ONE wife to only bear his children. And a woman with multiple husbands can only have children so often. If anything, polygamy may assist the genetic strength of homo sapiens. Biologically, we've become somewhat genetically deficient. Due to political/economic/religous, etc reasons people who should not be procreating due to genetic flaws, are. Our modern medicine keeps people alive who should die and helps people reproduce who shouldn't. (1) Scientists say that humanity has reached a point where we have ceased to evolve. Maybe that's our own damn fault...

2) Changes the Social Order. The Wealthy will become Babe Magnets, literally. A Sub-Culture of Men may form unable to attract a Mate. This will cause conflict within Society which will often result in violence and some of that violence could be widespread.(latter part is rather over dramatic, but violent tendancy will increase).

The 'wealthy' won't be babe magnets, (2)the genetically superior will. Overall though, if spouses in the plurality are allowed to leave a marriage at will, the balance should not be tipped in favor (or against) either sex. The only reason you can observe the 'lost boys' of existing polygamist societies is because the wives are NOT allowed free will. Current polygamists get it wrong by using arranged marriage.

3) In a Modern Prosperous Society, there really is no good reasons why Polygamy is a Benefit to Society. So why have it at all?

This is true only if you believe 'polygamy' means 'Fundamentalist LDS'.

1) Source

2) Who determines Genetic Superiority and why would that motivate those seeking a Mate?

1. Source

2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/3049...y-and-Sexual-Selection">Source</a>

Mates determine what is Genetically Superior. It's hardwired into their brains.

Just go back in time . A skinny woman was kicked to the curb. Skinny didn't get popular until recent history . natural selection died .

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Now give 1 benefit of gay marriage.

You first. Give 1 benefit of straight marriage.

Years and years of a couple growing together raising a family. Its a great life in that respect. Not one of my friends have divorced. None in Our combined families has Divorced. My mom came from a family of 15 . My dad a family of 8 . My wifes family has 8 children Mine has 5. My wifes mom has 10 in her family . My wifes Dad 2 He be native American . None have divorced. no children no grand children NO one has divorced. I be 56 years and tired. Living in Christ has its rewards.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Now give 1 benefit of gay marriage.

You first. Give 1 benefit of straight marriage.

Years and years of a couple growing together raising a family. Its a great life in that respect. Not one of my friends have divorced. None in Our combined families has Divorced. My mom came from a family of 15 . My dad a family of 8 . None have divorced. no children no grand children NO one has divorced. Living in Christ has its rewards.

What about simulated cannibalism, where you actually get to eat Christ?