Legalize Polygamy!

[MongGrel]

You keep talking about 'by nature' yet nothing here makes any sense.

There is nothing predatory about putting your name in a dating database and a quick trip out on a Friday night will show you how many sexually aggressive women there are who aren't looking for long term commitment.

I've only met one truly sexually aggressive woman in my life, and she was a bit of an idiot.

I'll stick with the current one I've had for the last 20 years.

Not trying to be an ass, but really some are really messed in the head too.

It's my third wife too, and dated many in between em all.

Sorry, enough of that.

*edit* one a side note maybe I could hook up with the first two again and get three.

Wow, now I'll have nightmares tonight

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I have enough trouble with one wife, why the hell would I want another one?

then forget a 2nd wife, add a husband to share the load and halve the trouble with the wife

 

[Vaux]

I would hope not. Children minds are not fully developed so they cant be consenting adults. Adults are. Similarly I feel child should not get death penalty or own guns or do drugs.

A human mind is not fully developed until they are in their mid 20's. Are you saying a person cannot make a consenting decision until they are in their 20's?

 

[MongGrel]

A human mind is not fully developed until they are in their mid 20's. Are you saying a person cannot make a consenting decision until they are in their 20's?

I know some that are over 50 that seem to not have developed minds yet, scarey as that is.

More like irritating to be honest.

 

[Zebo]

Agreed. Polygamy is not my own cup of tea. But hey, to each their own.

Not mine either. But it kills me how people can scream that they want to be free and express himself freely without being controlled, yet do they do opposite for everyone else.

Every person is trying to shape the world in their image, but only a few try and shape it in the name of acceptance and true freedom.

I think bober, yourself and few others are consistent. 90% are big time hypocrites.

 

[shira]

Haha - Yeah it's amazing how bigoted people are who claim to be open minded. But you see hypocrisy everywhere. As it relates to this topic only 14% favor in a pew poll I read. (about where gay marriage was in the 1970s)

I don't like drugs, never visited a whore in my life, don't like religion especially retrograde islam, not gay, don't want 4 wives, dont like single women raising boys, but I think all should legal and i should MMOB. Thats true open mindedness.

Ha ha, it's amazing how many right-wing fanatics - who are opposed to same-sex marriage for all sorts of made-up reasons ("Marriage is for procreation" [never mind all of the heterosexual marriages they're not opposed to that have no possibility of children; and never mind that allowing a same-sex couple to marry does NOTHING to interfere with procreation by other married couples]) - are now falling all over themselves in this thread to express their support of poly-marriages. Riiiiggghhhtt.

I'm totally in support of truly consensual poly marriages. But if poly marriages ARE legalized, there need to be some pretty good safeguards in place to ensure that underage girls aren't pressured into marriages.

Methinks we are seeing more idiocy by the right in this thread, because they cannot distinguish - on the one hand - their own rationalizations as a justification to oppose same-sex marriages, and - on the other hand - serious concerns about the negative consequences of poly marriages. Their posts "supporting" poly marriages in this thread are just more, transparent intellectual dishonesty. But what can you expect from a bunch of bigots?

 

[Moonbeam]

A human mind is not fully developed until they are in their mid 20's. Are you saying a person cannot make a consenting decision until they are in their 20's?

Pay attention to whom you attribute a quote. I said nothing that had anything to do with the age of concent. It is, however, a totally arbitrarily determined age.

 

[bradley]

I say place all non-heterosexual/non-monogamous unions under the umbrella of civil unions, whether that be gay or polygamist etc. Then let each group petition the state (and take it to the courts) in an attempt to carve out the same rights as married couples.

I would easily help to fight for equal rights for civil unions, just as I fight for religious freedom and the concept behind a separation of church and state.

 

[sportage]

Just how many fat chicks does one man need to get him a beer?
I seriously doubt most American men could handle polygamy.
Women maybe. Men? No way.
And forget about his financial future.
He will die a sad lonely penniless soul.
Ravaged time and time again in divorce court.
And all that child support? oy vey
And I bet not one of his 25 offspring visits him in the poor house.
Not to mention his funeral.
But if there were support in the general population, say it polls over 50%, then why not?
But we know what this idea is all about here...
With SS marriage about to be law of the land, the guys are already dreaming of that night when their car breaks down on a lonely country road, the guy heads for the nearest farmhouse, the farmhouse with a light in the window, and he discovers 15 females all polygamy SS married and he thinks, "Hey gals! Here I am!".

 

[Moonbeam]

Just how many fat chicks does one man need to get him a beer?
I seriously doubt most American men could handle polygamy.
Women maybe. Men? No way.
And forget about his financial future.
He will die a sad lonely penniless soul.
Ravaged time and time again in divorce court.
And all that child support? oy vey
And I bet not one of his 25 offspring visits him in the poor house.
Not to mention his funeral.
But if there were support in the general population, say it polls over 50%, then why not?
But we know what this idea is all about here...
With SS marriage about to be law of the land, the guys are already dreaming of that night when their car breaks down on a lonely country road, the guy heads for the nearest farmhouse, the farmhouse with a light in the window, and he discovers 15 females all polygamy SS married and he thinks, "Hey gals! Here I am!".

Golly, that's not the reason to be concerned. The reason is in the nature of true love. The heart of the lover has room only for the Beloved. It is this innate knowledge known by Lovers that lies at the foundation of this ethical tradition. When the Beloved is, the Lover disappears. It is this perfect union the soul of the wise seek. Those who have lost their way seek thrills and inferior substitution. You either know this or you don't. Nobody who has lost their way wants to know it.

 

[shortylickens]

I am of the opinion churches should do whatever they want, but the government needs to stop acknowledging any sorts of marriage.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

yeah i really cant see any logical reason for keeping this illegal. theyll have to rewrite lots of laws though, like how taxes are supposed to work. but the moral argument against it is stupid

 

[Moonbeam]

I am of the opinion churches should do whatever they want, but the government needs to stop acknowledging any sorts of marriage.

Pair bonding is human. Customs follow a natural order or genetically determined behavior. This gets reflected in law. What you are requesting would therefore be unnatural.

 

[nehalem256]

Ha ha, it's amazing how many right-wing fanatics - who are opposed to same-sex marriage for all sorts of made-up reasons ("Marriage is for procreation" [never mind all of the heterosexual marriages they're not opposed to that have no possibility of children; and never mind that allowing a same-sex couple to marry does NOTHING to interfere with procreation by other married couples]) - are now falling all over themselves in this thread to express their support of poly-marriages. Riiiiggghhhtt.

Funny, that when liberals update marriage laws to include same-sex marriage they don't also remove the prohibition on incestuous marriage.

After all if marriage isn't about procreation what argument is there against it?

Also, the bolded shows you don't even understand the argument. The argument is that since homosexual relationships are by their nature obviously not about procreation they serve no societal purpose. And therefore granting special rights and privileges to such relationships makes no sense.

I'm totally in support of truly consensual poly marriages. But if poly marriages ARE legalized, there need to be some pretty good safeguards in place to ensure that underage girls aren't pressured into marriages.

You mean like laws that prohibit marrying underage girls? Laws that *gasp* already exist

 

[BoberFett]

I'm totally in support of truly consensual poly marriages. But if poly marriages ARE legalized, there need to be some pretty good safeguards in place to ensure that underage girls aren't pressured into marriages.

Really? Are there "pretty good safeguards" in place to ensure underage girls aren't pressured into monogamous marriages? Why are those not sufficient? You're just talking stupid at this point.

Methinks we are seeing more idiocy by the right in this thread, because they cannot distinguish - on the one hand - their own rationalizations as a justification to oppose same-sex marriages, and - on the other hand - serious concerns about the negative consequences of poly marriages. Their posts "supporting" poly marriages in this thread are just more, transparent intellectual dishonesty. But what can you expect from a bunch of bigots?

Right back at ya, bigot. You're stretching for any little reason to say "Polygamy bad."

 

[BoberFett]

Just how many fat chicks does one man need to get him a beer?
I seriously doubt most American men could handle polygamy.
Women maybe. Men? No way.
And forget about his financial future.
He will die a sad lonely penniless soul.
Ravaged time and time again in divorce court.
And all that child support? oy vey
And I bet not one of his 25 offspring visits him in the poor house.
Not to mention his funeral.
But if there were support in the general population, say it polls over 50%, then why not?
But we know what this idea is all about here...
With SS marriage about to be law of the land, the guys are already dreaming of that night when their car breaks down on a lonely country road, the guy heads for the nearest farmhouse, the farmhouse with a light in the window, and he discovers 15 females all polygamy SS married and he thinks, "Hey gals! Here I am!".

LOL, the Democrat bigots sure come out in force in these threads.

 

[nehalem256]

Just how many fat chicks does one man need to get him a beer?
I seriously doubt most American men could handle polygamy.
Women maybe. Men? No way.
And forget about his financial future.
He will die a sad lonely penniless soul.
Ravaged time and time again in divorce court.
And all that child support? oy vey
And I bet not one of his 25 offspring visits him in the poor house.
Not to mention his funeral.
But if there were support in the general population, say it polls over 50%, then why not?
But we know what this idea is all about here...
With SS marriage about to be law of the land, the guys are already dreaming of that night when their car breaks down on a lonely country road, the guy heads for the nearest farmhouse, the farmhouse with a light in the window, and he discovers 15 females all polygamy SS married and he thinks, "Hey gals! Here I am!".

So you are saying that rights should be determined by popular vote?

I guess that must be why liberals never challenge any SSM bans that were instituted by popular vote... oh wait D:

 

[realibrad]

Ha ha, it's amazing how many right-wing fanatics - who are opposed to same-sex marriage for all sorts of made-up reasons ("Marriage is for procreation" [never mind all of the heterosexual marriages they're not opposed to that have no possibility of children; and never mind that allowing a same-sex couple to marry does NOTHING to interfere with procreation by other married couples]) - are now falling all over themselves in this thread to express their support of poly-marriages. Riiiiggghhhtt.

I'm totally in support of truly consensual poly marriages. But if poly marriages ARE legalized, there need to be some pretty good safeguards in place to ensure that underage girls aren't pressured into marriages.

Methinks we are seeing more idiocy by the right in this thread, because they cannot distinguish - on the one hand - their own rationalizations as a justification to oppose same-sex marriages, and - on the other hand - serious concerns about the negative consequences of poly marriages. Their posts "supporting" poly marriages in this thread are just more, transparent intellectual dishonesty. But what can you expect from a bunch of bigots?

Why do you think that Polygamy has anything to do with child abuse?

 

[Vaux]

Pay attention to whom you attribute a quote. I said nothing that had anything to do with the age of concent. It is, however, a totally arbitrarily determined age.

Sorry, I will fix it.

 

[BoberFett]

Why do you think that Polygamy has anything to do with child abuse?

Because he's scientific. Come on right winger, think! He did a careful cost/benefit analysis and came to the conclusion that Koch Brothers.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Consensual cannibalism?

Incest?

Just what can someone consent to is a whole other thread, and a interesting discussion if you want to post it over in the Discussion Club. But I have just the other night had this discussion with a group of very smart, very well educated people and it comes down to the fact that as long as we hold that everyone is of sound mind and body and not being coerced, then it is hard to justify taking away someone's right to consent even to extreme things like incest and cannibalism.

I don't really have an issue with the idea of Poly marriages, but the entire marriage legal framework would have to massively change, because right now marriage is clearly a contract between two people.

One of the things that would have to happen is that marriage would have to be redefined as a legal shell entity like corporations are. People could then join and leave marriages based on the rules of the marriage. It would make a lot of things like divorce a lot simpler because it will force people to work out those sorts of things in advance.

Also all you commitment phobic men, I have news for you. Basically no normal woman is going to agree to be in a poly marriage with 1 guy and multiple wives. What would actually happen is 1 women with multiple men, because lets face it tits attract way more men than dick attracts women. So if poly marriages actually happen, you will probably end up with even less sex than you currently have.

As someone who has actually been in polyamorous relationships I can say with authority that you are wrong. Women tend to form strong familiar bonds with each other, and are much better at sharing a man then men are at sharing a women. This also hold off the Coolidge effect and leads to a very active sex life.

There is also nothing from stopping people from have open marriages/swinging now or even having a live in second "wife." There is just no legal framework, currently for allowing more than 2 people to enter into a marriage contract.

That is kind of correct. There are some laws that poly people can fall foul of. But, more importantly that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about getting married, not being lovers.

Which this is why poly and same-sex marriages are not actually all that related. SSM would use the same legal framework that exists today, they just want access to it. Poly would require a whole new legal framework that no one currently has access to, so everyone is seen equal under the law.

Of course, you are right. We would not want to make our legislator work hard at making laws or anything. They might might have to miss on one of their lobbyists dinners.
But having said that, while they use similar arguments, SSM and Poly Marriage are separate issues that need to each have their own day.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just what can someone consent to is a whole other thread, and a interesting discussion if you want to post it over in the Discussion Club. But I have just the other night had this discussion with a group of very smart, very well educated people and it comes down to the fact that as long as we hold that everyone is of sound mind and body and not being coerced, then it is hard to justify taking away someone's right to consent even to extreme things like incest and cannibalism.

That, however, is the problem. The last thing a person wants to know is ones unconscious motivations, the fact that ones whole conscious experience Is driven by the avoidance of the awareness of ones own self hate. Humanity is asleep and only dreams it has free will.

 

[SMOGZINN]

That, however, is the problem. The last thing a person wants to know is ones unconscious motivations, the fact that ones whole conscious experience Is driven by the avoidance of the awareness of ones own self hate. Humanity is asleep and only dreams it has free will.

I don't think it really matters WHY I want to consent. I under your philosophy self hate is the reason we do many (all?) things. I can't coerce myself so, if self hate is a good enough reason for me to consent to sky diving, then it is also a good enough reason to consent to erotic cannibalism.

 

[shortylickens]

Pair bonding is human. Customs follow a natural order or genetically determined behavior. This gets reflected in law. What you are requesting would therefore be unnatural.

crawling out of the caves was unnatural.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think it really matters WHY I want to consent. I under your philosophy self hate is the reason we do many (all?) things. I can't coerce myself so, if self hate is a good enough reason for me to consent to sky diving, then it is also a good enough reason to consent to erotic cannibalism.

You can consent to whatever you like but to remain unconscious of the reasons is just sleep walking. Erotic cannibalism is just an invention of sickness. It's not something a conscious person could possibly be into.