Polygamy

Post Reply New Topic

*snort*
I strongly doubt that. She's better off without him, and I'm sure that she knows that by now.

I'd think the human race is approximately 50-50 for a reason.

Polygamy is inherently selfish.

Marriage is inherently selfish. If everyone were required to get married to one man or woman once they reached a certain age, there wouldn't be enough spouses for them to have a partner. There are simply too few for each gender, especially if you go into certain ethnic groups. Marriage is so antiquated and should be done away with, or at least be pushed to the fringes of civilization.

I'll agree, marriage is selfish. But if marriage is selfish, polygamy multiplies that selfishness.

I only have one thing to say to polygamists... "Hey, save some for the rest of us."

It also makes me wonder, what are all those unattached Mormon males doing with themselves? (or each other)... hmmmmm?

I have been watching this show on TLC about the FLDS and the reign they have on their followers. It's called Breaking The Faith. They have mentioned the problem with males who are not wanted in the cult. They call them lost boys. So, it obviously is an issue in polygamist culture.

I am not really that keen on marriage as a concept. I do think polygamists should have the right to be married, along with same sex. If marriage is allowed, it should be a right everyone enjoys.

I just think FLDS as a polygamist culture is abusive and icky. People who stay in that are so brainwashed, they no longer think on their own. They have lost the ability to figure out if polygamy might be the best choice. I disagree with the idea of one leader deciding whom everyone else will marry. Seems like all the worst people are practicing it while people might actually benefit from it, like bisexual women, are not really involved.

I'm going to post my answer before I go back and read any answers.

I don't think it would ever become that popular. It's a whole lot of work from what it looks like and I doubt that most people are up to that level of commitment. It would probably just be all the FLDS church marrying legally in their big families, and more that haven't gotten more than one wife out of fear would do so then, and some non Mormons would do it too, but not that many.

I don't see why it's not legal, who is it hurting? I mean if you have obvious cases of fraud, like one guy with 30 wives and a great Blue Cross plan that they are all on and nobody pays a penny in taxes and they all got great jobs, then start sending out investigators to see if it's real or just a scam. But for the most part, if somebody wants to do that, more power to them.

Just make sure that it works both ways too. That women who want more than one husband at a time, and guys who are ok with that, can do it too.

There is no real argument against polygamy. Some polygamist marriages may be abusive and coercive but so are some traditional marriages.

What would get messed up are family and divorce courts but those need to be reformed anyways.

Most men would probably be just as SOL as they are now. Monogamy is still the social norm, even should polygamy be legalized/decriminalized. Many would probably still carry on with the notion of everyone only being able to truly love one other person and thinking that every married man who finds himself having a crush on another woman must be evil and not really love her also. Thus monogamy would likely still be the primary form of marriage regardless due to jealousy.



If only polygyny were legalized, perhaps, but if the Golden Rule were followed so as to allow it to be fair to women also, then both polygyny and polyandry would be permitted. It might seem fair stranger for a woman to have more husbands because it hasn't been done throughout history very much, but it would be fairer to women to have the same ability to marry as many spouses as they want as well. I know biblically, the only type of polygamy mentioned is polygyny, but that might have been due to keeping genealogical records with less confusion - even though having only one form, the one benefiting men only, is unfair to women. I think that if polygamy were legalized, it should allow for both forms so as to be fair to women - which would also eliminate the problem with single men not being able to find spouses too. It would just seem bizarre.



I wouldn't know, and - although I haven't read everything in this thread - I would imagine that any actual polygamists would avoid confessing in writing because the laws in most states and nations legalistically consider them to be felons.

This is how I see a polygamist marriage functioning optimally for everyone involved. Let's say you have two women who are calling themselves lesbians only they will tolerate sex with men, they just prefer women and are together as a couple and both like to socialize with and are affectionate toward men but are with each other as a couple. They want to have a child and recognize the value of the father in the child's life. If polygamy is allowed, these women could go and search for a husband they could share. Perhaps they might both conceive a child by him? Once they find one they both like, the get to know him and if they both love him, they marry him. They love each other and him. They are one big happy family together so long as none of them stray. Happy as clams. It would need to be two women who really love the man, not just use him for his sperm because that would simply make him a donor. He is more than that in a polygamist marriage.

Let's say you have two men who call themselves homosexual or gay, but they like women too, they just don't happen to be in a relationship with one. Both men want to experience fatherhood and they hope to have the natural mother in the child's life, not simply a surrogate that disappears once she is born. So, they go looking for a woman who is open to the idea of having two husbands instead of one. They all love each other and the woman conceives babies over the years, from both men. They raise them together as a family unit. Both men experience fatherhood.

These situations are complicated and would require mature, rational people for them to work. For some enlightened beings, it might be possible. People should really think about if it's really what they can live with first.

One solution to this issue would be to allow both men and women equal rights as to being able to marry any number of spouses rather than just allowing either men or women such a right and the other being SOL. It's fixed via the golden rule. If it is only an either-or, the demographics in time and place would vary according to the perceived acceptability and so much gossip related fluff, but still it would probably not be as popular as the romantic sounding of the word "mine!" like the seagulls chanting in the one pixar clip.

I see nothing wrong with polygamy if the following conditions are met:

1. You believe it's how you want to live your married life.
2. It's done among CONSENTING adults or anyone over the legal age in the country they reside.
3. All participants agree to enter into such a convenant with one another

It's not different than people wanting same sex marriage, to each their own. As for what God has or has not ordained, unless he or a messenger comes down and tell the world in a way where there are many witnesses, it will always be anyone's guess whether God approves or disapproves polygamy.

There are some problems with monogamy, because when one of the parties no longer fulfills the other's needs, divorce or a loveless marriage can ocurr. Even sexless marriages which are rampant in the U.S. Polygamy allows the love and desire to be distributed among several partners. Polygamy, however, is mostly male-centric.

If we are all children of God, then we are all marrying our own brothers and sisters anyway since we are all related and come from the same source. Polygamy is nothing more than one brother spousing several sisters instead of just one.

I would agree with this if you hadnt forgotten to add one more major point. That being that they ALSO allow polyandry (ladies to have 'brother husbands') to solve the obvious demigraphic problem of spouse supply in a species which always roughly split 50-50 between the genders. They should either allow both polyandry and polygamy, or they should ban both IMO.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 10 Aug 2014, 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

In a case where religion doesn't enter into it, there are no self proclaimed profits directing everyone, polygamy would evolve like that...among willing participants who choose their own partners.
Religion is used by many people as an excuse to abuse others and alienate from God.

What about "self proclaimed losses"?

Not to mention self proclaimed depreciation, assets, liabilities, and owner's equity!

Sorry. Couldnt resist!

OK. You obviously meant the word "prophets". But even so- its not clear what you're saying.

Are you saying that:(a) without religion society would end up with polygamy only, or (b) that society would end up with both polygamy and polyandry, or. (c)...what?

You can see with self proclaimed prophets often come many losses
and this has proven to be accurate...

As for your question : Oh definitely not. I cannot see polygamy ever being wide spread in the culture of the US. I can see the odd marriage out with multiple partners. Women and men are simply too insecure to live that way and I do not promote people ever getting involved with anything they are uncomfortable with.

Yeah, it's not fair to women if they can't marry more than one husband when a man can marry more than one woman. I don't know if women would choose that option as often as men, but they should still have the option freely available to them.

One point though, that of permission of all the other spouses: no. I think, at least, that a marriage is between two people (as in the contract, I'm referring to this within the context of polygamy, so it refers to the relationship between a given couple regardless of the number of other spouses an individual of that couple has married additionally), so the consent should be between those getting married and not everyone. It would be better if everyone is happy with it, but it shouldn't be a requirement. Lets say a woman who is married wishes to marry another man she is in love with, but her husband is just like, "I want you all to myself for the rest of your life!". I think she should be free to say, "sorry, but although I love you, I also love him and I'm going to marry him also". Yes, I know that's oversimplified and stated in a non-realistic manner, but I stink at writing dialog so please overlook that and see what it says.