Would POLYGAMY be so Bad?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 9:02 PM GMT
    We've all heard the anti-gay marriage people say, "What's next.......polygamy?" So here is my question, do you think it would be a bad thing for men and women to have multiple marriage partners? Discuss.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 9:03 PM GMT
    Yes, one person is always left out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 10:52 PM GMT
    The problem with it is that sometimes women are put in abusive or oppressive situations through polygamy. But the question is, should we really ban it for everyone including all those who would not be in a situation like that just to protect the few that would be?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 10:57 PM GMT
    wrestlervic saidWe've all heard the anti-gay marriage people say, "What's next.......polygamy?"
    And my answer would be "ask the Mormons...they started it."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 11:01 PM GMT
    Iceblink saidThe problem with it is that sometimes women are put in abusive or oppressive situations through polygamy. But the question is, should we really ban it for everyone including all those who would not be in a situation like that just to protect the few that would be?

    "Harems" rarely seem to work out well for the women. They're for a man's pleasure, not a woman's. She surrenders dignity & individuality. Some may tolerate it, but I wonder how many actually prefer it over monogamy? I see few advantages for the woman, it seems to be a system weighted to the man.

    And that in turn, being an inherently unequal arrangement, will likely lead to unequal rights & treatment. Do the wives, outnumbering the husband, get to vote and make the decisions, overruling him? Somehow I don't imagine that ever happens. No, a harem is the antithesis of equality, which I suppose is why it's seen most often in cultures where women's rights are least valued & respected.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 11:39 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Iceblink saidThe problem with it is that sometimes women are put in abusive or oppressive situations through polygamy. But the question is, should we really ban it for everyone including all those who would not be in a situation like that just to protect the few that would be?

    "Harems" rarely seem to work out well for the women. They're for a man's pleasure, not a woman's. She surrenders dignity & individuality. Some may tolerate it, but I wonder how many actually prefer it over monogamy? I see few advantages for the woman, it seems to be a system weighted to the man.

    And that in turn, being an inherently unequal arrangement, will likely lead to unequal rights & treatment. Do the wives, outnumbering the husband, get to vote and make the decisions, overruling him? Somehow I don't imagine that ever happens. No, a harem is the antithesis of equality, which I suppose is why it's seen most often in cultures where women's rights are least valued & respected.


    True in many cases, but in a same-sex arrangement that doesn't matter. And there are plenty of women in poly relationships that have not devolved into harems.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2011 11:48 PM GMT
    Yes!
  • groundcombat

    Posts: 945

    Jun 26, 2011 11:48 PM GMT
    Doesn't bother me.
  • nadaquever_rm

    Posts: 139

    Jun 26, 2011 11:57 PM GMT
    Polygamy, polyandry, or whatever arrangement you want, I don't think it's any of my business so long as the people involved are adults and willingly participating.
  • aaronkei

    Posts: 211

    Jun 27, 2011 12:07 AM GMT
    Honestly, I do not think that the governmont should get in the way of someones happyness. This would include religious beliefs as well. I do not think that polygamy is a good thing but who are we to judge someone elses beliefs?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 12:07 AM GMT
    Yes, you would have to redefine divorce. How can you split everything 50-50 if there are 3+ parties involved? What about the children? Won't somebody think about the children?

    Seriously, if they're consenting adults and they're not hurting anyone then have at it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 12:20 AM GMT
    It would never be for me, but I think it's fine for others. It will never happen though because it would take the majority of the population to approve it, and that will never happen in our life time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 12:21 AM GMT
    groundcombat saidDoesn't bother me.


    Polygamy is notoriously and I say, obviously a front for child molestation. Under the ...regimes it flourishes in, that is what is happening. Add to that, marriage is as much a money issue as a partner ship issue. How do you delve out government assistance to homes consistent of nine wives and thirty children? What would that tax break look like? Overpopulation...yes, think about it. May I also introduce the strict weirdness factor of it all? And oh, you thought you were living in a hetero world yesterday, even with your husband in tow, try to enjoy a less slanted society on matters of sex in this new polygamist world. May I also remind you that unlike homosexuality, polygamy has its roots firmly imbedded in religion that conflicts with your infantile homosexual rights? You get a bunch of polygamist in offices, that are still shaky ground for out homosexuals and infuse the voting population with them, you could find yourself losing those infantile rights and with the world even more intrenched in very exclusive religious practices, you could very likely find yourself stripped of more and pagans should be afraid too. *thumps on your head with my index and ring finger,* think about it, we already have polygamist type framework in our gay culture, minus the nasty religion. If you get married, chances are you'd have all the men you could want around anyway. You'd be the alpha dog of the sex equation for a change. Then you can dangle a carrot under the noses of all your straight friends like they've been doing to us.

    Polygamy, no. Do not mess with the reproductive system of man and women. If it really was turned against you in that way, there is no diplomacy that could get you out of it. We are talking about the most ancient weapons pre-dating the gun. You want to unsheathe them? If ancient cultures had a problem, they bred their weapons.

  • BlackBeltGuy

    Posts: 2609

    Jun 27, 2011 12:24 AM GMT
    I know a few guys in POLY relationships. One has 4 husbands and the other has 3 and they are tight and do not stray, and all contribute to the house

    works for them.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 12:25 AM GMT
    I've only heard the anti-gay marriage people say, What's next... marrying animals? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 12:32 AM GMT
    Whether or not polygamy would be next has nothing to do with gays and lesbians having the right to be legally married. Only an ignorant person would interject this kind of question into a discussion regarding the right to marry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 12:50 AM GMT
    To me the best argument for gay marriage is about equality rather than about some fundamental liberty to marry who- or whatever we want. I'm not sure that giving people that kind of liberty is wise, but I'm sure that society has no principled reason for favoring straight over gay relationships. The only reason for doing so is to say that gay people are less than straight people. By allowing people to marry members of the same sex, we are saying that gays are equal to straights, not that people should be able to marry in whatever form they choose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 12:58 AM GMT
    Polgamy may not be the best word, as it carries with it the connotation of the kept harem, or the one man, many wives/concubines from the early Bible times that must have been one helluva chore to keep up with.

    Polygyny is the one female with many males servicing her, which is quite unusual in human society, much more so than polygamy (the thing that drives human and simian reproduction, along with most invertebrate male/female reproductive patterns is the male spreading his seed to as many vaginas/cloacas/egg clusters as possible).

    Polyamory, on the other hand, is not so limited.

    It could be one man, two women... two men and one women (with the men sharing themselves with each other and the woman) or ten men and seven women all sharing their souls as well as their bodily juices every which way.

    Of course, the more factors you have in a relationship, the more complex it gets dealing with the different personalities involved.

    A "normal" two-person relationship (hard enough to keep these stable as it is) just has two channels of communication, i.e my feelings and concerns for "other guy", and "other guy's" feelings and concerns for me.

    A three-person relationship (triad?) has six channels of communication.... a five-person relationship would have 25 sets of communication channels between all the partners...

    I think triads would be very challenging to keep going, and tetrads would require the patience of four saints.

    And that's before any of these folks start having kids amongst themselves, which VASTLY complicates things (my kids with Ethel, vs. Ethel's kids with Ted, vs. Ted's kids with Martha, vs. the adopted kid Joel and I have.... icon_eek.gif )

    Of course, a polyamourous marriage compact might help resolve that by defining the polyamourous unit as a family, but then if you think Family Law is a beast now, wait until you have Ethel, Martha, Ted, and Joel breaking up and trying to sort out who gets which kid...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 1:21 AM GMT
    Like marriage, it is a social institution, though not one widely used in the US. Around the world it is more common.

    It isn't inherently bad or good, but as other posters have pointed out there have been significant problems for women -- but I propose many of those things can and do exist in a monogamous marriages. An abusive husband is an abusive husband whether he has one wife or 5. It stands to reason there are happy successful polygamous marriages.

    The problem is that our society is engineered for monogamy. Everything down to the folk lore (associating it with child molestation -- can't think of any other group that has had that tag now can we?) is created to keep a strict definition of monogamy. Some would argue that the same goes for marriage consisting only of opposite sex partners. As we have seen, getting these rules changed is very difficult and takes quite a lot. I don't think it's fair or just for me to oppose polygamy, especially in light of the opposition to same sex marriage. However, its not a cause I chose to champion. I'll just step aside and let it happen when the time comes.


    Also, before someone says the next step is marrying animals there is a very clear line between human and animal in all societies. It's not simply a social barrier that has been created, it's a biological one.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 3:02 AM GMT
    I see a lot of people arguing about it being one man multiple women.. what about the women having more then one husband.

    How's about we just screw the lot of it and don't get married at all.. makes it far more simple!
  • safety43_mma1...

    Posts: 4251

    Jun 27, 2011 3:14 AM GMT
    I am a one man type of guy so i think that is just a stupid idea in the first place. if a guy loves me and i love him we should be enough for eachother and there shouldnt be the wantfor another outside party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 3:15 AM GMT
    safety43 saidI am a one man type of guy so i think that is just a stupid idea in the first place. if a guy loves me and i love him we should be enough for eachother and there shouldnt be the wantfor another outside party.

    and what about people who feel differently then you do?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 3:15 AM GMT
    jealousy
  • safety43_mma1...

    Posts: 4251

    Jun 27, 2011 3:17 AM GMT
    lilTanker said
    safety43 saidI am a one man type of guy so i think that is just a stupid idea in the first place. if a guy loves me and i love him we should be enough for eachother and there shouldnt be the wantfor another outside party.

    and what about people who feel differently then you do?


    hey i am saying for me no i dont put down anyone who does think it is ok at all. sorry if that came off the wrong way
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2011 3:18 AM GMT
    For me, I have no desire to share a guy.

    However, I think it is no business of mine (or the state) to tell consenting adults what type of relationship they can enter.