Anthropologist explains why polygamy is the next marriage rights frontier.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


I don't think anything is going to change your opinion, for that matter.

Originally posted by centhwevir1979
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

And how is the IRS supposed to tax a "42 person" couple, anyhow?

Oh, trust me, the IRS will find a way to make sure everyone is taxed as 'fairly' as possible. -_-

Personally I do not believe that polygamy is a viable alternative. In todays day and age, in rights and equality, I see it as not a stepping stone, but a setback. That being said, I can see ployamorous relationships as the better course. In this type of relationship if the women chooses not to have multiple partners then it is choice not law and would be the same in the opposite. In a polygamist type relationship the woman has no choice nor recourse to have multiple partners. This is not equality, but limitation based on sex.

I was a huge Big Love fan but i'm still not quite sold on the idea.
I believe like almost everyone else has said that as long as it's consenting adults I don't have a problem with it.

Positives:
More help with everyday issues...dinner, cleaning, kids, etc...
Possible added income
Someone to watch your kids for free while you go on date with husband.
Added benefit of a good bonded sisterly friendship.

Negatives
Jealousy is ugly and it's a rare human indeed to not ever experience it.
Someone sits at home while someone else goes on a date with their husband.
More people means more drama...more baggage, more hurt feelings.
Less quality time with your husband for first wife and kids.

I don't think I could do it. I like the thought of more time to myself but not the problems that would be sure to arise. I asked my husband once while Big Love was on if he would like a second wife he said "no, one ballbreaker is enough" lol.

Though I see no problem with it I would hope that people would spend sometime really considering what it would entail. I think the first wife would often agree right away and that once it was said and done wish she could change her mind. I think if this was to be made legal that all parties should live together for at least six months first and give it a go before jumping into the frying pan and getting burned. The first wife should be able to say to the prospected wife yay or nay when the time is up.

I see a lot of money to be made in divorce court if this isn't thouroughly thought out before hand. I think that unfortunately this is the type of marriage a lot of men would enter into simply for the legal and guilt free sex with multiple partners.

Originally posted by Agarta
Personally I do not believe that polygamy is a viable alternative. In todays day and age, in rights and equality, I see it as not a stepping stone, but a setback. That being said, I can see ployamorous relationships as the better course. In this type of relationship if the women chooses not to have multiple partners then it is choice not law and would be the same in the opposite. In a polygamist type relationship the woman has no choice nor recourse to have multiple partners. This is not equality, but limitation based on sex.

edit on 30-6-2013 by Agarta because: Spelling

You're apparently under the impression that Polygamy means that only men may have as many spouses as they want.

po·lyg·a·my noun -mē

Definition of POLYGAMY

1
: marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time — compare polyandry, polygyny
2
: the state of being polygamous
— po·lyg·a·mist noun
— po·lyg·a·mize intransitive verb

The definition you seem to have in mind pertains to the Mormon Church's particular brand of Polygamy, or perhaps that which is practiced in by many of the Muslim faith. So, there is no "setback" with regard to equal rights and such if the correct definition of Polygamy is used.

I hope that this helps you

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


Thank you for the clarification. Yes indeed that was the definition I was using. Being a currently non practicing polyamorist it is a term I have used for many years to distinguish the difference, habit I guess. If indeed that is the definition he is referring to than all is well for those that choose that life style.

I hope it happens soon, I have always wanted to have more than one husband.....

If for whatever reason the male and female are infertile, sure go ahead and screw whoever, but if you try to pull that kinda shenanigans off in anything but a small community, it's going to cause serious problems for society.

I think it can work in tribes, clans, and the like, but if the culture really tries to shift to this while still living in high-density, urban/suburban environments, it's going to cause a whole lot of suffering.

Originally posted by Bluesma
I hope it happens soon, I have always wanted to have more than one husband.....

Why on earth anyone would want more than one spouse in our culture (besides the obvious potential financial benefits) is beyond me. The potential for in-fighting seems to far outweigh any real benefits in my mind.

I am so loyal to my beloved wife that i could never even think about another woman. But that is me.

If you want to have 1 million wives.....good for you. Now go do it. Why the hell should I care? Or Uncle Sam?

Seems to me that polygamy would only serve to spread insecurity to the multi-spouses and show the single spouse as a self centered, control-freak, monster. Men, are you comfortable with multiple dudes banging your wife? Women, are you prepared mentally to share your husband with multiple women? Fact is, the system is designed from the beginning for someone to be hurt. People today can barely take care of one spouse let lone multiple. Concenting adults is not enough when it comes to the matter of the heart. Hate to be that one guy who wakes up one morning with a knife in his chest because said the wrong woman's name...know what I mean?

Yeah and after that its people who want to marry their animals. And don't give me that consenting BS and cruelty. if its legal to cut its throat, gut it and eat it- i think its fair game.

Who in their right mind would want more than one wife. One is already too much.:shk:

Why is sex such a driving force anyway, I thought mankind had evolved past that state. I think we have been conditioned to think it is required, I don't even see old dogs chasing young dogs around. I don't see older cats after other cats. Yet man thinks sex is necessary or he may get depressed. Maybe people watch too many of those commercials on TV

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos

Originally posted by Bluesma
I hope it happens soon, I have always wanted to have more than one husband.....

Why on earth anyone would want more than one spouse in our culture (besides the obvious potential financial benefits) is beyond me. The potential for in-fighting seems to far outweigh any real benefits in my mind.

edit on 6/30/2013 by ProfessorChaos because: typo

Yeah, if I had two wives, they would start talking each other into kicking my ass out and taking all my stuff to sell in a garage sale or auction. It's hard enough watching that my wife doesn't have a mans yard sale and sell some of my tools. I only have enough tools to fill up a medium size warehouse, I'm not OCD

I think it's going to be a race between polygamy, incest, marriage to animals, children, and innimate objects. The anthropologist may be right about polygamy breaking the tape at the finish line, but it will be fun to watch the race between the other four.

While I believe the campaign for gay marriage was based primarily on emotion, court rulings will probably attempt to try to follow some semblance of logic. Given that, where are we, and where can we go from here?

We have now accepted that marriage has nothing to do with procreation or children. It is recognition of a deep friendship between two people. But no one can offer a logical argument establishing that it can only be between two people. Or, that both parties have to be people.

What about a person and a tree? Why not? It doesn't affect you directly, marriage is not about procreation, why can't a tree-hugger (literally) have the same rights as a person-hugger? The argument is apparently identical to that for gay marriage.

Well, we certainly can't allow incest, can we? Why not? The only argument against it is possible birth defects. Science now spots these defects early, and abortion is easy and common. Besides we've already learned that marriage is not about procreation and the well-being of children.

Marriage to minors? In some states, girls can have sex and abortions without any parental advice or notification. If they can do that, what is the objection to marriage? Islam allows marriage at much younger than 13. You're not going to discriminate agianst them for their religious beliefs are you? You must be an Islamophobe.

Animals? How does that hurt your marriage? That line worked before, why not now?

It does no good whatsoever to claim that you would oppose one of these alternative forms. You might. You might even say that it weakens society, violates all of our customs, understandings, morals, and history. And, on top of all that, it's just plain wrong But, so what? Those arguments have already been used and found to be insufficient.

On top of all that, we're in a time when just thinking about discriminating based on someone's sexual orientation is one of the greatest sins against current popular opinion. And, the government does like starting or expanding benefit programs.

So after, polygamy, what do you like for the next rights crusade?

Originally posted by Superhans
Yeah and after that its people who want to marry their animals. And don't give me that consenting BS and cruelty. if its legal to cut its throat, gut it and eat it- i think its fair game.

Please tell me you are joking when you trot out the "next thing you know people will marry animals" argument. There is no logical connection. Such statements, when uttered seriously, are an indication of a small and pathetically simple mind. Given your prior posting history, it would certainly shock me to think you would say something like that in any kind of seriousness.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Superhans
Yeah and after that its people who want to marry their animals. And don't give me that consenting BS and cruelty. if its legal to cut its throat, gut it and eat it- i think its fair game.

Please tell me you are joking when you trot out the "next thing you know people will marry animals" argument. There is no logical connection. Such statements, when uttered seriously, are an indication of a small and pathetically simple mind. Given your prior posting history, it would certainly shock me to think you would say something like that in any kind of seriousness.

Im dead serious, there is no real argument against it other than "me think it dumb because my brain sux". Please, post an actual argument or shut up

reply to post by Superhans


People aren't going to start trying to marry animals.

I don't have to put up a valid argument against it. You are putting forth a fallacious argument known as The Slippery Slope Fallacy..

I would say put up a logical argument, or be prepared to be laughed at.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Superhans

 

People aren't going to start trying to marry animals.

I don't have to put up a valid argument against it. You are putting forth a fallacious argument known as The Slippery Slope Fallacy..

I would say put up a logical argument, or be prepared to be laughed at.

"wha wha wha i don't agree wha wha wha here is a fallacy that i looked up becase i cry real hard" - that is you buddy.
Im just stating my idea that people will be able to mary animals one day, there is already people who want it. I already shot down your BS about the "logical connection" (that's a read herring derp derp). Thanks for playing buddy, like i said. No real argument against people getting married to animals other than random crap you can type.

I am prepared, are you laughing at me now? Am i supposed to feel it or care?