Should polygamy be legal?

I think I'm going to be sick :|

I think I'm going to be sick :|

1ND1FF3R3NT

yeah, i know what you mean... polygamy is a sexist term. it means marriage of a man to multiple wives. that is so incredibly chauvinist.

why don't we just say polyamory? there's no need to get hung up on gender.

hell yes polyamory should be legal. but it makes no difference if it is or isn't. it's not illegal for men and women in any number to live and share their lives together.

I think it's just a can of worms, personally.

For one thing, I have in my mind this idea that if one just keeps stretching what "marriage" is, at some point the term eventually becomes almost meaningless other than it being something vaguely "uniting" more than one person, and at that point I have to wonder what the reason is for even being married at all.

Also, and this is diverging a little, but monogamy is not just a human contrivance. There are other animals that engage in generally "monogamous" behavior, although there are certainly more that do not.

I don't care in what way a group of consenting adults wants to have their living arrangements, but I would need to hear a particularly compelling reason to want to call it "marriage."

I also think it would make things just super-complicated from a legal standpoint. Just imagine dividing the estate of someone with thirty spouses...

I don't see what is wrong with having multiple spouses.

Why is it so bad?

I think it is wrong to have more than one spouse, but hay what do I know, I don't even have a girl friend lol:Ptd8dtsc

That's how many humans feel and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm married to my wife and have no intention on cheating her, leaving her, or adding more wives to the collection. I just don't feel like that. At the same time, I'm not attracted to the same sex but I really don't care if other people are and I hold nothing against them. I think the problem is that that if you look at humans as animals, we are bound to be attracted to and 'mate' with other humans throughout out whole lives. Where if you look at humans as the highest ranked living beings next to god, staying with one spouse your whole life is supposed to be the norm of your society.

I don't see what is wrong with having multiple spouses.

Why is it so bad?

SunofVich

Because there are many religious crowd who believe that marriage is sacred between 1man and 1woman nothing more , what a load of crap... marriage isn't sacred.

[QUOTE="1ND1FF3R3NT"]

I think I'm going to be sick :|

giton

yeah, i know what you mean... polygamy is a sexist term. it means marriage of a man to multiple wives. that is so incredibly chauvinist.

why don't we just say polyamory? there's no need to get hung up on gender.

hell yes polyamory should be legal. but it makes no difference if it is or isn't. it's not illegal for men and women in any number to live and share their lives together.

polygamy=multiple spouses regardless of gender

polygyny=man having multiple wives

polyandry= woman having multiple husbands

polyamory= "where did that word come from?"

I think it's just a can of worms, personally.

And no, I'm not religious in any sense of the word.

Also, I have in my mind this idea that if one just keeps stretching what "marriage" is, at some point the term eventually becomes almost meaningless other than it being something vaguely "uniting" more than one person, and at that point I have to wonder what the reason is for even being married at all.

Also, and this is diverging a little, but monogamy is not just a human contrivance. There are other animals that engage in generally "monogamous" behavior, although there are certainly more that do not.

I don't care in what way a group of consenting adults wants to have their living arrangements, but I would need to hear a particularly compelling reason to want to call it "marriage."

I also think it would make things just super-complicated from a legal standpoint. Just imagine dividing the estate of someone with thirty spouses...

Atman_Do

what difference does it make if they call it marriage or humplefrekinjaegul?

marriage as defined by many religions and secularists is just an implicit partnership with all kinds of strings attached; obligations, duties, committments, and benefits. there's nothing really sacred about it. it's a kind of contract. the problem is that the state confers privileges to people who are "married" according to the definition of state doctrine (aka law). that doesn't stop anyone from defining marriage in terms they wish. whether the state recognizes it or not is irrelevant.

[QUOTE="Atman_Do"]

I think it's just a can of worms, personally.

And no, I'm not religious in any sense of the word.

Also, I have in my mind this idea that if one just keeps stretching what "marriage" is, at some point the term eventually becomes almost meaningless other than it being something vaguely "uniting" more than one person, and at that point I have to wonder what the reason is for even being married at all.

Also, and this is diverging a little, but monogamy is not just a human contrivance. There are other animals that engage in generally "monogamous" behavior, although there are certainly more that do not.

I don't care in what way a group of consenting adults wants to have their living arrangements, but I would need to hear a particularly compelling reason to want to call it "marriage."

I also think it would make things just super-complicated from a legal standpoint. Just imagine dividing the estate of someone with thirty spouses...

giton

what difference does it make if they call it marriage or humplefrekinjaegul?

marriage as defined by many religions and secularists is just an implicit partnership with all kinds of strings attached; obligations, duties, committments, and benefits. there's nothing really sacred about it. it's a kind of contract. the problem is that the state confers privileges to people who are "married" according to the definition of state doctrine (aka law). that doesn't stop anyone from defining marriage in terms they wish. whether the state recognizes it or not is irrelevant.

That's a good point that you make. Regardless of if the state recognizes it or not, I could care less for the most part. However, when a state recognizes you and your spouses way of living life as a crime (when it hurts no one else), that's when it becomes messed up.

[QUOTE="SunofVich"]

I don't see what is wrong with having multiple spouses.

Why is it so bad?

Honenheim

Because there are many religious crowd who believe that marriage is sacred between 1man and 1woman nothing more , what a load of crap... marriage isn't sacred.

...whether the state recognizes it or not is irrelevant.

giton

*goes back and reads the OP's question*

*blinks*

[QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="Atman_Do"]

I think it's just a can of worms, personally.

And no, I'm not religious in any sense of the word.

Also, I have in my mind this idea that if one just keeps stretching what "marriage" is, at some point the term eventually becomes almost meaningless other than it being something vaguely "uniting" more than one person, and at that point I have to wonder what the reason is for even being married at all.

Also, and this is diverging a little, but monogamy is not just a human contrivance. There are other animals that engage in generally "monogamous" behavior, although there are certainly more that do not.

I don't care in what way a group of consenting adults wants to have their living arrangements, but I would need to hear a particularly compelling reason to want to call it "marriage."

I also think it would make things just super-complicated from a legal standpoint. Just imagine dividing the estate of someone with thirty spouses...

jt222_us

what difference does it make if they call it marriage or humplefrekinjaegul?

marriage as defined by many religions and secularists is just an implicit partnership with all kinds of strings attached; obligations, duties, committments, and benefits. there's nothing really sacred about it. it's a kind of contract. the problem is that the state confers privileges to people who are "married" according to the definition of state doctrine (aka law). that doesn't stop anyone from defining marriage in terms they wish. whether the state recognizes it or not is irrelevant.

That's a good point that you make. Regardless of if the state recognizes it or not, I could care less for the most part. However, when a state recognizes you and your spouses way of living life as a crime (when it hurts no one else), that's when it becomes messed up.

I agree with your crime/messed up comment, but give a realistic way of living example that the state defines as a crime for consenting adults. There's nothing to stop 4 men and 3 women (just to pick an example) from living together and calling their relationship "marriage". The state may not recognize it, but neither will it stop them. The people who are persecuted (yes, I said persecuted, not prosecuted) for polygamy are regarded as criminals only when they try to register their marriages legally with the state. Screw the state. Just don't do that.

[QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="1ND1FF3R3NT"]

I think I'm going to be sick :|

jt222_us

yeah, i know what you mean... polygamy is a sexist term. it means marriage of a man to multiple wives. that is so incredibly chauvinist.

why don't we just say polyamory? there's no need to get hung up on gender.

hell yes polyamory should be legal. but it makes no difference if it is or isn't. it's not illegal for men and women in any number to live and share their lives together.

polygamy=multiple spouses regardless of gender

polygyny=man having multiple wives

polyandry= woman having multiple husbands

polyamory= "where did that word come from?"

i stand corrected on the polygamy/polygyny/polyandry definitions. thanks.

the term "polyamory" has been around for some time. some people call it consensual non-monogamy. google it and you'll see.

[QUOTE="giton"]

...whether the state recognizes it or not is irrelevant.

Atman_Do

*goes back and reads the OP's question*

*blinks*

i don't regcognize the legitimacy of the state, although i DON'T doubt its existence and potential threat. so from my perspective, the legality of polygamy is irrelevant. people can and do engage in living arrangements that the state doesn't sanction or recognize. that is my point.

polyamory= "where did that word come from?"jt222_us

I really don't care. I don't believe in true love so meh_Marisa_

Aren't you engaged or married or something like that? :|

[QUOTE="_Marisa_"]I really don't care. I don't believe in true love so mehAtman_Do

Aren't you engaged or married or something like that? :|

I think it's people who have multiple partners, 1 main couple and they can have separate bf/gf.X360PS3AMD05

AKA The Perfect Storm :D

So it bad because religion says it is?

Okay so really its not bad at all. Although honestly why would you want more then one women nagging on you about crap you have not done or still did not do, being angry at you because you did not see the subtle hints about how they hates your friends.

If you have 4 wives you have to deal with PMS all the time.

So polygamy actually no longer sounds as fun it did to begin with.

So it bad because religion says it is?

Okay so really its not bad at all. Although honestly why would you want more then one women nagging on you about crap you have not done or still did not do, being angry at you because you did not see the subtle hints about how they hates your friends.

If you have 4 wives you have to deal with PMS all the time.

So polygamy actually no longer sounds as fun it did to begin with.

SunofVich

don't get stuck in the rut of thinking of just one man with a bunch of wives. if you're all men or all women or a goodly mix, there'll be much less nagging and a lot more sex.

I don't have a problem with a married man having more than one wife, or a married woman having more than one husband, if all of the parties involved are knowledgable of the situation. I don't know why one would want more than one partner, but I don't see anything wrong with it.muthsera666

do you see a difference between a woman who has two husbands versus a male couple who also have a wife? I'm just trying to figure out if there is some significance to the way you express it... a man with two wives and a woman with two husbands... are you implying that the two wives in the first case or the two husbands in the second would cleave only to the person of the opposite gender, but not to each other?

I really don't care. I don't believe in true love so meh_Marisa_

Aww i feel so bad that your heart was broken :(

At first i figured WTH why not? If people want to live their lives like that, who are we to stop it. BUT, illegal immigrants already abuse the institution of marriage to bring people into this country. (The stories that i hear in my warehouse....)It would be TOTALLY out of control if each person could have multiple wives.

[QUOTE="1ND1FF3R3NT"]

I think I'm going to be sick :|

giton

yeah, i know what you mean... polygamy is a sexist term. it means marriage of a man to multiple wives. that is so incredibly chauvinist.

why don't we just say polyamory? there's no need to get hung up on gender.

hell yes polyamory should be legal. but it makes no difference if it is or isn't. it's not illegal for men and women in any number to live and share their lives together.

In some cultures brothers are allowed share one wife and in other cultures, a man can have more than one woman. If they feel so strongly about it then I don't see a problem, they can go ahead and do it.

[QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="1ND1FF3R3NT"]

I think I'm going to be sick :|

forgot_it

yeah, i know what you mean... polygamy is a sexist term. it means marriage of a man to multiple wives. that is so incredibly chauvinist.

why don't we just say polyamory? there's no need to get hung up on gender.

hell yes polyamory should be legal. but it makes no difference if it is or isn't. it's not illegal for men and women in any number to live and share their lives together.

In some cultures brothers are allowed share one wife and in other cultures, a man can have more than one woman. If they feel so strongly about it then I don't see a problem, they can go ahead and do it.

i like the term polyamory. literally many loves. it doesn't imply any particular gender balance or make assumptions about intimate contact.

[QUOTE="Atman_Do"]

[QUOTE="_Marisa_"]I really don't care. I don't believe in true love so meh_Marisa_

Aren't you engaged or married or something like that? :|

I haven't studied the sociological effects, but if there is nothing to suggest polygamy is dangerous to society in general, I really don't see why it shouldn't be legal. As long as all the participants are willing, should they not be allowed to choose their destinies?pianist

Yep, that's how I feel as well. The only problem I have is the fact that it's "illegal" in many places and you can actually get in trouble for living that lifestyle, even though it hurts no one else. Makes no sense to me.

I haven't studied the sociological effects, but if there is nothing to suggest polygamy is dangerous to society in general, I really don't see why it shouldn't be legal. As long as all the participants are willing, should they not be allowed to choose their destinies?pianist

You have many bogus biased opinions Pianist, but in this one instance you are wisely choosing to put them aside. Congrats.

hell no.....no man should have to be put through the torture of having 2 wives.....Omni-Slash

Oh Omni, the whole premise is too advanced for you. First you need to learn how to master one-on-one peer interaction. Leave the stylee BS at the door for a start...

[QUOTE="pianist"]I haven't studied the sociological effects, but if there is nothing to suggest polygamy is dangerous to society in general, I really don't see why it shouldn't be legal. As long as all the participants are willing, should they not be allowed to choose their destinies?azklown

You have many bogus biased opinions Pianist, but in this one instance you are wisely choosing to put them aside. Congrats.

Funny... I would have thought the exact same thing about you. :P