Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest TheWaitingGame

Polygamy

53 posts in this topic

oh goodness, I mean a parental-loving relationship, GET YOUR HEAD OUT THE GUTTER, ewww

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh goodness, I mean a parental-loving relationship, GET YOUR HEAD OUT THE GUTTER, ewww

WELL YOUR TALKING ABOUT POLYGAMY! HOW DOES PARENTS LOVING THIER CHILDREN IN A PARENTAL LOVEING RELATIONSHIP GO WITH THIS!? MY HEAD ISNT IN THE GUTTER! you need to put in more detail when you write hun...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have reduced an argument about rights and the happiness of people into a ridiculous..... I do not even know what to call it. I am shocked. Utterly.

I am shocked that you seriously consider polygamy. I'm puzzled as to why you're on this site it you're not waiting "on purpose".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god sounds like somone is really adamant on justifying their selfish actions. SMH wrong site buddy, polygamists and sex crazed fetishes is down the hall on the left past the stairs.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to get this out of the way.

Come on now, with gay rights and all I think polygamy is the next thing.

I believe people should have the right to enter a polygamous marriage.

I find it unfair how in every state you can marry your 2nd cousin and in some states your first and how gay people are getting more rights yet polygamists can not legally marry whoever they love.

As long as Consensual adults agree to enter a marriage then what is the matter?

I hope that in my life time I can see polygamists get the rights that they deserve.

Maybe I will became a polygamists right activist one day.

This really grinds my gears.

The shows like Sister Wives and My 5 wives inspired me.

They're normal people too. And are doing nothing wrong.

Um where does it say that he wants to be a polygamist? He just said "maybe" he will become an activists....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tatyana, I thought we could discuss ideas and such on the forums...

I literally can not see what is wrong with choosing consenting adults agreeing to marry each other. I can NOT.

Some research suggests that people are born polygamous. If I am born polygamous then the laws are suppressing and oppressing me and my identity. One

could not help it if they were born a certain way. I can not see the justice of banning polygamy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jegsy Scarr. WHat you are saying is that men and women that have children from multiple people should be married to all those people.

Also you are saying that people that can not produce children shouldn't be married...

 

But how could you know whether or not someone could have children? Lots of people think they can't have children, but then later do - it makes sense for a man and woman to get married if they want an exclusive sexual relationship so that they have the best situation present in case children did result. Also, they could always adopt children. When parents die or are unable to look after their children, it makes sense to give them an environment which closest resembles an ideal one - ideally, they would be raised by both parents who were committed to each other and their children for life; therefore, they would be adopted by a married man and woman who would become their new parents. 

 

Also, I don't know where you're getting the idea that a person should marry multiple people if they've had children with them. I said that children deserved a relationship with both parents. I never said that if you'd had children with multiple people, it would be in the children's best interest for you to marry all those people. You have other factors to take into account, too. If, for example, the father of your child is a horrible, abusive man, then it's not in the child's best interest for you to marry him. Nor would it be if you married all the mothers of your children - they would end up with a distorted view of a loving relationship, thinking it's okay for a man to divide his love between more than one woman instead of being devoted to one, whilst every woman was devoted to him completely. All I said was that in ordinary circumstances, it's in the child's best interest for their parents to be married.

 

I don't really understand, with your viewpoint, why divorce is allowed then. Jegsy

 

I'm Catholic, PiscesGuy. In my viewpoint, divorce isn't allowed. No fault divorce was one of the first examples of a state redefining marriage. We see the devastating effect that's had on society, with fifty percent of marriages ending in divorce, and millions of children being negatively impacted. Further redefinitions of marriage will only lead to the institution of marriage being further weakened. 

 

xxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea biblically and legally it's illegal to be a polygamist and to be gay but being gay was accepted by the law. Not everyone agrees with gay marriage and polygamy. Lots of people have said after gay rights were pit into place, incest and polygamy would be the next acceptance of the law but still not everyone will agree with it.... but hey the world has to come to an end sometime soon anyway.

I'm not sure if incest could be legal, because there's dangers for the child associated with the sex cells being too genetically similar... But I imagine some protocol for polygamy would come about were enough people passionate about it. Though it would probably be somewhat stricter and more complicated to go through with than other kinds of marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a monogamist guy & my heart just couldn't take trying to love more than wife.

As for polygamy, the same-sex marriage debate as swung the door wide open as the next step.

How far will society go down this rabbit hole is anybody's guess.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god sounds like somone is really adamant on justifying their selfish actions. SMH wrong site buddy, polygamists and sex crazed fetishes is down the hall on the left past the stairs.

I agree with Wii,

Where in the world does he say he's a polygamist? He said maybe he would be an activists.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I might become a polygamist.... I might be a monogamist. I might stay single forever..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jegsy, please tell me exactly what your argument is. Exactly. So that I can respond exactly how I should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jegsy, please tell me exactly what your argument is. Exactly. So that I can respond exactly how I should.

 

My argument? The topic of the thread was what you thought about polygamy and polygamous marriage. I responded by saying I was against polygamous marriage, and I also responded to the claim that the Bible supports polygamy.

 

My argument against legalising polygamous marriage was that redefining marriage weakened it, and detracted from the main public purpose of marriage (i.e. ensuring the rights and best interests of children) and that this is why the state legislates for marriage and recognises it in law.

 

You responded by claiming that people who couldn't have children couldn't marry under that argument, and I stated why that was not the case. You also asked me about whether a person who had had children with multiple people should marry them all if that was in the children's best interests, and I argued reasons for why that would not be in the children's best interests. You also asked if my view of marriage therefore excluded divorce, and I agreed that it did.

 

Those were the arguments I made, and I thought they were fairly clear. If you'd like me to break it down...

 

I'm against the redefinition of marriage to include more than one man and one woman

I believe that redefining marriage has negative consequences for society, especially for children

I also believe that it was wrong to legalise no-fault divorce, and that this has extremely negative consequences for society

 

Are there any parts of my arguments you'd like me to clarify? I thought I'd made it clear enough...If you're looking for arguments as to why polygamy itself is wrong as opposed to polygamous marriage (I think I've covered that), then I'd argue that it's morally wrong. It's not a respectful relationship where the parties are equal. God designed humanity in His image, and made them male and female. Husband and wife join together in marriage and become one flesh. Their relationship is completely faithful - they love each other exclusively. Anything else would be against God's design. If that's what you're asking me, I can go into more detail.

 

xxx

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would you be ok with consenting adults joining together in something that is not called marriage yet with the same provisions and benefits and procedures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would you be ok with consenting adults joining together in something that is not called marriage yet with the same provisions and benefits and procedures?

 

Well, I wouldn't be okay with it in the sense of approving of their relationship. But it's a free country, and consenting adults can have whatever relationship they want, so long as it's not hurting anyone. They might do things I don't agree with, but that's their choice.

 

As for the state recognising something like a civil partnership (I don't know what you'd call it for three people), then it's a more complicated issue. If we're talking just issues like inheritance rights, tax-breaks, and so on, then there's not a great problem. But whenever the state takes a position on something, that's going to have an impact on public views. People who are unsure about an issue can be swayed by the idea that, "Well, if it's legal, it must be okay." If the government recognises some kind on civil union between multiple people, is it going to give the impression to some that these unions are equivalent in value to a marriage, and contribute to society just as much. I wouldn't want a law to give such an impression, since marriage, as I've mentioned, has such an important role when it comes to children.

 

Not really relevant, but I'll just throw it in here...I'm disappointed in the way marriage was weakened by the change of law on divorce. I'm hoping that the government is going to recognise what a huge mistake was made. A society where half of all marriages end in divorce is no good to anyone. We should be doing more to promote and strengthen marriage as a lifelong institution, otherwise I think that divorce rate is just going to climb higher. Probably, we'll see fewer and fewer people actually getting married in the first place, too. Not a good thing.

 

xxx

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should still be called a civil partnership. (Partnership doesn't have to mean just two.) And by what I said, the institution of marriage wouldn't be weakened. Even though they have the same provisions, benefits, and procedures it is not called marriage. Also shouldn't the state recognise the agreement, commitment, covenant and contract that the adults go into? I mean if the state didn't recognize it, someone could lose their provisions and benefits stated in contact since it is not recognised. That could be hazardous right?

And isn't there so much more important things to society instead of marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Wii,

Where in the world does he say he's a polygamist? He said maybe he would be an activists.....

Um where does it say that he wants to be a polygamist? He just said "maybe" he will become an activists....

... I might become a polygamist.... I might be a monogamist. I might stay single forever..

Well there ya go...kinda reminds me of O.J simpsons "if I did it" im just casually reading btwn the lines folks. And well taking hints from his previous post.

About polygamy, Im with Sio, as I dont really care, its not my business.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there ya go...kinda reminds me of O.J simpsons "if I did it" im just casually reading btwn the lines folks. And well taking hints from his previous post.

About polygamy, Im with Sio, as I dont really care, its not my business.

Thank you! I have to admit that I only skimmed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And isn't there so much more important things to society instead of marriage?

Yea actually it is but your the one talking about Polygamy....Eres tú mismo ajustes hasta conseguir más odio. Detener mientras está por delante!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just waiting for Jegsy answer

 

Hold on, man, remember I'm from Scotland! I only answered you two hours before you posted that - at two in the morning - and then I went straight to bed! Give me a chance!

 

Also shouldn't the state recognise the agreement, commitment, covenant and contract that the adults go into? I mean if the state didn't recognize it, someone could lose their provisions and benefits stated in contact since it is not recognised. That could be hazardous right?

 

It depends. What would be the purpose in the state recognising it? For example, if I wanted the state to bring in some kind of legal recognition for me and my best friend, so that everyone would know that we had agreed to be BFFs, then I doubt the state would do so, because it would serve no purpose. If I wanted to tell the world that we were committed to be best friends, I could throw a party and invite friends, or ask for a special blessing from my religious community, or whatever. But why should the government recognise the agreement and commitment between people, if it doesn't concern the government in the slightest? They recognise marriage specifically because it's in their interest to support an institution that would protect the rights of children, otherwise they would leave it to individuals to go through their own private ceremonies.

 

As for benefits and provisions you're referring to, I assume you mean things like tax breaks, right? Again, why would the government give any group of individuals tax breaks? If I marched down to Parliament and said, "I demand that you give my best friend and I tax breaks," and the only reason I could give them as to why they should was, "Because we're best friends and we love each other," they're not going to agree, because that doesn't matter to them in the slightest. Tax breaks are for people on low incomes, or who are disabled, or perhaps who contribute to a society in a special way like soldiers - they're not just because you're friends. Why should you get benefits and provisions just because you're friends, or in love, or in a sexual relationship? Of what concern is that to the state.

 

Now, I could perhaps argue for something like, "We're getting a flat together and we're going to be room-mates." Okay, maybe you can get some kind of tax break for living together. It's like carpooling - you're going to be sharing resources and using less electricity and even freeing up an extra home for someone who needs one. The government might agree that that's a good thing, to be encouraged, and give us tax breaks just for that. But that wouldn't be because we were "best friends" - the state couldn't care less. We'd be getting it because we were sharing a house, and anyone who was sharing a house could get the same, regardless of whether they were in any kind of relationship. Similarly, the state might distribute child benefit to anyone with children, recognising the importance of raising children well, but again, the status of the parents or guardians' relationship would be irrelevant.

 

Now, there's no reason for the state to recognise or give provisions for something like a three-person relationship, because it doesn't benefit society in any way. The state might, however, decide to recognise and even give benefits to those who were married, because they recognise that marriage does benefit society. They know that it's the most stable environment for a child, and the easiest way to protect the child's rights, and that statistically, children do best when raised by both biological parents in a marriage. Therefore, they might offer benefits and incentives in order to encourage people to get married. It might give that cohabiting couple the little push they need to decide to get married, if it would be of financial benefit. That wouldn't be particularly romantic or even an ideal reason to get married, but it would matter very little to the government if their main concern was the raising of the next generation - if people get married just because it's of financial benefit, at least any children will have a statistically better upbringing than if their parents remained unmarried.

 

 

And isn't there so much more important things to society instead of marriage?

 

As in, why does it matter so much whether society protects the institution of marriage or just lets it disintegrate? Well, because a family unit is the very building block of a society, and marriage provides the strongest possible family unit. No society in history has survived once the family unit has broken down. And, as I've already stated, marriage is statistically the best way to protect children an make sure they are raised well. Now, maybe that's not something you think is particularly important, but that's certainly something that concerns me.

 

xxx

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 5 husbands don't seem to have a problem  with it. 

10 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0