Polygamy

Lex

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
8,253
Media
0
Likes
118
Points
268
Location
In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm a live and let live kinda guy.

Marriage to me is (from the legal sense) about turning 2 economic entities into ONE economic entity.

Why not give people who wish so more ability to join with one another (and others)? I would never want more than one wife however. For those who do, God love 'em (or not).

HBO's Big Love is tackling this issue rather well, I might add.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,176
Media
37
Likes
26,249
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
naughty said:
Sweets,

I believe that form of polygamy is called Polyandry. How ironic that is sounds like the name Pollyanna....

I never knew that word! Thanks! When I was about two, I was a harem girl for Halloween. It was cute. No navel exposure or anything, and I got to help make the costume. I still have some of hte fabric somewhere. Anyway, after that, I told my mother I wanted a harem. She said I couldn't have one. I ignored her, and in my mind, Michael Jackson and Prince were the very first members. George Michael was added later. Jeez. Now I don't want a harem.
 

Matthew

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Posts
7,291
Media
0
Likes
1,503
Points
583
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
BronxBombshell said:
and in my mind, Michael Jackson and Prince were the very first members. George Michael was added later. Jeez. Now I don't want a harem.

You may at least want to rethink the members' list, Bronx ...
 

D_alex8

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Posts
8,055
Media
0
Likes
1,298
Points
208
Location
Germany
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
BronxBombshell said:
Understatement! But I was just two years old. That's my story, I'm sticking to it.

With that many queens in it, surely it was a Royal Court rather than a harem? :rolleyes:

As regards polygamy (for fear of keeping the thread on-topic), Chuck64 and madame_zora have summed up my feelings perfectly. :smile:
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
alex8 said:
As regards polygamy (for fear of keeping the thread on-topic), Chuck64 and madame_zora have summed up my feelings perfectly. :smile:

I'm split about 50:50 on this issue....around about the waist I'd say :biggrin1:

Never having been married but having had two longish (>5 years) relationships I would say I've skirted around the edges. It's the commitment that matters to me, however it's expressed and I've never been one to flit from partner to partner, though heaven knows I've tried :tongue:

I'm with you (and MZ etc) on this and I don't believe it's for society to legislate our personal lives until such point as it damages another.
 

windtalkerways

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Posts
2,057
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Location
Canada
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
From a merely physical standpoint,
it would make more sense for women
to have more than one husband.

A woman could easily pleasure herself
with many men in one evening but a
man is limited by the number of times
he can cum and then attain another
erection.

I'm ready to start a male harem.
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
jeff black said:
A family that has a medical plan here, is able to cover their entire family. Husband, wife, and children. Having extra wives or extra husbands ( as Gisella mentioned) would just mean more people taking advantage of the insurance.
so? they'd just have to pay higher premiums. given the fact that insurance is basically a legalized extortion racket anyways, i can't see how that would raise any legal issues.

More sex, leads to more chances of being pregnant, Regardless of protection.
there's some horrific redneck couple in (i think) north carolina who have 17 or 18 children. they're in the news every time the female shits out another fucktrophy, i'm sure you've heard of them. nobody's tried to arrest them or force them to quit fucking (yet). you can't legislate against sex on the basis of the small proportion of people who are too stupid to use contraceptives or birth control facilities.

Rock, not everyone has sex with their spouses before marriage.
*shrug* well, anyone who doesn't is a fucking retard.

I was also refering to the men and women that get tired of sex as they age. I don't need to list the reasons, but we have all heard of the relationships that lose sex as they grow older. What was once 4 times a week, has turned into once a month, which has turned into twice a year.
well, that's natural enough. obviously you can't expect someone to have sex with only one person for years at a time; humans aren't designed to function properly under restrictions like that.

People have affairs for these reasons, I don't agree with those either...but that is besides the point.
sure is - it's none of your friggin business (or mine), for starters.

There is nothing wrong with marriage.
um. there is nothing wrong with two individuals making a commitment of that nature TO EACH OTHER. there is EVERYTHING wrong with the government and/or an organized religion being involved.

I just don't see the requirement to have more than one wife/husband.
yes, but the point you keep missing is that that would be your opinion, NOT a valid reason for penalizing it by law. i don't see the requirement for cell phones or reality TV shows - in fact, they actively piss me off - but apparently a lot of other people like them.
 

yhtang

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Posts
2,434
Media
32
Likes
3,153
Points
343
Location
Malaysia
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
In certain countries, men of the Moslem faith are permitted to have up to four wives. However, polyandry is not permitted.

Those of the Mormon faith used to practice plural wives, if I remember correctly.

Multiple wives was a common practice for the rich Chinese in the pre-Republican days.

I have never married and I once discussed this topic with a married friend of mine. He balked at the idea. "Just imagine," he said, "four mothers-in-law....." :eek:
 

Expando1

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Posts
82
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
153
Age
44
Location
Texas
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I have nothing against it. I don't think it's for everyone. It's not for me. I think like anything else people have various tolerances based on their life's experiences and outlook. It's similar as to why skydiving is awesome to one but not ventured by another...and why i'd scuba dive but not rock climb. Life leaves us with diverse tolerances and abilities to cope--or not cope--to those experiences. Polyandry/polygamy may be totally natural to some but intolerable to others...it doesn't make it right or wrong, but simply a choice and hopefully a responsible one (but there's not much guarantee of that when it comes to personal choices, eh).
 

jeff black

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Posts
10,432
Media
3
Likes
175
Points
193
Location
CANADA
Dr Rock said:
yes, but the point you keep missing is that that would be your opinion, NOT a valid reason for penalizing it by law. i don't see the requirement for cell phones or reality TV shows - in fact, they actively piss me off - but apparently a lot of other people like them.

I may very well be missing the point. Well, for arguments sake Rock, explain why it should/could be legal, so I can understand it from your perspective.

I explained the reasons I felt it shouldn't be legal. I am ALL for two people who love each other, getting together.... I just don't understand how that love can be shared between a man and 5 women.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I think people have a larger capacity to love than is fostered by society, not just ours, but many if not most. Society doesn't determine our nature, just our behavior. It is my firm opinion that monogamy is not a natural state for human beings, that is something that is largely influenced by the religous doctrines of a society. Polygamy is referenced in the Bible, I don't know if it is mentioned in other religous texts.

I don't know if I could do it. Having been raised in this society, no doubt that influence has affected my feelings dramatically, but if there are people who want to share love with more than person, that is not troubling to me. I would rather see laws that restrict hate and violence and leave out ones that restrict love.

America is a great experiment. Women have more rights here than is a lot of societies, and we are finding that with the increased ability to earn income, there is less and less economic necessity for marriage at all. In other societies, paolygamy was a way for more women to be taken care of when they couldn't do it for themselves. It was a way for men to show their wealth, as with their other posessions. As women are rejecting the idea of being subordinate to men, we are less and lees willing to tolerate a bad marriage that previously would have been an acceptable state of living for us. The divorce rate is now much higher than the number of marriages that do not end in divorce.

So what NOW is the purpose of marriage? Here, we have decided it is love. So, to get back to the original question, I really don't care how other people chose to express their love, as long as it works for them. For those who believe monogamy works, I submit the divorce rate.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Jana,

In my studies, marraige was for the benefit of the children. It gave the children a father. Otherwise single women would have had to raise children by themselves and there would not be a father figure there. So a man was and is today committed to take care of his chidlren. The religious part has been develped over time.

In the patriarchal days before Moses, a father took his daughter to the tent of a man who had promised to take care of her and provide for her children. This was done in the evening. The marriage ceremony took place in the tent and only two people were present and the minister was not one of them.

There is only one passage condemning pologamy in the Bible that I am aware of and that was of course Jana's favorite author, Paul. Paul said that deacons were to be of one wife. That is one at a time as I believe it to be what Paul said. This requirement was not on the general membership and many of the early Christians were Greek who practiced polygamy.

However, a culture may have its laws and customs. I have found it interesting that some men can have a woman in every town and that isn't polygamy and other men have a wife in every town and go to jail.

Our marriage ceremony has been developed over time. In America, the most traditional ceremony is based on the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England which was in charge of all marriages in England until modern times. Most liturgies outside the Catholic Church are in part or almost wholly based on The Book of Common Prayer.

There is no mention in the Bible of a marriage ceremony. Adultery is a married man having sex with a woman who is not his wife. The Bible itself is silent on women as they were property of men at the time. And single men can't commit adultery as defined in the Bible.

Much of our laws concerning marriage are from the English Common Law which was the unwritten rules of living in ancient and medieval England. They laws are still the backbone of our judicial system here in America as well as England except for Lousiana which is based on French Common Law.

But most people assume that everything about our culture here in America is just like it was in the Bible times. Not so. Especially marriage and family.
 

gymbrat

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Posts
20
Media
7
Likes
28
Points
148
Location
Palm Springs, California, USA
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
To this neutral observer it is surprising that it took this thread three full pages before it got to the Bible, which, as we all know, is the source of all knowledge in America these days. It says that a marriage consists of one man and as many women as he pleases. One wife is quite OK, but more of them is the norm, and I have seen marriages with up to 24 wives mentioned in the Bible. (Personally I have only had two husbands (sequentially, I hasten to say), which would have put me to death multiple times if the Bible had caught up with me.)
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
jeff black said:
Well, for arguments sake Rock, explain why it should/could be legal, so I can understand it from your perspective.
:sigh: i already did, back in my first post. the point is that individual freedoms should not be subject to any external authority as long as they're not harming anybody else. your argument seems to be that you don't understand why someone would do it, therefore it should be forbidden.

in any society with pretensions to civilization, you don't start off by assuming everything should be disallowed unless there's a reason for it. you start off by assuming total freedom for everyone, then regulating only those freedoms that are demonstrably dangerous to others, and only from an objective viewpoint. forced marriage is already illegal, therefore there is no reason for legislating against different types of marriage, other than "i dun like it" - which, self-evidently, is not objectively valid.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
gymbrat said:
To this neutral observer it is surprising that it took this thread three full pages before it got to the Bible, which, as we all know, is the source of all knowledge in America these days. It says that a marriage consists of one man and as many women as he pleases. One wife is quite OK, but more of them is the norm, and I have seen marriages with up to 24 wives mentioned in the Bible. (Personally I have only had two husbands (sequentially, I hasten to say), which would have put me to death multiple times if the Bible had caught up with me.)
supposedly much of our "marriage" ideas come from the Bible. In my post I point out that many of them are not in the Bible but from English Common law. The Koran was mentioned first.
Actually the Bible says the King Soloman had 300 wives and a thousand concubines.

I would have prefered a discussion of what seesm a universral reason for marriage and that is to protect the children and provide them a father. That seens to be true in all cultures. If that be true, how does that relate to our world today?
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Freddie53 said:
supposedly much of our "marriage" ideas come from the Bible. In my post I point out that many of them are not in the Bible but from English Common law. The Koran was mentioned first.
Actually the Bible says the King Soloman had 300 wives and a thousand concubines.

Here we are again Fred - victim to the dictates of men in power. Funny how the fellas, always, are the ones most-benefitting by polygamy, eh? No big shockeroo there.:rolleyes:

How does that relate to our world today?

Great point. It doesn't in any real sort of way.

Freddie53 said:
I would have prefered a discussion of what seesm a universral reason for marriage and that is to protect the children and provide them a father. That seens to be true in all cultures. If that be true, how does that relate to our world today?

I would have too.

But what about families with two same sex parents. Do you think there's something missing when, for instance, a child has two moms"?
 

jeff black

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Posts
10,432
Media
3
Likes
175
Points
193
Location
CANADA
Dr Rock said:
:sigh: i already did, back in my first post. the point is that individual freedoms should not be subject to any external authority as long as they're not harming anybody else. your argument seems to be that you don't understand why someone would do it, therefore it should be forbidden.

in any society with pretensions to civilization, you don't start off by assuming everything should be disallowed unless there's a reason for it. you start off by assuming total freedom for everyone, then regulating only those freedoms that are demonstrably dangerous to others, and only from an objective viewpoint. forced marriage is already illegal, therefore there is no reason for legislating against different types of marriage, other than "i dun like it" - which, self-evidently, is not objectively valid.

I conceed. That is definetaly yours Rock. My point was exactly that. I don't understand it, so ban it.
I still don't understand it, but as long as the man with the ten wives is happy, I should deal with it.
Check.