Polygamy

[Draconalis]

Not really anymore. Even gay couples get most of the rights now. It's why a lot of people argue that marriage is meaningless now.

Citation please.

I don't think we'd have as many problems with gay rights if that were true.

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

Actually, I'm a bit in the opposite situation right now. You see I have a good friend who already has a boyfriend. After becoming good friends with her boyfriend she asked him if I could be her boyfriend too. He said it was fine and now I'm in a relationship with someone who's already in a relationship.
Confusing?

 

[somonels]

This wouldn't fly because women would want similar rights, to wed multiple males, which is something males simply will not have.

You can't get a legal marrige/partnership status in polygamy and various other legalities but nothing is stopping you from practicing it.

 

[tobi the good boy]

I think it's more in relation to property laws. Divorces between two people are hard enough.

 

[BaronUberstein]

I really don't see how people don't get this whole dom/sub thing... I'd say it was self-explanatory. Masters/mistresses have slaves, they get the slaves to do many a thing be it sexual or not, a failure of the slave to obey is generally punished, sexually or not. The slave is free to leave any time if they're serious about leaving, otherwise it'd be illegal, and so they wouldn't be there if they didn't get something out of it too, whatever that is. Generally it is up to the prospective slave to do the asking. It's all really rather simple.

I get the CONCEPT, I just don't mentally 'get' why anyone would want to be a slave. I've certainly never woken up one day and said "I feel like wearing a collar and being somebody's sex slave for the next 10 years!" or "Man I need a sex slave, that would be great!" But that's simply an inability for me to understand as it isn't my kink. I'm sure there are people don't 'get' why I'm a furry or why I play DnD instead of baseball.

Though, it could be the whole having an authority figure idea, make life easier by not making one's own decisions. Though I have to ask, if they were working in an office and you called them and said they had to come home at once to say, clean up the kitchen after you made some food, even if it meant they got fired, would they typically obey? I'm rather confused about the logistics of such a situation, given the highly individualistic set-up of American society.

Anyway, as long as it's between consenting adults I can't complain. (Well, I can, but I don't feel like it).

As for polygamy, I'd say it's a combination of the majority opinion on morality and tax law as to why it hasn't been legalized. I saw a neat documentary of a four person relationship with two guys and two girls who weren't married, but living happily together.

 

[The Lugz]

personally i didn't have a problem with that i can accept someone wants things i cant provide, you could extend that to personality's i suppose? there are fairly legitimate reasons you might want more than one 'partner' it could get somewhat messy if everyone was at it though
so, that's reason enough not to change the law.

 

[agentorange98]

I think that legal reasons aside (IE companies don't want shell out benefits for an employes 3 spouses so it's easier to make a law limiting us to only 1 and yes that's a big part of why mega-religious anti-gay groups somehow find money and funding because that's another graphic who's partners are denied marital status and consequently all benefit) is that we don't really do it here very often so it's never really come up anywhere but strictly speaking I don't think polygamy is literally illegal just not covered as a definition of marriage so it's really something for a supreme court case to decide via interpretation of the constitution

 

[Biosophilogical]

And of course, the word I really mean is whichever covers both genders, as "Polygamy" is 1 man, multiple wives.

Actually, polygyny is 1 man many wives, polyandry is 1 woman many husbands, polygamy is the sex-neutral term.

OT: I'm currently doing an introductory course in anthropology, and we did take a brief look at polygamy. Polyandry tends to be successful in places with low resources but a high demand for labour (they need lots of men to tend the fields/whatever, but they can't manage the burden of a 1:1 pregnancy ratio (a ratio between the number of men and the number of possible simultaneous pregnancies)). Polygyny tends to occur in patriarchal (or patri-focal) societies, and the wife-network acts as a social and emotional support system for them, essentially becoming a barrier between abusive husbands (and the isolation that occurs when a woman moves out of their family's home and into the man's house) and the wives.

I think that polygamy should not be illegal, but it does pose some potential problems in terms of legal marriages (What are the tax benefits? How do you handle the division of property/responsibilities/finances/children/etc in the case of one partner divorcing the group? What if one partner only wants to divorce one other partner, and what are the legal ramifications of the resulting marriage web?). If those problems can be sorted through, then by all means, I don't see a proper reason not to allow polygamous marriages, but they need to be dealt with first.

 

[Ariseishirou]

One of the major problems with polygamy, historically, is that it means only rich dudes get married. Say, for example, such as under Islam, you're allowed to have four wives. If you're wealthy enough to support four wives, that's three less wealthy men that aren't going to get married. In some eras in China this was taken to ridiculous extremes - it was common for wealthy men to have dozens of wives and concubines, and for princes and Emperors to have hundreds. And these women aren't allowed to get any on the side under pain of death. So they're as emotionally and sexually frustrated as the hundreds of poor men who will now never marry. The result? Raids on neighbouring states for women, which isn't something any civilized nation could afford these days.

Of course we're starting to see the opposite with polygamists and "spiritual wives" now; i.e. the husband puts them all to work or gets them pregnant and then collects their welfare cheques because they're technically 'unwed' mothers. That's what's been happening here with Bountiful, BC.

The result? Rampant child abuse for both girls and boys as the girls are forced into marriage underage and boys are thrown out with little more than the clothes on their backs because they're going to want their own wives, and they can't have them without taking some away from their fathers and uncles.

So, yeah... logistical nightmare, as well as all the religious reasons people are mentioning.

 

[Esotera]

I remember reading somewhere that polygamy could actually have been far more common in pre-historic times due to the sheer amount of men dying/not reproducing for various reasons. This meant that the female-male population was something like 70-30, and it was a natural response. Funny that it's illegal most places now, I don't really see any harm in it as long as its consensual.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

it is religiousness for the bible say one man and one woman. The western civ, was influence by the bible and kept that in. others places mention above don't believe in the same thing and therefore don't have a problem. Also now a days it polgamy would have to be bit crazy cause women would want to be able to marry more than one guy and then people would be married to like 3 different people who are married to 4 different people and so on and so on. I'n other words polygamy is just to gratify one own lust, or make them feel powerful over others.

First off, wow - spelling and grammar check please. "Religiousness" isn't a real word.

Secondly, have you actually read the bible? It has all kinds of polygamy. Several sects of Christianity had polygamy as standard until the past hundred years or so. The Mormon faith still practices polygamy in some parts of the country (usually in secret, or unofficially - married in the church, but not according to the state).

No they don't. I'm Mormon and you get excommunicated(kicked out) if you practice polygamy. It's unacceptable in the church. Please do not speak of things you do not understand.

What you're talking about is the FLDS church and they practice their polygamy openly. They are a separate group entirely and should not be lumped in with my church. It's the same thing as the Protestants and the Catholics. We are not the same, though we may share common roots.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

No real reason I can see for it being Illegal. I mean lots of places are legalising same sex marriage, and I see this being the next thing. As long as all parties are informed (as seems to be the problem with some cases of criminal bigamy and polygamy) then more power to them.

 

[Vault101]

Personally, i have two slave girls, and a girlfriend, and im always looking for another slave so, im a polygamist

**blinks**

You mean "slave girls" as in S&M submissives who enjoy playing that role who you are in a relationship with, not... actual slaves, right?

Both my girls came to me of their own free will. They choose to belong to me, to be my property yes. However, our lifestyle is not just a bedroom thing, its something we do in our lives as a whole, they never stop being my slaves, unless they opt to leave.

soooo...do you like make them clean up after you and make you sandwhiches and stuff?

 

[Leopard]

I was in a polygamist relationship once. It was... horrible. It's possable that it could work out, but watching your partner make out or have sex with another individual is a very degrading experience for me.

He kisses her, tells her he loves her. Every now and then he turns to me and smiles, even while she snuggles her, and when he does this, her own smile becomes a temporary scowl. How dare I take his attention away from her, even for a second? Later, he begins to strip her of her cloths. I understand that this is her night, her birthday, but it feels... wrong. Still, I haven't been asked to leave, and as they make love in from of me, I wonder if it would be more rude to stay or go. I stay, because part of me loves him, and watch him give all his passion to another. Later, she's asleep, and he's curled up in my lap. He tells me that I'm handsome. That my eyes are beautiful. He kisses me, and he tastes like her. He say's that he's so glad we can all just love each other, that were not bound by the chains of monogamous relationships. I have kissed her, but I don't love her the way I love him, and she feels the same way about me. I don't resent her; I knew what I was getting into, but I think that she resents me. He tells me that he loves me. The same words he told her. I fucking hate him.

Yeah. That was an experience. Thank god it was short lived. Fuck Polygamy.

Me and my fiancee sometimes bring women we both find attractive in for some no strings physical "fun", we can separate our love for each other from the purely physical act happening at the time. Seems to work fine to me.

Just wondering... would you do that with men as well? Not being a troll, I'm just curious.

Wow thats some serious stuff. This is why I could never do it. I have nothing against it and if you can make it work, kudos to you. But yeah, I couldnt do it.

 

[Nicholas Woodruff]

So... There are people in the world that can, and do share love among groups. There are married couples with open relationships because they understand the difference between love and lust.

There are groups of people that love each other as a couple would? Triples, if you will. (I need to TM that word!)

Something I've never really understood, and no one has ever given me a satisfying answer too...

Why is Polygamy (Having multiple marriage partners) illegal? (Strictly US, I don't know the stance on other countries)

Is it purely a prudish religion thing? (The answer I most often get, but NEVER satisfies me... ever) Or is there actual legal backing behind it?

All I heard where it was...

was during the times of the oregon trial...
Mormon stuff I think...

Um...Well.

I'm only against the idea if it's abused.

But...well I think there is a quite legitimate possiblity where this COULD happen.

All I want to do is clear up the Mormon stuff quickly here.

There are two branches of Mormonism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After the Martyrdom of Joseph Smith, there was a giant debate over who would lead the church, and eventually Brigham Young was chosen, but many people believed it should stay in Joseph Smiths Bloodline, so they branched off, and became the Fundamentalist Church.

Now, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints practiced polygamy as a support system. Men who had much to give would marry poor widows who had little to raise their children, until it was outlawed in U.S. Federal Law, when it was no longer practiced by that branch of Mormonism.

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, continued to practice, but they were not under careful watch of Washington like the original branch was, until things changed a few years back, and leaders of that branch were arrested.

What bothers me the most, is everyone assumes that because the term "Mormon" covers both branches, myself, being a member of the original branch, get caught in the "Polygamist for Gain" argument, and no one understands why the early Saints practiced what they did, because no one researches it beyond what they read in convoluted and biased media.

Secondly, have you actually read the bible? It has all kinds of polygamy. Several sects of Christianity had polygamy as standard until the past hundred years or so. The Mormon faith still practices polygamy in some parts of the country (usually in secret, or unofficially - married in the church, but not according to the state). So no, the bible says that polygamy is totally okay and normal - because it was when the bible was written.

Like this person, here. Bunches me in the same group of people who practice two religions that have evolved in different directions. This is why I don't tell people I'm a Mormon. This is why I always refer to myself as a Latter-day Saint, because that's actually the name of my religion.

 

[Impluse_101]

So... There are people in the world that can, and do share love among groups. There are married couples with open relationships because they understand the difference between love and lust.

There are groups of people that love each other as a couple would? Triples, if you will. (I need to TM that word!)

Something I've never really understood, and no one has ever given me a satisfying answer too...

Why is Polygamy (Having multiple marriage partners) illegal? (Strictly US, I don't know the stance on other countries)

Is it purely a prudish religion thing? (The answer I most often get, but NEVER satisfies me... ever) Or is there actual legal backing behind it?

All I heard where it was...

was during the times of the oregon trial...
Mormon stuff I think...

Um...Well.

I'm only against the idea if it's abused.

But...well I think there is a quite legitimate possiblity where this COULD happen.

All I want to do is clear up the Mormon stuff quickly here.

There are two branches of Mormonism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After the Martyrdom of Joseph Smith, there was a giant debate over who would lead the church, and eventually Brigham Young was chosen, but many people believed it should stay in Joseph Smiths Bloodline, so they branched off, and became the Fundamentalist Church.

Now, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints practiced polygamy as a support system. Men who had much to give would marry poor widows who had little to raise their children, until it was outlawed in U.S. Federal Law, when it was no longer practiced by that branch of Mormonism.

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, continued to practice, but they were not under careful watch of Washington like the original branch was, until things changed a few years back, and leaders of that branch were arrested.

What bothers me the most, is everyone assumes that because the term "Mormon" covers both branches, myself, being a member of the original branch, get caught in the "Polygamist for Gain" argument, and no one understands why the early Saints practiced what they did, because no one researches it beyond what they read in convoluted and biased media.

Oh well uh....

Thanks for clearing that up o-o.

 

[TheDooD]

polygamy was first made illegal because wealthy men were marrying women, getting them pregnant and abandoning them, so they decided 1 woman per man.As far as modern polygamy I have no issue with it if everyone involved does this of there own free will, I f that is the case I dont see it as any more offensive than gay marriage (as in does not bother me in the slightest provided I'm not involved) what goes on between consenting adults and all that.

but doesn't this still happen just minus the whole marriage part. Besides that if a man or woman can handle and support multiple lovers all the power to'em. Me I don't mind sharing or being shared it's fun.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Humans, biologically speaking, aren't even "Mate for life" animals. Committing to one person isn't even in our instincts.

Unscientific blanket statement.

The fact of the matter is that there are no scientific evidence to suggest that humans are (biologically speaking that is) either polygamous or monogamous lifeforms.

That tricky part of having an advanced brain with an advanced ability of abstract thought and self-reflection (that other animals on this planet lack), makes it rather difficult to determine our exact biological nature and exactly how this influence our behaviour.

So if you want to make some kind of point here to make people accept eachothers different preferences when it comes to relationships, making unscientific blanket statemens about such a complicated instinctual behaviour as human sexuality (that not even the leading scientists of the world have any definitive answer to) is not really helping your cause.

Also, if we're to talk about instinct and biology here, there are just as many evolutionary beneficient reasons to be monogamous as it is to be polygamous. For instance a parent who is monogamously "locked" to it's mate and offspring would be pushed even harder to provide for it's only mate and their offspring and safeguard their survival, whereas polygamous parents could pretty much just procreate with another and "start from scratch" if their current mate or offspring were to die.

And during several periods of the evolution of life on earth, one of these strategies did prove to be the more successful one while the other proved to be inferior and most likely lead to the extinction of several species. What determines which of these strategies is the most effective is mostly enviromental factors (some enviroments promote monogamy over polygamy and vice versa), but since us humans do something as radical as CHANGING our enviroment to better suit our wants and needs, there isn't really any enviromental factor to speak of that would promote either polygamy or monogamy specifically and the fact that individuals have different instincts in regards to relationships (some are more drawn to the idea of "mate for life" and monogamy, while others are more promiscuous and drawn to polygamy) reflects that.