Polygamy: Should it be allowed?

[Stella_Omega]

Why does there need to be a set of laws about something before it's okay? I know plenty of blended families and poly households who manage to make the health insurance happen in creative ways that make sense. No legislation necessary. Same with divorce. One takes all divorces on a case-by-case basis, and conflicts are dealt with. Same-same with child raising, household tasks, income production and so on. The advantage that poly households have is that they MUST discuss and organize these things, rather than just trusting in an outdated form of legislation to take care of it for them. That goes for the interpersonal dynamics as well.

I also know children who have grown up in poly households and are now adults. They seem to be no more or less fucked up than anyone else. Psychology can handle it already, I promise. The hardest thing for a kid growing up with a group of adults, or with gay parents, or any other form of non-traditional partnerships, is not going to be the loving multiple household, I promise you. It will be what his peers have to say about it when they have been raised by close-minded parents. Maybe if the culture were more openminded kids wouldn't have to face that.

R Richard is now clearly too far in outer space for me to understand.
Legal marriage is a form, and a relatively recent form at that, of property law. Men don't get married to pass on their genes. Men have AFFAIRS to pass on their genes.

Wow man.

bijou

Anyway, the nuclear family model is extremely new- one mommy, one daddy, 2.5 children.

Not so long ago, there were many more adults in a child's life; Grandparents, unmarried uncles and aunts, and Uncle George's bachelor friend Mr Morton. It is not too hard for kids to get used to the idea that other members of their household both love them and have familial authority over them.

 

[DeeZire]

Of the Polyamorous households I've known, many of them were childless.

Yes, I realized after I'd posted I'd fallen prey to the stereotype of the Mormon cult family with 2 wives and 8 kids. But I guess the stereotype is a result of the God's Will part of the equation, rather than the poly aspect. Plus, stereotyping is wrong anyway. God, I hate myself sometimes. Now I have to buy yet another whip from Fascinations. This is getting expensive. I should just stop posting. (applause)

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, I realized after I'd posted I'd fallen prey to the stereotype of the Mormon cult family with 2 wives and 8 kids. But I guess the stereotype is a result of the God's Will part of the equation, rather than the poly aspect. Plus, stereotyping is wrong anyway. God, I hate myself sometimes. Now I have to buy yet another whip from Fascinations. This is getting expensive. I should just stop posting. (applause)

Naw... just keep on buying whips

Here, let me try that one out, perhaps I can help you feel better about yourself...

 

[DeeZire]

Naw... just keep on buying whips

Here, let me try that one out, perhaps I can help you feel better about yourself...

Thank you for the kind thought. I feel better already.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Thank you for the kind thought. I feel better already.

Hey Stella. If I say I have low self esteem today, will you flog me too?

On topic, DeeZire, it's not entirely your fault that you had only that one image in your mind; it's the one that gets all the press. There are bunches of us out there, but we don't make a big deal out of it, partly because we don't like to brag (tee hee) but also because of some of the issues raised here, particularly dealing with children.

Many poly households have to stay low-key about it because it's still looked on the way we've seen it described in here, as a weird cult, or at least as potentially 'damaging' to children (!?!?!?) and that puts kids at risk for the same things children of gay couples are endangered by. - including being taken away. If they can still take your kids away for practicing a religion like Wicca, or for being a lesbian, imagine what they can do with a polyamorous household.

 

[amicus]

I saw a very interesting show on ABC last night. They spent an hour with a polygamist family in Centennial Park, Az. It is a polygamist community of fundamental Mormons.

My only other views of polygamy have been the wackos of Colorado City.

This was a man and two wives. All were very happy with their lifestyle. The news crew wasn't restricted in any way. They were allowed access to the home, schools, church services, and they interviewed a group of teens from the town.

Basically, it was a story of consenting adults. They all seemed to be really good and well adjusted people. Take out the polygamy, and we'd all consider this to be an idealic town. The people are friendly and caring for each other.

So what's your thoughts? Should polygamy be allowed among consenting adults?

Here's a link to an ABC story about the family

ABC news

~~~

And where the hell are you, Wildcard, in the firestorm you started?

I read the ABC story you linked, and a few of the 121 comments, and all three pages of this thread...interesting...curious...and typical..I might add.

Even though I am here for what I claim are other reasons, this is a Pornography site, where people with fringe and aberrant behavior gather and chat about their anomalies to traditional, conventional more's.

Perhaps if one were to browse the history of Polygamy and Polyandry, they might discover that both arose due to economic circumstances. I say that at the risk of being classified as a 'determinist' a 'social darwinist', or, God forbid, a 'Marxist'.

While the 'intellectuals' and other social misfits, wish to recreate history in their own image for their own reasons, 'history', has its' own explanations.

The United States, like it or not, had a 'Christian' beginning, "In God We Trust", bullshit to me, but then, I wasn't there in 1776; I wish I had been.

But, be that as it may, we are not Catholic, nor Buddhist, nor Muslim, nor any other flavor of mysticism, but, Christian, in our foundations.

We have, through time, cast off a lot of the bullshit, we don't burn witches any more, and, God forbid, Women have the right to own property.

Bohemians (look it up) and perverts, will always occupy the extreme edge of the envelope and are sometimes tolerated, sometimes not.

But society in general, here and elsewhere, evolves a moral code of behavior that soon becomes codified into laws.

The vast majority of those who live under this system of government, (USA), accept as fundamental that a man and a woman, in marriage, is the ideal, and moral environment to begin the process of becoming a 'family', in all senses of the word.

And that, my friends, is the law of the land.

Demean it if you must, change it if you can, but acknowledge that the entire history of a nation rests on certain basic assumptions, customs, traditions and laws.

And....what will you accomplish if you destroy it all?

Amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I'm in favour of it only if it works both ways, that is if a woman is allowed to have more than one husband.

I can her the screams of outrage already.

Personally, I dislike it. It simply makes things harder for most men. And women if polygamy is allowed for women. Because under such a system nobody goes off the market. Who cares if Johnny Depp or Kate Bush is already married? You can still get a least a piece of them.

So a lot of people would continue chasing the attractive and powerful, might even start chasing harder. They'd no longer have to 'settle'.

Polygamy would leave people like me, who aren't much of a catch by modern standards, even more in the lurch than we already are.

Flawless. Post of the week.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

~~~

And where the hell are you, Wildcard, in the firestorm you started?

I read the ABC story you linked, and a few of the 121 comments, and all three pages of this thread...interesting...curious...and typical..I might add.

Even though I am here for what I claim are other reasons, this is a Pornography site, where people with fringe and aberrant behavior gather and chat about their anomalies to traditional, conventional more's.

Perhaps if one were to browse the history of Polygamy and Polyandry, they might discover that both arose due to economic circumstances. I say that at the risk of being classified as a 'determinist' a 'social darwinist', or, God forbid, a 'Marxist'.

While the 'intellectuals' and other social misfits, wish to recreate history in their own image for their own reasons, 'history', has its' own explanations.

The United States, like it or not, had a 'Christian' beginning, "In God We Trust", bullshit to me, but then, I wasn't there in 1776; I wish I had been.

But, be that as it may, we are not Catholic, nor Buddhist, nor Muslim, nor any other flavor of mysticism, but, Christian, in our foundations.

We have, through time, cast off a lot of the bullshit, we don't burn witches any more, and, God forbid, Women have the right to own property.

Bohemians (look it up) and perverts, will always occupy the extreme edge of the envelope and are sometimes tolerated, sometimes not.

But society in general, here and elsewhere, evolves a moral code of behavior that soon becomes codified into laws.

The vast majority of those who live under this system of government, (USA), accept as fundamental that a man and a woman, in marriage, is the ideal, and moral environment to begin the process of becoming a 'family', in all senses of the word.

And that, my friends, is the law of the land.

Demean it if you must, change it if you can, but acknowledge that the entire history of a nation rests on certain basic assumptions, customs, traditions and laws.

And....what will you accomplish if you destroy it all?

Amicus...

Well, we destroyed the customs of slavery and chattelism. We went against our founding fathers in allowing people other than the landed gentry to vote. We don't burn witches or gay people. You've admitted to some of this. So where do we arbitrarily decide to stop giving people freedoms?

You are pro-freedom, right?

 

[DeeZire]

In Amicus' defense, if it weren't for the unions, there would be no polygamy. (Sexual unions. Damn those unions! Evil, dispicable unions!)

The solution: Ban unions. Ban onions too, since they make men cry, and a crying man is as bad as a union man.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

In Amicus' defense, if it weren't for the unions, there would be no polygamy. (Sexual unions. Damn those unions! Evil, dispicable unions!)

The solution: Ban unions. Ban onions too, since they make men cry, and a crying man is as bad as a union man.

*coke spew*

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=LovingTongue]Well, we destroyed the customs of slavery and chattelism. We went against our founding fathers in allowing people other than the landed gentry to vote. We don't burn witches or gay people. You've admitted to some of this. So where do we arbitrarily decide to stop giving people freedoms?

You are pro-freedom, right?[/QUOTE]

~~~
What you don't understand, LT, is that I want change also, I am a 'revolutionary' by nature.

The difference between us is that I want freedom and you want slavery.

Also that you have a limited myopic view. I think you need corrective lenses.

Human freedom has more of a spectrum that you see.

Amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

What you don't understand, LT, is that I want change also, I am a 'revolutionary' by nature.

The difference between us is that I want freedom and you want slavery.

Also that you have a limited myopic view. I think you need corrective lenses.

Human freedom has more of a spectrum that you see.

Amicus...

What you are is a pipe dreamer.

 

[amicus]

What you are is a pipe dreamer.

~~~

As if you were qualified to judge.

You are just a run of the mill socialist absent any humanity.

amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

~~~

As if you were qualified to judge.

You are just a run of the mill socialist absent any humanity.

amicus...

I just knew kooks like you would lose control once you lost Congress.

 

[amicus]

I just knew kooks like you would lose control once you lost Congress.

~~~

There are now 172,000 US Troops in Iraq, a record high, under a Democrat controlled Congress. Ya, wanna talk that away?

Amicus...

 

[christabelll]

I saw a very interesting show on ABC last night. They spent an hour with a polygamist family in Centennial Park, Az. It is a polygamist community of fundamental Mormons.

My only other views of polygamy have been the wackos of Colorado City.

This was a man and two wives. All were very happy with their lifestyle. The news crew wasn't restricted in any way. They were allowed access to the home, schools, church services, and they interviewed a group of teens from the town.

Basically, it was a story of consenting adults. They all seemed to be really good and well adjusted people. Take out the polygamy, and we'd all consider this to be an idealic town. The people are friendly and caring for each other.

So what's your thoughts? Should polygamy be allowed among consenting adults?

Here's a link to an ABC story about the family

ABC news

Polygamy is where a Male has more than One wife

Polyandry is where a FEMALE has more than one Husband

Polyamory is where you have one solid couple who willing seek other lovers...

I want the Poly ANDRY thank you since then I could get all the qualities I am looking for....

 

[Recidiva]

Polygamy is where a Male has more than One wife

Polyandry is where a FEMALE has more than one Husband

Polyamory is where you have one solid couple who willing seek other lovers...

I want the Poly ANDRY thank you since then I could get all the qualities I am looking for....

You're confusing polygamy with polygyny. (One man having more than one spouse)

Technically the word for polygamy comes from the latin for "many spouses"

It's not gender limited, that's the way I'm using it here. As long as consenting adults are at the age limit, I'm fine however they want to do it. Let the lawyers work it out.

 

[xssve]

Right: multiple wives is technically polygyny, more than one husband, ployandry - I use polygamy when referring to group marriages in general.

And, I'm afraid R. Richards is correct: male female ratios are critical to social stability, and, males being what they are, in polygynous situations, it often rapidly becomes a contest to see who can monopolize the most pubescent virgins, leaving all the young men in the lurch - there is a very good possibility that polygyny is the original source of homosexual adaptation.

Anyway, there tends to be a lot of internecine violence in communities where polygyny is common, the Morman polygynists have a bloody history, I live in Morman country, and I hear a lot of stories that aren;t eccessarily part of the sociological body of evidence, and lot of these guy essentially live in armed compound, like the guy they arrested up in Canada recently for molesting his prepubescent wives.

He's also correct that these women tend to be virtual prisoners, and pretty helpless if they do manage to leave.

In Islam, the concept is betterl deliniated: a mans first wife is gained the usual way, whatever than may be, any second wives are supposed to be chosen from among the older widows or unmarried women without a man to provide for them, and is ideally supposed to function as a sort of social safety net for older women, since the ratio tends to tilt towards more females as the age demographic increases - i.e., males tend to have higher rates of attrition.

Still, I believe the Emir of Kuwait marries a virgin every night and divorces her in the morning in order to observe the letter of the law.

Polyandry occurs where close social ties are required for survival such as among the Athabaskan Eskimo, and people in colder climes seem to generally enjoy conserving body heat.

When there aren't enough women to go around, polyandry is resorted to - the Pacific islands wre probobly settled mostly by boat, and presumably, this meant a higher proportion of males to females, so looser social relationshoips were neccessary, children were raised communally, etc., although as ratios eventually equalize, monogamy will tend to becoem more common again.

And, as usual, amicus is wrong - this country was settled by Christians because the Christians had spent 3 centuries murdering everybody who wasn't a christian - so this argument is disingeneous at best, and a much better argument for maintaining the seperatin of church and state - politics tends to corrupt religion, not the other way around.

In fact, one of the best sociological studies of the results of choosing the wrong philosophy at the wrong time are the incidents which occured on Pitcairn island after the Bounty Mutineers settled there.

There were too many men, too few women - the unnatached males lobbied to share with the married men, who refused on the grounds that it was unchristian. A bloody massacre ensued, I believe only one male survived, and the descendents of the Bounty ended up inbred, their group fitness deeply compromised.

 

[Recidiva]

Right: multiple wives is technically polygyny, more than one husband, ployandry - I use polygamy ehen referring to group marriages in general, although I'm not certain that's entirely accurate

And, I'm afraid R. Richards is correct: male femal ratios are critical to social stability, and, males being what they are, in polygynous situations, it often rapidly becomes a contest to see who can monoppolize the most pubescent virgins, leaving all theyoung men in the lurch - there is a very good possibility that polygyny is the original source of homosexual adaptation.

Anyway, there tends to be a lot of internecine violence in communities where polygyny is common, the Morman polygynists have a bloody history, and lot of these guy essentially live in armed compound, like the guy they arrested up in Canada recently for molesting his prepubescent wives.

In Islam, the concept is very well deliniated: a mans first wife is gained the usual way, whatever than may be, any second wives are supposed to be chosen from among the older widows or unmarried women without a man to provide for them, and is ideally supposed to function as a sort of social safety net for older women, sicne the ratio tends to tilt towards more females as the age demographic increases - i.e., males tend to have higher rates of attrition.

Polyandry occurs where close social ties are required for survival such as among the Athabaskan Eskimo, and people in colder climes seem to generally enjoy conserving body heat.

When there aren't enough women to go around, polyandry is resorted to - the Pacific islands wre probobly settled mostly by boat, and presumably, this meant a higher proportion of males to females, so looser social relationshoips were neccessary, children were raised communally, etc., although as ratios eventually equalize, monogamy will tend to becoem more common again.

And, as usual, amicus is wrong - this country was settled by Christians because the Christians had spent 3 centuries murdering everybody who wasn't a christian - so this argument is disingeneous at best, and a much better argument for maintaining the seperatin of church and state - politics tends to corrupt religion, not the other way around.

In fact, one of the best sociological studies of the results of choosing the wrong philosophy at the wrong time are the incidents which occured on Pitcairn island after the Bounty Mutineers settled there.

There were too many men, too few women - the unnatached males lobbied to share with the married men, who refused on the grounds that it was unchristian. A bloody massacre ensued, I believe only one male survived, and the descendents of the Bounty ended up inbred, their group fitness deeply compromised.

If ratios are crucial, than self-correcting ratios that are not 1:1 would then be ideal.

Regardless of what the bloody actions are of those who believe in bloody theories, I think it is a simple civil rights issue. However vicious people have behaved before, their actions and the government shouldn't dictate who I choose to share my life with.

 

[xssve]

Social stability can tolerate a certian percentage of alternative lifestyles, in fact they represent diversity, and under certian conditions, the adaptations they represent may well offer solution to stressors that might yet occur.

The real problem is the competitive/territorial imperitive invading what is otherwise a generally sociable process.

And, yes, if your actions are detrimental to group fitness, that includes me, and makes it my business, this is a fundamental underlying dynamic of personal freedom.

As far as I know, you're pretty well under my radar though.

 

[Recidiva]

Social stability can tolerate a certian percentage of alternative lifestyles, in fact they represent diversity, and under certian conditions, the adaptations they represent may well offer solution to stressors that might yet occur.

The real problem is the competitive/territorial imperitive invading what is otherwise a generally sociable process.

And, yes, if your actions are detrimental to group fitness, that includes me, and makes it my business, this is a fundamental underlying dynamic of personal freedom.

As far as I know, you're pretty well under my radar though.

"Social stability" has been used as an argument to NOT advance civil rights for...well...ever.

We couldn't release slaves, they LIKE being slaves, they'd revolt. And besides, it would destroy an economy.

We can't have gay people marry, that will destroy the fabric of society.

We can't let women vote, they're too emotional and will destroy the logical process that should be handled by men.

Sound familiar?

YOU will not be forced to have polygamy. It will just take place around you. You having what you want shouldn't exclude letting others have what they want. No, it really is NOT all about you.

And this is strictly under the concern of "marriage" - because there are social and legal benefits to such. Either eliminate the benefits (tax breaks, medical and legal advocacy rights, etc.) or open it up so that stability is determined by the consumer of such rights.

 

[christabelll]

You're confusing polygamy with polygyny. (One man having more than one spouse)

Technically the word for polygamy comes from the latin for "many spouses"

It's not gender limited, that's the way I'm using it here. As long as consenting adults are at the age limit, I'm fine however they want to do it. Let the lawyers work it out.

Okay - but the feeling remains the same heheheh

But you must admit that 90% of the population assumes that polygamy is one man with many wives.....

thats the way its bruited about anyway....

 

[Recidiva]

Okay - but the feeling remains the same heheheh

But you must admit that 90% of the population assumes that polygamy is one man with many wives.....

thats the way its bruited about anyway....

Yes, but you must admit that I don't think the way that 90% of the population thinks.

 

[xssve]

Sure, but those are spurious arguments, based on political economy, i.e., convenience, not evolutionary psychology.

And yes, it is all about me - what makes your self interest more important than mine, ceteris paribus?

I'm all for gay marriage, I wrote a lengthy defense of it on the General board, which I won't repeat here,

As I say, the homosexual adaptation likely was selected for under conditions where polygyny was common to begin with - it helped preserve social stability.

 

[xssve]

The argument being, if I can't get a woman, it's going to make me unsociable, and I won't be alone - that is going to be taking place around you.