Polygamy- Yay or Nay

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Polygamy. Multiple Marriages.

  • Total voters
    19
EL PRESIDENTE

EL PRESIDENTE

Username Retired in Honor of Lanny.
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
50,346
Likes
22,532
Points
113
Should a person be able to be married to more than one person?

(second option is NAY Btw. Don't know how to edit the options)
 
I personally don't think so, but it's funny to me that it is against the law! With all the shit that is going on in this world?
 
I say yay. if a guy loves more than one woman (or dude) then go ahead and get married or civil unionized.
 
While I personally dislike the idea, and generally it means multiple wives, not husbands, find it sexist, as long as everyone involved are consenting adults, I say leave them alone. If that's what they freely choose, yes, it should be legally recognized. I don't think laws shoud be based on my personal likes/dislikes or my personal taste.

Of course, there have been cases come to light where a young teen, 15 or so, was forced against her will to marry a much older man. That's an entirely different story.
 
How will they file a joint return with the IRS? The country will fall into financial doom if the IRS code gets more complicated!
 
my question is WHY?.... one wife is almost too much to handle ;)
 
I'd want to see some research findings on the impact to kids of polygamous families. I suspect it isn't healthy, since we seem to have evolved away from it in most cultures. But I'd read the results with an open mind.

Personally, I ain't interested.
 
Polygyny, polyandry, man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, etc., I don't care. As long as all parties are consenting adults, it's none of my business. The government doesn't have the right to discriminate. However, I think it should only be a religious institution that confers "marriage". If the government does it, than it's a civil union.
 
crandc said:
While I personally dislike the idea, and generally it means multiple wives, not husbands, find it sexist, as long as everyone involved are consenting adults, I say leave them alone. If that's what they freely choose, yes, it should be legally recognized. I don't think laws shoud be based on my personal likes/dislikes or my personal taste.

Of course, there have been cases come to light where a young teen, 15 or so, was forced against her will to marry a much older man. That's an entirely different story.
Click to expand...

My view as well.

To comment on mook's post, I think the trend away from polygamy (lots of countries allow it still) is a religious thing - Catholicism is deeply set against it.

As far as the young girls forced to marry, I'm against it, but the age of consent is between 16 and 18 in the USA so it's possible for a young girl to marry consentually.
 
crandc said:
While I personally dislike the idea, and generally it means multiple wives, not husbands, find it sexist, as long as everyone involved are consenting adults, I say leave them alone. If that's what they freely choose, yes, it should be legally recognized. I don't think laws shoud be based on my personal likes/dislikes or my personal taste.

Of course, there have been cases come to light where a young teen, 15 or so, was forced against her will to marry a much older man. That's an entirely different story.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting outlook but I would point out that it would be pretty rare that you would find that situation, just because most dudes don't like to double dip if you catch my meaning.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
Should a person be able to be married to more than one person?

(second option is NAY Btw. Don't know how to edit the options)
Click to expand...

Here is my view. The government should not be playing any role in marriage whatsoever. My view is that the only reason this is a polarizing issue to begin with, is because it has been made an issue. The government should not care what people do in the name of their own religion/philosophy, providing it doesn't violate any particular individual civil rights.

Can anybody provide a good answer as to why the government should have any laws about marriage at all?

Hell I can point out that if (if I could pull it off) that I could live with 10 girlfriends, have kids with them, and there is nothing illegal about that at all, because I didn't marry them legally. So what is the difference? Girlfriend? Nobody cares. Married? All the sudden the world is coming to an end.

The difference is money and taxes. That is why it is being made an issue.
 
Whether or not churches want to sanctify polygamey is strictly up to them. Should the government get involved and make it a crime? No.
 
hasoos said:
Here is my view. The government should not be playing any role in marriage whatsoever. My view is that the only reason this is a polarizing issue to begin with, is because it has been made an issue. The government should not care what people do in the name of their own religion/philosophy, providing it doesn't violate any particular individual civil rights.

Can anybody provide a good answer as to why the government should have any laws about marriage at all?

Hell I can point out that if (if I could pull it off) that I could live with 10 girlfriends, have kids with them, and there is nothing illegal about that at all, because I didn't marry them legally. So what is the difference? Girlfriend? Nobody cares. Married? All the sudden the world is coming to an end.

The difference is money and taxes. That is why it is being made an issue.
Click to expand...

The differences are rights under the Law.
 
I used to think it would be pretty sweet to have a doctor wife, a lawyer wife, a mechanic wife, etc etc etc. You'd never have to spend money again.
 
I'm with Wheels. One is already hard enough with the American mindset of independence and working mothers. It's simple protection against the modern American male. Allow him more and he's just going to end up with so many alimony payments he won't see a dime of his own paycheck.
 
crandc said:
While I personally dislike the idea, and generally it means multiple wives, not husbands, find it sexist, as long as everyone involved are consenting adults, I say leave them alone. If that's what they freely choose, yes, it should be legally recognized. I don't think laws shoud be based on my personal likes/dislikes or my personal taste.

Of course, there have been cases come to light where a young teen, 15 or so, was forced against her will to marry a much older man. That's an entirely different story.
Click to expand...

Which part of "yay or nay" eludes you?
 
A somewhat related note that I learned in class...

The multiple wives aspect from Islamic culture is based off of Mohammed, who only married multiple wives because he was willing to love/treat them equally. In current times, polygamy is actually dying off a lot in the Middle East because (aside from times changing), religious leaders/scholars emphasize the fact that the vast majority of people cannot love/treat multiple partners at the same level.

I found it interesting so I decided to throw it into this thread.
 
LameR said:
A somewhat related note that I learned in class...

The multiple wives aspect from Islamic culture is based off of Mohammed, who only married multiple wives because he was willing to love/treat them equally. In current times, polygamy is actually dying off a lot in the Middle East because (aside from times changing), religious leaders/scholars emphasize the fact that the vast majority of people cannot love/treat multiple partners at the same level.

I found it interesting so I decided to throw it into this thread.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure many of the Jewish figures in the old testament had multiple wives.
 
Denny Crane said:
The differences are rights under the Law.
Click to expand...

You call it rights under law, which is somewhat the same as my money statement above. What I was referring to with "money" was stuff like the right to be covered on insurance, tax laws, etc. The only stuff that falls out of that range is stuff like visitation rights, so I didn't quite cover it with that statement.
 
I think it should be legal. There are Mormons (not all of them) that believe in plural marriage as part of their religious beliefs. Like on "Big Love." It's not about being sexist. The wives of Bill Hendrickson (or "sister wives") are there by their own choosing and consider it a partnership in which they are all married to each other and will be there for each other in the afterlife.
 
hasoos said:
You call it rights under law, which is somewhat the same as my money statement above. What I was referring to with "money" was stuff like the right to be covered on insurance, tax laws, etc. The only stuff that falls out of that range is stuff like visitation rights, so I didn't quite cover it with that statement.
Click to expand...

I think there are numerous rights for married people under the law, which is why it's incredibly difficult to create a separate (but equal) kind of civil union scheme.

Consider that:
1) Married people can file their income taxes as such and receive certain benefits
2) Divorce Law/Property rights
3) Family Law - custody of children, right to choose medical care for the spouse when incapacitated
4) Probate Law - property rights when a spouse dies
5) Social Security benefits for married persons

That's 5 off the top of my head.
 
KingSpeed said:
I think it should be legal. There are Mormons (not all of them) that believe in plural marriage as part of their religious beliefs. Like on "Big Love." It's not about being sexist. The wives of Bill Hendrickson (or "sister wives") are there by their own choosing and consider it a partnership in which they are all married to each other and will be there for each other in the afterlife.
Click to expand...

Sucks for you ZachAddy! Bobby Medina has 4 wives! HAHA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top