Next stop legalized Polygamy

[Calgaryborn]

This is an article by Ted Byfield:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53648

[octothorp]

I don't see any difference in the rights granted to the third parent in the scenario below and the rights that would be granted to a step-parent in a straight, non-polygamized divorce scenario. In long-standing marriages, any step-parent has the right to seek custody should the biological parent die; we already have scenarios and have had for years where a child may have three parents. Protecting the rights between parents and children is very different from allowing marriages between three or more individuals. Seriously, didn't you read this article with any sort of critical eye before posting it, or were you aware of all the logical flaws and you were just hoping to stir up debate?

[RedHot25]

I don't see any difference in the rights granted to the third parent in the scenario below and the rights that would be granted to a step-parent in a straight, non-polygamized divorce scenario.

Great point.

Seriously, didn't you read this article with any sort of critical eye before posting it, or were you aware of all the logical flaws and you were just hoping to stir up debate?

Weelll....I think Calgaryborn has a decidely anti-gay marriage stance, so I think that influenced why he posted this....

[photon]

I thought a banner ad from the same site was funnily appropriate to this thread:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/adbanners/ad.Survivor_Mall.121906.Good_News_about_Looming_Di saster.125x200.gif

[RedHot25]

I thought a banner ad from the same site was funnily appropriate to this thread:

This is an article by Ted Byfield


Ha Photon.

Ted Byfield, to say the least, is a guy with his biases as well.

[Calgaryborn]

I don't see any difference in the rights granted to the third parent in the scenario below and the rights that would be granted to a step-parent in a straight, non-polygamized divorce scenario. In long-standing marriages, any step-parent has the right to seek custody should the biological parent die; we already have scenarios and have had for years where a child may have three parents. Protecting the rights between parents and children is very different from allowing marriages between three or more individuals. Seriously, didn't you read this article with any sort of critical eye before posting it, or were you aware of all the logical flaws and you were just hoping to stir up debate?

The difference is we are not talking about guardianship. We are talking about three way shared custody. That is a huge difference. This has only been afforded to married/common-law couples or divorced/separated parents.

If these three can share custody of a child why not Winston Blackmoore and his 5 or 6 wives? After all they all participate in the primary care of said child. And if they can be afforded this status why deny them the "right" (as so many call it) of being married.

You see once we opened the door to redefine marriage we were not going to be able to shut it. The definition will continue to dilute until marriage as the institution we know will cease to exist.

[Calgaryborn]

Ha Photon.

Ted Byfield, to say the least, is a guy with his biases as well.

As opposed to yourself who are biased free?:blink:

[RedHot25]

As opposed to yourself who are biased free?:blink:

I didn't say that.

In my opinion, it is important to acknowledge biases, especially from sources such as articles, etc. I do the same thing in my school work to the best of my abilities. It is important to know who is writing something, as it helps you better understand their particular perspective.

[Calgaryborn]

I didn't say that.

In my opinion, it is important to acknowledge biases, especially from sources such as articles, etc. I do the same thing in my school work to the best of my abilities. It is important to know who is writing something, as it helps you better understand their particular perspective.

Agreed. But I don't think mentioning Ted Byfield biases was necessary. He is pretty up front about were he stands in the article and in general.

[Burninator]

I didn't say that.

In my opinion, it is important to acknowledge biases, especially from sources such as articles, etc. I do the same thing in my school work to the best of my abilities. It is important to know who is writing something, as it helps you better understand their particular perspective.
The bias of this article is very evident in this paragraph.
In Canada, apparently, the legality of all these processes is to be established, not by our elected politicians, but by our unelected judges, almost all of whom were appointed by the previous Liberal government specifically because they were considered people dedicated to fashion a new and ultra-liberal society, uninhibited or constrained by values drawn from the past.
It's hard to take points from articles seriously when they lean so far to one side and play the "it's part of the crazy right side/left side agenda" card.

[Calgaryborn]

Here is another excellent article:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTVjMzA5NzNkZmU0YWMxMjQ4NDk1YjFkZGQ4YjQ5NzQ=

Please note when it was written.

[RedHot25]

Agreed. But I don't think mentioning Ted Byfield biases was necessary. He is pretty up front about were he stands in the article and in general.

Disagree.

Not everyone knows who Ted Byfield is, and/or his particular standings on issues.

Also, not everyone knows of this website (first time ever I have viewed it) and its consequent biases.

[RedHot25]

The bias of this article is very evident in this paragraph.

It's hard to take points from articles seriously when they lean so far to one side and play the "it's part of the crazy right side/left side agenda" card.

Yup, is it article or more editorial?

[RedHot25]

Here is another excellent article:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTVjMzA5NzNkZmU0YWMxMjQ4NDk1YjFkZGQ4YjQ5NzQ=

Please note when it was written.

Please also note who/what organization wrote it.

I think to be fair, you should be providing articles from both sides of the debate, Calgaryborn.

Also, well, umm....

Martha Bailey, Queens University law professor and chief author of the now infamous report advocating the decriminalization of polygamy, played an important organizing role in the Beyond Conjugality project (translation: the “Abolish Marriage” project). In 2004, Bailey published an article, “Regulation of Cohabitation and Marriage in Canada (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=553255),” arguing that, after the legalization of same-sex marriage, Canadians would be able to turn their attention to the more urgent business of abolishing marriage itself. (That article is the source of items #2, #3, and #4 above.) So it is hardly surprising that Bailey has now called for the decriminalization of polygamy.

I clicked on the article and skimmed through the abstract. Where does she say she wants to decriminalize polygamy? And also, its interesting that is all he supplied in this case, as I cannot read the rest without buying it. Most people aren't going to look the article up; so all they have to go on is the abstract of it.

Interesting to note that later on he states...

It’s like this. The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless. At that point, Canada can move to what Bailey and her friends really want: an infinitely flexible relationship system that validates any conceivable family arrangement, regardless of the number or gender of partners.

The Canadian public cannot bring itself to believe that the abolition of marriage is the real agenda of the country’s liberal legal-political elite. That is why everyone was surprised by Bailey’s polygamy report, even though the judicial elite’s intentions had been completely public for five years. (Granted, these intentions were telegraphed in a semi-incomprehensible intellectual gibberish, with the really scary stuff hidden in footnotes.)

[fotze]

The only polygamists I know are very very Christian ones, so banning christianisty must be the only solution to tide this slippery slope.

[Calgaryborn]

Please also note who/what organization wrote it.

I do believe the site is very open about it's position on the political spectrum.

I think to be fair, you should be providing articles from both sides of the debate, Calgaryborn.

Why? I'm not instructing a class. I'm expressing a political opinion which time will and is bearing out. If you want to ignore it or refute it go ahead. That's not my job.

By the way if the best you can come up with is "that's biased" why even bother? ALL OPINION IS BIASED!


I clicked on the article and skimmed through the abstract. Where does she say she wants to decriminalize polygamy? And also, its interesting that is all he supplied in this case, as I cannot read the rest without buying it. Most people aren't going to look the article up; so all they have to go on is the abstract of it.

Well I can't see it is the author's fault that this women wants to charge you to read her work. If you want to conclude he is lying; go for it. Also, I wouldn't expect an abstract to be complete or express contraversal opinions which might keep people from buying the article. That's not good business.

[Calgaryborn]

The only polygamists I know are very very Christian ones, so banning christianisty must be the only solution to tide this slippery slope.

The only ones I know are Mormon. They believe they need at least three wives to obtain godhood. Don't confuse Christians with Mormons. There isn't a lot in common.

Also, within the Muslim religion this is a common practice.

[jolinar of malkshor]

The only polygamists I know are very very Christian ones, so banning christianisty must be the only solution to tide this slippery slope.

Many Muslim secs pratice polygamy aswell.

EDIT: Sorry I should say some Muslim secs not many.....my bad.

[photon]

I know of a few Christian ones, and no Mormon ones.

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/

[JiriHrdina]

If I may ask, what is so wrong with polygamy anyway?

[Hakan]

If I may ask, what is so wrong with polygamy anyway?
Ditto that.

What if 4 people all want to be married.

Why is it such a non-starter for some that polygamy is somehow evil.

I will qualify my remarks saying that all parties in a polygamous relationship must be consenting adults.

Either way, polygamy doesn't seem wrong to me.

[photon]

If I may ask, what is so wrong with polygamy anyway?

Good question! That site I linked to came up when I was trying to find out why polygamy is bad :D

[jolinar of malkshor]

It is bad because the children are the one that end up suffering. Do a little research on Bountiful(sp?) and the one in Utah. Then you might have a different opinion.

[peter12]

There is a whack of biologial and sociological evidence that suggest a traditional family with two parents is the best for children. I don't want to get into whether homosexual parents are just as good as heterosexual ones, because I just don't know.

But, there is a ton of evidence that two parents provide the most stable home for a child. Read "Our Inner Ape".

I really hate how some so-called "progressives" are trying to re-write human cultural and genetic history with their own version of what human life should be like.

[Calgaryborn]

I know of a few Christian ones, and no Mormon ones.

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/


Really and you know these guys?

If you would like to come to Creston I could introduce you to fifty of
them(some by name).

[Azure]

The only ones I know are Mormon. They believe they need at least three wives to obtain godhood. Don't confuse Christians with Mormons. There isn't a lot in common.

Also, within the Muslim religion this is a common practice.

You're talking about fundamental Mormons. There is a difference between them and the LDS Church.

I do believe some of them live in the Creston area, so you would know who I'm talking about.

[Azure]

If I may ask, what is so wrong with polygamy anyway?

So we legalize it based on the belief that there is nothing wrong with it?

My sense of right and wrong is most likely different then yours. If a bill is introduced to legalize polygamy, I hope right and wrong is not thrown into the debate.

[longsuffering]

My sense of right and wrong is most likely different then yours.

LOL - Yet your sense of 'right and wrong' tells you that watching executions is okay!?!?

[Azure]

LOL - Yet your sense of 'right and wrong' tells you that watching executions is okay!?!?

Perhaps you should stay on topic.

But for whats it worth, I was being sarcastic. Of course you wouldn't have seen that, since you didn't read the rest of that topic.

And yes, my sense of right and wrong might tell me that watching an execution is okay. Of course I don't see how that even relates to the idea of right or wrong, but I guess you do.

[RedHot25]

By the way if the best you can come up with is "that's biased" why even bother? ALL OPINION IS BIASED!

I didn't say that exactly either.

If you want to have a discusion about your opinion - which is why I am assuming you posted this here in the first place - then I think you should put the other side up for discussion. Opinion should be able to acknowledge their critiques at the least, and then address them...

[Looger]

If I may ask, what is so wrong with polygamy anyway?
right and wrong are what people are used to.

to an ancient greek it may have been totally normal for a boy of 12 or 13 to be taken down to the bathhouse by his dad and uncles to be shown how it is, as a lot of literature from back then shows romantic love only existing between men - often related - and marriages to women merely for procreation.

i'm not sure how exactly true a lot of that stuff is, it is ancient history and always through the prism of whoever is telling it to you. but clearly values from that time and place were far different than our own.

polygamy is not in step with the current state of affairs and values of our current society.

no, north america may not have a _visible_ rich cultural identity or heritage, but it exists if only being different from the more obviously unique peoples on this earth.

utah for example to join the union had to put a polygamy law on the books though obviously it's not enthusiastically enforced.

there's always people trying to change what is acceptable and what is not, there's always the fringe elements of every cause that sound good or bad to generally more or generally less people at any given time.

right now, here and now, most people on the street i would think are against polygamy due to the values that they grew up with. there is no central 'old values', a quick study of history tells you right away that there have been more than one change from 'traditional' to 'radical' cultural ideas, brought on quite often by mass movements of populations, conquest in war bringing cultural and genetic domination, etc.

it wasn't a LONG time ago that western europeans had a family life more akin to say east indian culture these days, as in whole generations of family living together and raising children in more of a village mentality. this changed with the churches, the breakdown of old tribal traditions thousands of years ago.

the idea of two parents and their children being the core family unit does not stretch to the dawn of time, it has appeared here and there and disappeared here and there along with every other kind of child-rearing that one can imagine.

[RougeUnderoos]

It's noteworthy that when the case for gay marriage first came before the Commons – with the then-Liberal government hotly denying that gay marriage would lead to polygamy – it was disclosed that a committee of its own Justice Department had already reached the conclusion that gay marriage would make polygamy inescapable.

What made the Ontario case possible, however, was modern technology and the process of in vitro fertilization. How much else might become inescapable is outlined in a book by professor Margaret Somerville of the McGill University Centre for Religion, Ethics and the Law, whose repeated warnings of the dangers to public health involved in the gay lifestyle saw her denounced by the liberal left. In her current "The Ethical Imagination: Journey of the Human Spirit" (Anansi Press, Toronto), she warns of other possibilities from human reproductive engineering, such as:

Creation of a chimera, a human-animal combination, possibly sought as an inherent human right by someone wanting to perpetuate himself or herself with a pet dog or cat.
Finally someone had the guts to say it -- if we allow same-sex marriages, before you know it there will be human/cat hybrids (I call them hucats) walking the streets.

This isn't the time or place to fully elaborate my objection to hucats, but suffice it to say those objections are religious, ethical and allergic.

[RW99]

I'm waiting for the next wave of human rights, the three-way marriage. I can honestly see this happening in the future. It's sounds silly, but if three people love each other, shouldn't they be allowed to get married? From there, we go to 4 and so on :D

[JiriHrdina]

It is bad because the children are the one that end up suffering. Do a little research on Bountiful(sp?) and the one in Utah. Then you might have a different opinion.

Actually I have read quite a bit about Bountiful.

And I would ask is it Polygamy that creates the suffering, or other practices (e.g. forcing young girls to marry).

[JiriHrdina]

So we legalize it based on the belief that there is nothing wrong with it?

My sense of right and wrong is most likely different then yours. If a bill is introduced to legalize polygamy, I hope right and wrong is not thrown into the debate.

OK. Well let me post it another way. Why should we not allow Polygamy?

[jolinar of malkshor]

OK. Well let me post it another way. Why should we not allow Polygamy?

Why should we not allow anybody to do anything?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Actually I have read quite a bit about Bountiful.

And I would ask is it Polygamy that creates the suffering, or other practices (e.g. forcing young girls to marry).

How is it suppose to work on a large scale??? If everyman had 5 wives, there would not be enough wives to go around. If you look into it, as you say you have, Polygamy is more about control than anything else.

[photon]

Why should we not allow anybody to do anything?

When it harms society is one reason.

How is it suppose to work on a large scale??? If everyman had 5 wives, there would not be enough wives to go around. If you look into it, as you say you have, Polygamy is more about control than anything else.

Other women would have 5 husbands to balance everything out.

[jolinar of malkshor]

When it harms society is one reason.



Other women would have 5 husbands to balance everything out.

We both know it doesn't work that way.

You show me where any culture that practices polygamy, practices it so that the women has more spouses then the man.....it doesn't. I think there was one tribe in Africa that did it. Oh....ya.....I also think there was an alien race on Star Trek where it also happened.

[photon]

If Star Trek is wrong then I don't wanna be right! :D

[JiriHrdina]

Why should we not allow anybody to do anything?

Because its bad for society.

Is polygamy bad for society.
If so how?

[JiriHrdina]

How is it suppose to work on a large scale??? If everyman had 5 wives, there would not be enough wives to go around. If you look into it, as you say you have, Polygamy is more about control than anything else.

Do we have indication that the legalization of polygmay would cause it to become popular? Why does it have to work on a large scale?

[troutman]

You see once we opened the door to redefine marriage we were not going to be able to shut it. The definition will continue to dilute until marriage as the institution we know will cease to exist.

The "institution" of marriage has changed many times, in many places.

[troutman]

There is a whack of biologial and sociological evidence that suggest a traditional family with two parents is the best for children. I don't want to get into whether homosexual parents are just as good as heterosexual ones, because I just don't know.

But, there is a ton of evidence that two parents provide the most stable home for a child. Read "Our Inner Ape".

I really hate how some so-called "progressives" are trying to re-write human cultural and genetic history with their own version of what human life should be like.

I reckon that children were raised communally for the vast majority of human history.

[RougeUnderoos]

Do we have indication that the legalization of polygmay would cause it to become popular?

No. I would imagine all the people that are into the practice are already doing it. They don't have the fancy piece of paper in a drawer somewhere saying what they are doing is legal, but that probably isn't much of a deterrent.

The same loopy argument was made before same-sex marriage became legal. A lot of people were hopping up and down saying that would basically become "popular" and destroy a bunch of hetero marriages.

[jolinar of malkshor]

No. I would imagine all the people that are into the practice are already doing it. They don't have the fancy piece of paper in a drawer somewhere saying what they are doing is legal, but that probably isn't much of a deterrent.

The same loopy argument was made before same-sex marriage became legal. A lot of people were hopping up and down saying that would basically become "popular" and destroy a bunch of hetero marriages.

Nobody said that....

[Looger]

Other women would have 5 husbands to balance everything out.
there was a neat book by robert a. heinlein called 'the moon is a harsh mistress' that details that based on an unengineered shift towards women becoming precious and supreme in the minds of men due to their rarity, so much that any man seen harassing a woman by a group of men is summarily and immediately chucked out the airlock no questions asked.

a matriarchal society based solely on their future outlook being in the bucket and needing women above all else.

women had 8, 10 husbands and ruled their family units.

as time rolled on and more native-born 'lunies' made up the population and less transplants from earth (who were more or less criminals / prisoners), the shift resulted in communal marriages with rotation sleeping schedules, 8 men 8 women kind of thing.

interesting idea, but in the book it didn't come aboot by some activists and laws, it came aboot from external factors and the need to adapt to survive - by our standards very strange attitudes towards jealousy, towards individual rights, towards on the spot mob rule and everyone being very nice to each other or not lasting too long.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Because its bad for society.

Is polygamy bad for society.
If so how?

Polygamy works much like communism. In theory....it is all fine and dandy....who cares.

In practice....polygamy is nothing more than another form of control, and in this case it is the mans control over the women and children. That is bad for society.

[RougeUnderoos]

Nobody said that....

They didn't say it would destroy existing marriages?

[JiriHrdina]

Polygamy works much like communism. In theory....it is all fine and dandy....who cares.

In practice....polygamy is nothing more than another form of control, and in this case it is the mans control over the women and children. That is bad for society.

That's but a single form of polygamy. But as a concept Polygamy is just one person being married to two or more people.

Again I pose the question - what is wrong with that?

[Looger]

The "institution" of marriage has changed many times, in many places.
a HUGE factor in the idea was that people only lasted like 30+ years for a large part of organized history.

quite often even only a few centuries ago people had 2-3 marriages due to women dying in childbirth (quite common) and men dying in wars or as sailors etc.

i'm not saying that marriage is now summarily obselete but people should really think aboot it, based on the tradition coming aboot when it wasn't a ticket to 60 years with the same person.

[jolinar of malkshor]

They didn't say it would destroy existing marriages?

Show me where people said this "A lot of people were hopping up and down saying that would basically become "popular" and destroy a bunch of hetero marriages."

[jolinar of malkshor]

That's but a single form of polygamy. But as a concept Polygamy is just one person being married to two or more people.

Again I pose the question - what is wrong with that?

What did I just say......I said in theory it is all fine and dandy, in reality....it is not.

[photon]

there was a neat book by robert a. heinlein called 'the moon is a harsh mistress' that details that based on an unengineered shift towards women becoming precious and supreme in the minds of men due to their rarity, so much that any man seen harassing a woman by a group of men is summarily and immediately chucked out the airlock no questions asked.

Cool, I haven't read that one!

(And my comment was pretty much tongue in cheek)

[Looger]

i think in general things over time work themselves out.

people should really question where radical changes in our institutions come from, who is sponsoring them, and why before even thinking aboot supporting them.

we are fed debate by our ever-more centralized media, we are given the talking points on a platter and everything plastered in papers today is what i hear on the C-train tomorrow.

why is this such an emergency? who's pushing this on us? why isn't anyone asking these questions?

[Rathji]

The only ones I know are Mormon. They believe they need at least three wives to obtain godhood. Don't confuse Christians with Mormons. There isn't a lot in common.
.

Wow, just wow....

So did you make this up or did Ted Byfield write an 'article' on that as well?

[RougeUnderoos]

Show me where people said this "A lot of people were hopping up and down saying that would basically become "popular" and destroy a bunch of hetero marriages."

Instead of digging around and reading a bunch of foolish websites, I'll summarize:

1) opponents of same-sex marriage said it would destroy marriages and families(it is indisputable that this was a prominent argument, I'm sure you will agree)
2) the only way for existing marriages and families to be destroyed by same-sex marriage would be for people in traditional marriages/families to get a divorce and marry someone of the same sex because the law was changed. In other words, same-sex marriage would become "popular" among some previously straight people and their marriages and families would be ruined.

EDIT: that's all from me. I'm on my way out to get drunk and hopefully meet some liberal minded ladies who want to practice polygamy for a few hours!

[jolinar of malkshor]

Instead of digging around and reading a bunch of foolish websites, I'll summarize:

1) opponents of same-sex marriage said it would destroy marriages and families(it is indisputable that this was a prominent argument, I'm sure you will agree)
2) the only way for existing marriages and families to be destroyed by same-sex marriage would be for people in traditional marriages/families to get a divorce and marry someone of the same sex because the law was changed. In other words, same-sex marriage would become "popular" among some previously straight people and their marriages and families would be ruined.

EDIT: that's all from me. I'm on my way out to get drunk and hopefully meet some liberal minded ladies who want to practice polygamy for a few hours!

I think the arguement was more that marriage was a religous sacrement between a man and a women, by allowing same sex people to marry it would destroy that sacremental value, I am pretty sure people were not floating the idea that if same sex marriage was legalized.....people would leave their husbands and wifes to go marry the same sex as a fad.

As for your venture into polygamy....good hunting...

[troutman]

New Rule: Gay marriage won't lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn't lead to hamsters voting. No court has extended the Equal Protection Clause to salmon. And for the record, all marriages are same sex marriages. You get married, and every night, it's the same sex.

- Bill Maher

[jolinar of malkshor]

New Rule: Gay marriage won't lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn't lead to hamsters voting. No court has extended the Equal Protection Clause to salmon. And for the record, all marriages are same sex marriages. You get married, and every night, it's the same sex.

- Bill Maher

That guy annoys me!!

[Reggie Dunlop]

Capt. Spaulding (Groucho Marx): [to Mrs. Rittenhouse and Mrs. Whitehead] Let's get married.

Mrs. Whitehead: All of us?

Capt. Spaulding (Groucho Marx): All of us.

Mrs. Whitehead: Why, that's bigamy.

Capt. Spaulding (Groucho Marx): Yes, and it's big of me too.

[CaramonLS]

We both know it doesn't work that way.

You show me where any culture that practices polygamy, practices it so that the women has more spouses then the man.....it doesn't. I think there was one tribe in Africa that did it. Oh....ya.....I also think there was an alien race on Star Trek where it also happened.

Polyandry is most notibly practised in Tibet.

But it is definately the much rarer form.

[Azure]

OK. Well let me post it another way. Why should we not allow Polygamy?

Thanks. :D

Now we're on the same page.

Why shouldn't we allow Polygamy? Gay marriage is already legal...

[Azure]

Wow, just wow....

So did you make this up or did Ted Byfield write an 'article' on that as well?

Eh?

Christians are a long way from Mormonism.

Must we have this argument?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Eh?

Christians are a long way from Mormonism.

Must we have this argument?

Mormons are Christians.

They call themselves the "Church of Jesus Christ."

Can't get anymore "Christian" than that.

[fotze]

Thanks. :D

Now we're on the same page.

Why shouldn't we allow Polygamy? Gay marriage is already legal...
Egg Zackly!

[Reggie Dunlop]

I see tremendous positives in promoting polygamy.

1. It will cut down on out-of-wedlock children.
2. It will curtail extra-marital sex, including prostitution.
3. Children can benefit from having more than two role models.
4. More people can experience the joys and responsibilities of parenthood.
5. It would help modernize archaic gender roles.
6. Communal property would be more fairly distributed.

It's an outstanding idea whose time has come.

Hollywood really needs to jump in on this.

[photon]

Mormons are Christians.

They call themselves the "Church of Jesus Christ."

Can't get anymore "Christian" than that.

Most Christians would call Mormons a cult. Joseph Smith writing a new holy book and Jesus supposedly visiting the Americas and all that.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Most Christians would call Mormons a cult. Joseph Smith writing a new holy book and Jesus supposedly visiting the Americas and all that.

Who cares.

They call themselves that, therefore they are.

[photon]

Who cares.

They call themselves that, therefore they are.

I guess, just pointing it out since I'm sure it will be pointed out sooner or later.

Lots of the things Mormons believe aren't from the Bible though.. Mormons are polytheistic and don't believe that the Bible is the final authority.

They would say they Mormons portray themselves as Christians to deceive more people.

[Reggie Dunlop]

I guess, just pointing it out since I'm sure it will be pointed out sooner or later.

Lots of the things Mormons believe aren't from the Bible though.. Mormons are polytheistic and don't believe that the Bible is the final authority.

They would say they Mormons portray themselves as Christians to deceive more people.
Ah.

But "New and Improved" Tide is still Tide brand laundry detergent, is it not?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Anyways, maybe what churches ought to do is lobby governments to ban celibacy.

That's traditionally considered "Anti-Family" too.

[troutman]

That guy annoys me!!

Big surprise there.

[photon]

Ah.

But "New and Improved" Tide is still Tide brand laundry detergent, is it not?

Ah, but a counterfeit Tide made by the evil bad soap organizations to steal customers away from the real Tide also will claim it is Tide! :D

[Reggie Dunlop]

Ah, but a counterfeit Tide made by the evil bad soap organizations to steal customers away from the real Tide also will claim it is Tide! :D

Then they get their asses sued for copyright infringement.

Jesus Christ is not a registered trademark. Well, not by Proctor and Gamble anyways.

[JiriHrdina]

What did I just say......I said in theory it is all fine and dandy, in reality....it is not.

OK but its that because of polygamy or because of the people practicing it?

How can you blame it on polygamy?

[Reggie Dunlop]

The monothiest monogamists who value the property relations of marriage are right to be afraid. Their social relation is reliant on private property, and the owning of people as property (women and children). It is a fragile myth that denies the individual members their freedom.This is not a free relationship between free individuals. It is a socially constructed role, where individuals are enslaved to their gender, not to their ability or talents. It is a relationship of oppression.

[kobafett]

I think this video will clear up any questions about the mormons.

Link
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpMrcvag6DA)

[Calgaryborn]

This site will give you more than you want to know about Mormonism:

http://www.utlm.org/

Just click on topics. It does do it's best to document what it says with references and in some cases scanned Mormon publications.

Just the idea they believe that men can obtain godhood separates they from historical Christianity.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Mormons are Christians.

They call themselves the "Church of Jesus Christ."

Can't get anymore "Christian" than that.

As I've observed, Christians don't consider Catholics "Christian" but Catholics do consider themselves Christians.

Pretty lame by all parties if you ask me. It's a love of Jesus Christ, not a RIM/NTP patent lawsuit....

[Calgaryborn]

As I've observed, Christians don't consider Catholics "Christian" but Catholics do consider themselves Christians.

Pretty lame by all parties if you ask me. It's a love of Jesus Christ, not a RIM/NTP patent lawsuit....

I don't consider Catholics Christians because their way of salvation
differs from that of the Bible. They believe they enter into God's family through works administered by their church called "sacraments". This is foreign and contrary to scriptures. They believe that the church(their church) was established by Jesus Christ through Peter and that as such God would have them interpret and expand on the teaching provided by scriptures. Evangelical Christians believe salvation is obtained when one repents(turns to God) which is a decision of the heart and accepts the free gift of salvation Christ provided. There is no direct church involvement in this process. No human authority governs it.

Historically I understand that Catholics are considered under the umbrella
of Christianity because they look to the same God for salvation. Historically Mormons have not been seen under this umbrella because they aren't looking to our God as much as to becoming a God. They have bibles but believe them unreliable because of corruption over time and rely on their book of Mormon and two others as authoritative. The Bible is referenced only when it agrees with these books.

If the Mormons are to be considered Christians; why not the Muslims? They teach that Jesus was a great prophet as well. They also believe the bible has been corrupted and rely on their own holy book. They aren't seeking godhood but have a salvation of works like the Catholics.

[jolinar of malkshor]

A Christian is anyone who believes that Jesus is Christ the son of god and follows his teachings.

Thats what I have been taught anyhow. So....therefore....Catholics and most Protostant faiths are Christians.

[jolinar of malkshor]

I don't consider Catholics Christians because their way of salvation
differs from that of the Bible. They believe they enter into God's family through works administered by their church called "sacraments". This is foreign and contrary to scriptures. They believe that the church(their church) was established by Jesus Christ through Peter and that as such God would have them interpret and expand on the teaching provided by scriptures. Evangelical Christians believe salvation is obtained when one repents(turns to God) which is a decision of the heart and accepts the free gift of salvation Christ provided. There is no direct church involvement in this process. No human authority governs it.

Historically I understand that Catholics are considered under the umbrella
of Christianity because they look to the same God for salvation. Historically Mormons have not been seen under this umbrella because they aren't looking to our God as much as to becoming a God. They have bibles but believe them unreliable because of corruption over time and rely on their book of Mormon and two others as authoritative. The Bible is referenced only when it agrees with these books.

If the Mormons are to be considered Christians; why not the Muslims? They teach that Jesus was a great prophet as well. They also believe the bible has been corrupted and rely on their own holy book. They aren't seeking godhood but have a salvation of works like the Catholics.

Because they do not believe that Christ was the son of God and they do not follow the teachings of Jesus.

[CaramonLS]

I don't consider Catholics Christians because their way of salvation
differs from that of the Bible. They believe they enter into God's family through works administered by their church called "sacraments". This is foreign and contrary to scriptures. They believe that the church(their church) was established by Jesus Christ through Peter and that as such God would have them interpret and expand on the teaching provided by scriptures. Evangelical Christians believe salvation is obtained when one repents(turns to God) which is a decision of the heart and accepts the free gift of salvation Christ provided. There is no direct church involvement in this process. No human authority governs it.

Historically I understand that Catholics are considered under the umbrella
of Christianity because they look to the same God for salvation. Historically Mormons have not been seen under this umbrella because they aren't looking to our God as much as to becoming a God. They have bibles but believe them unreliable because of corruption over time and rely on their book of Mormon and two others as authoritative. The Bible is referenced only when it agrees with these books.

If the Mormons are to be considered Christians; why not the Muslims? They teach that Jesus was a great prophet as well. They also believe the bible has been corrupted and rely on their own holy book. They aren't seeking godhood but have a salvation of works like the Catholics.

Some people on this board don't even consider yourself a fair representation of a Christian. In fact you've had many debates with Christians about the nature of various things.

Yet you include yourself and exclude others?

[Nicole]

The only ones I know are Mormon. They believe they need at least three wives to obtain godhood. Don't confuse Christians with Mormons. There isn't a lot in common.

Also, within the Muslim religion this is a common practice.

Wrong - They aren't Mormon, in fact if you are Mormon and try to practice polygamy, you will be excommunicated from that church. You've been reading too much anti-mormon literature which is not at all accurate.
Also, Mormons do consider themselves Christian, as they believe that it is Jesus Christ who is at the head of their church .. the reason they are "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).

[Calgaryborn]

Some people on this board don't even consider yourself a fair representation of a Christian. In fact you've had many debates with Christians about the nature of various things.

Yet you include yourself and exclude others?


Yes and one or both of us are wrong. You talk like I'm excluding
them from heaven. What I'm saying is: that God is clear that there
is one way to heaven. If the Catholics and the Baptists and the Mormons
all have different paths then at least two of them are wrong and
following a path that doesn't lead there.

To pretend that we all agree when we don't is unproductive. It might
be comforting but it's a false comfort. We are much better off recognizing
our differences and become certain within our own minds that we personally have chosen the right path and/or change our path.

We live in a time where the average Christian doesn't know his/her
church believes and couldn't give an answer for the little faith they
do have. It is no wonder people get drawn into cults or deceived
by vain philosophy.

[Calgaryborn]

Wrong - They aren't Mormon, in fact if you are Mormon and try to practice polygamy, you will be excommunicated from that church. You've been reading too much anti-Mormon literature which is not at all accurate.
Also, Mormons do consider themselves Christian, as they believe that it is Jesus Christ who is at the head of their church .. the reason they are "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).

They are Mormons and more faithful to Joseph Smith's teaching than
those who broke away from them to enter Statehood. I have read enough of the book of Mormon to know it conflicts with the Bible greatly. Christians are monotheistic. Mormons are not.

[jolinar of malkshor]

They are Mormons and more faithful to Joseph Smith's teaching than
those who broke away from them to enter Statehood. I have read enough of the book of Mormon to know it conflicts with the Bible greatly. Christians are monotheistic. Mormons are not.

You have no clue do you. Christians are Monotheistic....

All I know is that the Mormons that I know......are very good people....better than many other people I know.....and as far as I am concered, it is how you treat people on this earth that will determine where you end up in the after life.....not what religion you believe in.

[Calgaryborn]

You have no clue do you. Christians are Monotheistic....

All I know is that the Mormons that I know......are very good people....better than many other people I know.....and as far as I am concerned, it is how you treat people on this earth that will determine where you end up in the after life.....not what religion you believe in.

I wouldn't argue that many Mormons are good people. Salvation has
nothing to do with how good a person is. Salvation has everything to do with how good God is. There isn't a Catholic, Baptist or Mormon who
has ever lived that was good enough to enter Heaven.

[Calgaryborn]

Here is a press release regarding the ontario ruling:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070104/wl_canada_nm/canada_parents_ca_col_3

[jolinar of malkshor]

I wouldn't argue that many Mormons are good people. Salvation has
nothing to do with how good a person is. Salvation has everything to do with how good God is. There isn't a Catholic, Baptist or Mormon who
has ever lived that was good enough to enter Heaven.

Are you for real???

Ever since you started posting here I thought you were a bit on the extreme side.....but with this post......you really show your colours. I bet this is what God is about. Nice....you keep believing that.....I know exactly where you are going.

[Phanuthier]

Polygamy works much like communism. In theory....it is all fine and dandy....who cares.

In practice....polygamy is nothing more than another form of control, and in this case it is the mans control over the women and children. That is bad for society.
You mean every other species besides human's who practise polygamy?

Read Guns, Germs and Steel. Polygamy was commonly practised in hunter/gatherers, but faded to monogomy when society moved towards agriculture.

[Burninator]

Wouldn't this be bad for women? Doesn't polygamy emphasize male dominance? Wouldn't this go in the opposite direction of female equality?

[Phanuthier]

Wouldn't this be bad for women? Doesn't polygamy emphasize male dominance? Wouldn't this go in the opposite direction of female equality?
Or, it could open up oppertunities for women to pursue a career. By having a "larger family" of multiple parents, it would give more freedom for women to pursue higher education (ie. graduate school) and careers without being sattled to 2 parent system.

[jolinar of malkshor]

You mean every other species besides human's who practise polygamy?

Read Guns, Germs and Steel. Polygamy was commonly practised in hunter/gatherers, but faded to monogomy when society moved towards agriculture.

Yes I am very much aware of other species and human history....your point?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Or, it could open up oppertunities for women to pursue a career. By having a "larger family" of multiple parents, it would give more freedom for women to pursue higher education (ie. graduate school) and careers without being sattled to 2 parent system.

We all know that would never happen.

[Phanuthier]

Yes I am very much aware of other species and human history....your point?
That you said its all theory and would never work

It has

[photon]

Are you for real???

Ever since you started posting here I thought you were a bit on the extreme side.....but with this post......you really show your colours. I bet this is what God is about. Nice....you keep believing that.....I know exactly where you are going.

Are you misinterpreting what he's saying? He's not saying all Catholic, Baptist and Mormon aren't going to heaven, he's saying that no one gets into heaven by doing good things and being good. That's the fundumental Christian doctrine; saved by accepting Jesus as saviour, not by good works.

[Calgaryborn]

Wouldn't this be bad for women? Doesn't polygamy emphasize male dominance? Wouldn't this go in the opposite direction of female equality?

Yes polygamy has always been bad for women but, no one expects
women to flock towards it if it becomes legal. What is expected is as
marriage continues to get redefined it will become meaningless as an
institution. Feminist's see the traditional family as being patriarchal. In
most family units this is the case to varying degrees. Since they can't
outlaw it the next best thing to do would be to diminish it as a model.

After polygamy is legalized you will see very quickly non-sexual committed
relationships be afforded the same status. After all why should they be excluded. Next will be communal groups; such as religious and cultural sects. As the definition of marriage becomes more inclusive and complexed the government out of necessity will exercise greater control over the children. Why? Because of divorce. Who becomes the authority when parents split up? The courts. Who typically loses authority in such situations? The Father.

[Frank the Tank]

Don't you guys think that marriage needs to change? I mean, everything changes and evolves with time, what makes marriage the exception?

[jolinar of malkshor]

That you said its all theory and would never work

It has

It has??? Ok if you want to compare prehistoric humans to today.....sure.....even tho then I am sure the man could kill the women without any consequences.....But ok it worked.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Are you misinterpreting what he's saying? He's not saying all Catholic, Baptist and Mormon aren't going to heaven, he's saying that no one gets into heaven by doing good things and being good. That's the fundumental Christian doctrine; saved by accepting Jesus as saviour, not by good works.

Oh....ok....IC now. Sorry CB.....but I still disagree with you. I am sure God would be more willing to let someone come to heaven who had always beens a good person compared to the dude who cheated, lied, stole and murdered but decided to accept Jesus the last few years of his life.

Just my thoughts...

[Phanuthier]

It has??? Ok if you want to compare prehistoric humans to today.....sure.....even tho then I am sure the man could kill the women without any consequences.....But ok it worked.
Where was I comparing? :whaa:

There is absolutely no point to your post. You say it would never work, it has. Your retort is something about comparing to prehistoric humans...??? Then something about man killing women then, which has no factor into anything to do with the argument.

Good point :whaa:

[jolinar of malkshor]

Where was I comparing? :whaa:

There is absolutely no point to your post. You say it would never work, it has. Your retort is something about comparing to prehistoric humans...??? Then something about man killing women then, which has no factor into anything to do with the argument.

Good point :whaa:

Lets see...what did you write?

Oh yes

Read Guns, Germs and Steel. Polygamy was commonly practised in hunter/gatherers, but faded to monogomy when society moved towards agriculture

So you are the one that brought up this idea that it worked.....ya in pre-historic times.....just because it happened doesn't mean it worked.

[peter12]

You mean every other species besides human's who practise polygamy?

Read Guns, Germs and Steel. Polygamy was commonly practised in hunter/gatherers, but faded to monogomy when society moved towards agriculture.

Read Our Inner Ape. Monogamy gave us an advantage over our surroundings and essentially enabled us to build societies and culture.

[Phanuthier]

So you are the one that brought up this idea that it worked.....ya in pre-historic times.....just because it happened doesn't mean it worked.
Do you really like being wrong or something?

Do you know why humans moved from polygamy to monogamy?

[Phanuthier]

Read Our Inner Ape. Monogamy gave us an advantage over our surroundings and essentially enabled us to build societies and culture.
Interesting, what did they say monogamy gave us the advantage?

Monogamy prevailed because agriculture prevailed, not because polygamy failed. Socities and culture were built on monogamy, because of war; societies that were able to evolve fastest were those that could specialize their skills and produce food. By having agriculture produce food on large levels, other skills prevailed, like blacksmiths; it also enabled men to go off to war.

[RougeUnderoos]

I wouldn't argue that many Mormons are good people. Salvation has
nothing to do with how good a person is. Salvation has everything to do with how good God is. There isn't a Catholic, Baptist or Mormon who
has ever lived that was good enough to enter Heaven.

Nice one.

[peter12]

Interesting, what did they say monogamy gave us the advantage?

Monogamy prevailed because agriculture prevailed, not because polygamy failed. Socities and culture were built on monogamy, because of war; societies that were able to evolve fastest were those that could specialize their skills and produce food. By having agriculture produce food on large levels, other skills prevailed, like blacksmiths; it also enabled men to go off to war.

It really focuses on 3 broad points.

1) It enabled us to "hide" sex away. That is, to stop making sex such an uncontrolled and central part of our life. This gave us the opportunity to focus on other things.

2) It gave us a secure place, with constant guardians and role models, in order to raise stable children.

3) It strengthens and emphasizes natural genetic gender roles.

[Phanuthier]

It really focuses on 3 broad points.

1) It enabled us to "hide" sex away. That is, to stop making sex such an uncontrolled and central part of our life. This gave us the opportunity to focus on other things.

2) It gave us a secure place, with constant guardians and role models, in order to raise stable children.

3) It strengthens and emphasizes natural genetic gender roles.
And how does Monogamy hide sex away (1) and strengthen gender roles (3)

(I'm to assume by 'strengthen gender roles' they don't mean a housewives?)

[Hakan]

Natural genetic gender roles.

Laugh.

Okay...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Do you really like being wrong or something?

Do you know why humans moved from polygamy to monogamy?

What?? You attack me by saying this:



Where was I comparing? :whaa:

There is absolutely no point to your post. You say it would never work, it has. Your retort is something about comparing to prehistoric humans...???


I show you exactly why I posted what I did, and it was right....now you say "Do you really like being wrong or something?"

How is that wrong??? I was right.

You posted that polygamy happened in the past....then you assume that since it happened in the past....it was a success. Nice Logic.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Natural genetic gender roles.

Laugh.

Okay...


Really.....are you trying to say there is not natural genetic gender roles? Especially back in the days of the hunter/gather society?

[Hakan]

Really.....are you trying to say there is not natural genetic gender roles? Especially back in the days of the hunter/gather society?
Pretty much.

[Phanuthier]

I show you exactly why I posted what I did, and it was right....now you say "Do you really like being wrong or something?"

How is that wrong??? I was right.

You posted that polygamy happened in the past....then you assume that since it happened in the past....it was a success. Nice Logic.
Laugh.... you're not right, you don't even know what I'm taking about.

Maybe I should correct that, you really enjoy talking about things you have no idea what you're talking about. :bag:

You said it only worked in theory; that is wrong. It worked for an era, but fell due to issues with food and soverignty, not polygamy.

I assume that if its happened, that means that its proof that it happens. I made no guerentees that it would work today.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Pretty much.

So I guess women were genetically made to go hunt the tigers and wolves and do all the physical work......ok.

Just so you understand....we are talking about the prehistoric times.....not yesterday or today.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Laugh.... you're not right, you don't even know what I'm taking about.

Maybe I should correct that, you really enjoy talking about things you have no idea what you're talking about. :bag:

You said it only worked in theory; that is wrong. It worked for an era, but fell due to issues with food and soverignty, not polygamy.

I assume that if its happened, that means that its proof that it happens. I made no guerentees that it would work today.

You're the one that looks like a fool.....the entire discussion was on polygamy in our society today....then you swoop in and say

These things...

You mean every other species besides human's who practise polygamy?

Read Guns, Germs and Steel. Polygamy was commonly practised in hunter/gatherers, but faded to monogomy when society moved towards agriculture

Or, it could open up oppertunities for women to pursue a career. By having a "larger family" of multiple parents, it would give more freedom for women to pursue higher education (ie. graduate school) and careers without being sattled to 2 parent system.

That you said its all theory and would never work

It has

Making it appear that since it worked then it will work now (and you have provided no proof that it work then).

Yet then you say

I made no guerentees that it would work today

Nice one....

Which the entire time I was talking about polygamy today....only mentioning it in the past when you brought it up.

So go ahead an throw around things like:


Maybe I should correct that, you really enjoy talking about things you have no idea what you're talking about


But it is you that are coming off like you know nothing....better luck next time.

[Phanuthier]

Responding to the origanal post: You said polygamy is only theoretical and wouldn't work. You are wrong, it has.

Thanks for coming out. Better luck next time.

[peter12]

Pretty much.

Female as a peacekeeper and Male as a peacemaker.

This one of the most fundamental roles between the genders. Backed up by plenty of scientific evidence. One is not better than the other, they complement one another perfectly.

[peter12]

And how does Monogamy hide sex away (1) and strengthen gender roles (3)

(I'm to assume by 'strengthen gender roles' they don't mean a housewives?)

Monogamy forces human beings to make a tradeoff in regards to sex. On hand, in a healthy relationship, they are guaranteed sex. But, they also are restrained to a single partner. It essentially strengthens personal discipline, as well as a host of other human traits. Loyalty etc...

Look, I'm not saying that all polygamy doesn't work, or that by itself it is immoral (although personally I believe it is, but I can't expect others to think the same). What I am saying is that polygamy as the basis for a society, or even given equal recognition to monogamy in a society, is simply not healthy.

To sounds slightly ethnocentric here, monogamy is clearly the superior social base. I guess it depends on what a definition of success is, but societies that hold monogamous relationships to be superior, are more capable of adaption and at social mobilization.

[FlamesAddiction]

How many humans are truly monogamous though? I've seen some studies that suggest 2/3rds of people cheat on their partners.

[Calgaryborn]

I find it revealing that one has to go to prehistoric times to identify
polygamy that worked. You all realize that "prehistoric" means there
is no history and the evidence we've got is a few cave paintings, some
bones and primitive tools. The rest is speculation.

By the way what is the standard behide the statement "It worked before".
Lets assume that these folks before history were polygamists. Was it fulfilling for the women? Did it provide security for the children. Did it lack all the problems we find in historical polygamy? Define "worked" please.

[Rathji]

They are Mormons and more faithful to Joseph Smith's teaching than
those who broke away from them to enter Statehood.

What exactly are you talking about?


I have read enough of the book of Mormon to know it conflicts with the Bible greatly. Christians are monotheistic. Mormons are not.

Clearly, you haven't.

Anyone know how to ignore people on the boards?

[Phanuthier]

I find it revealing that one has to go to prehistoric times to identify
polygamy that worked.
How about every other species known to man, besides humans?

Cultures around the world practise it openly as well.

Define "worked" please.
Is monogamy working now with the number of divorses?

[1989 Repeat]

The difference is we are not talking about guardianship. We are talking about three way shared custody. That is a huge difference. This has only been afforded to married/common-law couples or divorced/separated parents.

If these three can share custody of a child why not Winston Blackmoore and his 5 or 6 wives? After all they all participate in the primary care of said child. And if they can be afforded this status why deny them the "right" (as so many call it) of being married.

You see once we opened the door to redefine marriage we were not going to be able to shut it. The definition will continue to dilute until marriage as the institution we know will cease to exist.

Imagine if this same logic were applied to allowing women/non white ethnicities to vote... I mean, allowing all these people to vote will surely open the doors to animals voting....hmmmm, maybe that was just delayed.

And just an FYI, how other people define Marriage has no impact on the relationships in your life, that is up to you.

[Calgaryborn]

How about every other species known to man, besides humans?

Cultures around the world practise it openly as well.

Yes but you or someone chose an ancient culture which we have no written record of. Show me one of these known cultures where we find it working well. Perhaps there are exceptions to the rule but the ones I'm
familiar with are inferior to our accepted cultural norms. Women are left
powerless within the relationship and are taught this is because they
are naturally inferior to men. Female children are taught this from birth
and male children are often abused and worked hard from a young age.
Because there isn't enough women for the men, boys who aren't the favorite son have little prospect of any wife or affluence within the society.


Is monogamy working now with the number of divorses?

Divorces have skyrocketed within the last 50 years because our society
has been changing dramatically. This has occurred because of outside influences(outside the home) affecting our families. Media and public education being the largest contributing factors. People marry today with different expectations than they did years before and often change those expectations during the course of the marriage. It is a testament to the institution that many survive and prosper.

[photon]

Polygamy was practiced by many prominent figures in the Bible, so that's at least one written record.

Though I would say that's hardly a good example of successful polygamy; by todays standards their standards of behaviour are horrible.

[Calgaryborn]

Imagine if this same logic were applied to allowing women/non white ethnicities to vote... I mean, allowing all these people to vote will surely open the doors to animals voting....hmmmm, maybe that was just delayed.

I'm not aware of any animals who want to vote.:blink: I am aware of some polygamists who want the ability to marry. I can see benefits for non-sexual partners who are committed to living together. When it reaches that point I have no doubt the odd religious cult will seek these benefits. There is one over by Nelson B.C. right now who hold everything in common. Why not children?

And just an FYI, how other people define Marriage has no impact on the relationships in your life, that is up to you.

No what it affects is the next generation. They will grow up without any clear or appealing marital model. If the women have children it will be with the expectation of probably raising them alone. The State will take on more and more of this responsibility through earlier and earlier child care and after school placements. Of course when they are home media will take a large babysitting role. This generation will grow up with even less of an idea of the dynamics of a family with a father and a mother and siblings is. They will also grow up with scant positive male role models. Their view of the world will be influenced by media and the State.

[Calgaryborn]

Polygamy was practiced by many prominent figures in the Bible, so that's at least one written record.

Yes it was and it was as wrong then as it is now. Regarding the behavior: I would say that the historical examples are as unsuccessful are the contemporary ones. They both degrade the women and children involved.