Next stop legalized Polygamy

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

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]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

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]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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]

Originally Posted by photon

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]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

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]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Nobody said that....

They didn't say it would destroy existing marriages?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

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]

Originally Posted by troutman

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]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

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]

Originally Posted by Looger

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]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

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]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

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]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.