S
What is wrong with polygamy?
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
There's a show on HBO that I'm totally addicted to called Big Love. It's like watching a train wreck over and over again. I recommend it.
http://www.hbo.com/biglove/about/index.html
Back on topic:
Underage and non-consenusal marriages are my strongest objections toward polygamy. The "joy book" lol. So effed up.
http://www.hbo.com/biglove/about/index.html
Back on topic:
Underage and non-consenusal marriages are my strongest objections toward polygamy. The "joy book" lol. So effed up.
S
Shai Gar
Hey now, NO group is really christian now, because every christian group picks and chooses what parts of the Bible they want to follow. Not to mention the Bible contradicts itself a few times- so, by your strict definitions, it's impossible to be christian. It's better to just have a laxer definition of Christianity... it's more usable, and pisses less people off.
One of the reasons against polygamy is that men are the one who really want multiple wives. It's because we're dogs, and love having sex with lots of different partners. If you open up all possibilities for polygamy, I think you'll naturally get a trend towards the powerful men having multiple wives.
Exactly! So, what happens when you have a lot of average/poor joes around with no women to make them settle down? You have social strife, and enough angry manpower to have a successful revolution. Which would be crappy for the men on top. (I guess the only way to really manage that would be to conscript all the angry men and send them to faraway lands to rape, pillage, burn. *Remember, the burning always happens LAST.*)Widespread polygamy would mean rich dudes would have all the ladies and average joes would be left with no womens.
That being said... I have read a lot of Heinlein. Heinlein loves polygamy. I think the idea of a "4-corner" marriage (FMFM) would work well. It could even be a straight marriage! You have the balance of sexes! From the viewpoint of marriage as financial institution (grouping two people together makes them able to spend their money more efficiently from sharing food/housing/luxuries) then a 4-corner marriage would be an even more powerful financial institution. For the kids, you have plenty of siblings to interact with, as well as a couple more parents to help nurture them.
Conclusion: Polygamy should be legal, as long as it has an equal balance of F & M. Unfortunately, this overlooks the problems of death & divorice.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
There are some crazy's out there, but there is no way that they could make those legal, ever.
In all honesty, the way I see marriage. If everyone who wants to get married says "I Do" (I know there are some semantic issues with this, but I won't argue them cause it is pointless), then they get married! Note that this excludes marrying anything other then human.
What if we teacher Bonobos how to speak, and they say "I do" and mean it? What if a computer AI gains sentinence and says "I do"? What if we crack dolphin-language and a dolphin says "I do"?
what if what if what if.....
S
Shai Gar
sure, but only in religions that accept them. the problem is that nearly everyone sees religion as a public institution like government and think that they must obey politically correct measures. they aren't and don't. religions are private groups like masons, harley davidsons bike clubs, or scouts. they should be able to retain the right to refuse entry or service to anyone they want.
since most of these gay marriage ideas are based around christian churches, and christianity holds homosexuality to be a mortal sin, then they should retain the right to refuse marriage to all homosexuals from all churches. any church that breaks from their bible in any way however ought to give up the right to call themselves christian.
Homosexual Marriages are welcome within The Order of Shai Gar anyway. This is because we hold marriage to be a holy and eternal institution between partners that seek to belong together for their entire lives within the dimensional maelstrom. At the signing of the vows which are immutable there is also the signing of the contract which provides The Order with the power of attorney solely with regards to how the will affects the partner (we must put them forward first), how adoption affects children (must put married partner forward first), et cetera, without being allowed to move any advantage from the couple(first) or children(second). All Hail His Holiness Shai Gar. oh yes and we don't allow divorce, and we don't allow remarriage but we make no claim over your virginity, sexual appetites or choices outside of marriage, nor do we make a claim that life begins at conception.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not all of us get married in a church. Tom and I were married, legally, on the green outside a Town Hall in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. I couldn't even tell you what religion, if any, the official who married us was. There was certainly no mention of religion in our vows. But it's legal. I have the papers *flap papers*
If the church(es) have issues, there's no reason I can see that gay/lesbian couples couldn't get married like we did. Separation of church and state, dig?
If the church(es) have issues, there's no reason I can see that gay/lesbian couples couldn't get married like we did. Separation of church and state, dig?
S
Shai Gar
precisely, separation of church and state exactly. which is why it shouldn't be called marriage but civil union. marriage is religious, and civil unions are not. i'm not dissing civil unions here, i think they're far better than marriages which are held in the eyes of a non existent being.
sadly, that's a huuuge misconception, not helped in any way by some of the christian leaders themselves. do a little bit of greek and it's plain to see that the english translation took the passage out of context.
in reality, the two parts of the new testament where it apparently states the power men over women, is stating the exact opposite. what was being argued for, was equality.
it was a shocker after studying it. it's unfair that people have taken things out of context and manipulated it to suit their own needs - including the religious.
In the United States, marriages have about 1,100 more federal rights and benefits than do civil unions or domestic partnerships. Religious groups like to argue that they are exactly the same. I know that isn't what you mean, since you would probably like to redefine all government marriages as civil unions, but it is important to make the distinction.
S
Shai Gar
Indeed I would.
At the end of a wedding ceremony there's some paperwork to sign that makes it legal in the eyes of the country. I'd make that your basic civil union contract and the rights would be the same across the board. Taxation, Inheritance, Power of attorney, et cetera.
I'd make the "Marriage" purely religious with no legal backing unless they got the civil union as well.
I don't think there is anythin inherently wrong in polygamy, it's just a lot more complicated. Only reason it seems weird or immoral to a lot of people is, I think, social and religious conditioning. On the other hand, I'm not 100% for gay and other non-traditional marriages. I mean, marriage as institute is a religious one, and I believe in people's right to hold bigoted, racistic and retarded beliefs. At the same time, I don't think marriage as a religious institute should have any leagal influence. There should be another, completely secular system where you can enter into a union with whomever you wish, and with as many people as you want to.
In the Physical Plane, the average gender birth ratio must change in order to accommodate the average number of wives per husband, which will be larger than one, more like 3-6.
In the Astral Plane, when planning future lives, where souls lack gender, there will be a loud discussion in Soul Groups about who is going to be the man.
In the Astral Plane, when planning future lives, where souls lack gender, there will be a loud discussion in Soul Groups about who is going to be the man.
I can't even be married to one person. Who would want to be married to several? The thought of that makes me tired.
Fuck all these labels. Just do what you want without being a dick, and without being sneaky or dishonest.
Pretty much, as long as everyone's honest, upfront, and happy about it. Doesn't matter what my individual preferences are, as long as no one's getting hurt and you aren't doing this without someone's full knowledge.
This^^
I can't imagine many men being too happy with this kind of arrangement.
This is too complicated and hurtful I should imagine, in the majority of cases.
Last edited: