Polygamy should be legal

[Strike For The South]

If two or more consenting adults wish to be wed as one entity than they should have that right.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Take it to the legislature. 2 person unions are legally manageable set-ups.

[rory_20_uk]

If two or more consenting adults wish to be wed as one entity than they should have that right.

Exactly. It's supporting the damn 1 parent families that pisses me off. If I can't afford a family, why should I pay for yours?

More than 2 in a marriage is complicated, but hey, it's not something you need to do, but as an option, why not?

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Do you believe that you should be able to marry over 100 illegal immigrants to give them citizenship? What if you love them?

Civil marriage has become a joke and needs to be radically re-evaluated. If you want to marry a bunch of people though, start a corporation.

[rory_20_uk]

In the UK you'd need to live in the UK for 2 years before they'd be able to apply for permanent residency. Your finances are reviewed to ensure that you can look after them. If you're worth 100 million and you've got a happy and willing hareem of persons then not my beef. If you've no money and are eyeing up the money you're going to fleece the state for, then there should be a system of ships that drops these persons off at their home countries as deporting by air is expensive.

~:smoking:

[Strike For The South]

Do you believe that you should be able to marry over 100 illegal immigrants to give them citizenship? What if you love them?

Civil marriage has become a joke and needs to be radically re-evaluated. If you want to marry a bunch of people though, start a corporation.

This isnt about citizenship. I am against so called anchor spouses but that isnt what this is about

[ICantSpellDawg]

This isnt about citizenship. I am against so called anchor spouses but that isnt what this is about

It is never about consequence. It is always about pure theory. Could we radically re-evaluate marriage? Yes. Could we easily integrate polygamy into the current system? No. Who has custody of the children - just the biological parents?

Are you questioning the legitimacy of the decision to have marriage and to make it between 2 people? There are always other ways to do things. Why does marriage have to involve people only? Simply because of consent? I didn't need to ask an animal for its consent when I killed it and ate it.

There is an argument to be made for literally everything - no matter how absurd. The conclusion of arguments usually rest on theoretical positions of "rights" and whatever concept that we have about government and its role in the lives of the governed. Why not radically re-interpret what that is?

[Strike For The South]

It is never about consequence. It is always about pure theory. Could we radically re-evaluate marriage? Yes. Could we easily integrate polygamy into the current system? No. Who has custody of the children - just the biological parents?

Are you questioning the legitimacy of the decision to have marriage and to make it between 2 people? There are always other ways to do things.

The custody of children falls between all involved in the marriage. I think having a system in place like the UKs would make polygamy easily implemented and it would get rid of anchor spouses. Not to mention the whole premise of your assumption is false and even if there were a sherd of truth to it wouldn't matter because those illegals are going to stay here no matter what. Its not like our government is trying to get rid of them so I say we make them citizens and make them pay taxes like the rest of us. I am merely questioning why marriage is only between 1 man and 1 woman.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The custody of children falls between all involved in the marriage. I think having a system in place like the UKs would make polygamy easily implemented and it would get rid of anchor spouses. Not to mention the whole premise of your assumption is false and even if there were a sherd of truth to it wouldn't matter because those illegals are going to stay here no matter what. Its not like our government is trying to get rid of them so I say we make them citizens and make them pay taxes like the rest of us. I am merely questioning why marriage is only between 1 man and 1 woman.

Why don't you start a new threat about how illegals deserve to be here because they worked to get here.

[Strike For The South]

Why don't you start a new threat about how illegals deserve to be here because they worked to get here.

That wasn't my point. The government is impotent when it comes to illegal immigrants and the 2 candidates right now will only further the impotency. There are 12 million illegals in this country and let me let you in on a little secret...you interact with them every day you may even live in their building. They eat fast food and shop at the mall. so please spare me your Self-righteousness about how allowing polygamist marriage will somehow open these floodgates for illegals and tear this country apart. If anything will see an increase revenue from tax dollars and within a couple of generations it wont matter. But once again this wont happen so once again keep the topic to polygamist marriage and not how some deviant will use it to proverbially screw the system

[ICantSpellDawg]

I've provided one reason why marriage as it is now couldn't immediately accommodate it. I forgot we were in the make believe thread.

[Strike For The South]

I've provided one reason why marriage as it is now couldn't immediately accommodate it. I forgot we were in the make believe thread.

And I said that attempting equate legal polygamy with a massive influx of illegal immigrants gaining citizenship is not only unfounded but wouldn't make a shred of difference

[Caius]

If the State is religious, the State can't approve laws that contradict it.

[Strike For The South]

If the State is religious, the State can't approve laws that contradict it.

well its a good thing my state isn't religious

[Caius]

well its a good thing my state isn't religious
But your state would be aproving polygamy, which is common in Muslim countries.

[Strike For The South]

But your state would be aproving polygamy, which is common in Muslim countries.

Okay.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And I said that attempting equate legal polygamy with a massive influx of illegal immigrants gaining citizenship is not only unfounded but wouldn't make a shred of difference

If marriage has nothing to do with citizenship, why are the two things tied together? You are attempting to untie marriage from any of the legally recognized issues that are connected with it.

[Strike For The South]

If marriage has nothing to do with citizenship, why are the two things tied together? You are attempting to untie marriage from any of the legally recognized issues that are connected with it.

Thats not what I said. I said illegals live pretty normal lives without citizenship. I said our federal government doesn't really plan to do much besides grant them amnesty anyway. I said I dont think legalizing polygamy would somehow be a golden ticket to citizenship. There aren't millions of illegals just hoping for that day

[Husar]

I am against so called anchor spouses

Why do you hate me and is your sister single? :inquisitive:

[Strike For The South]

Why do you hate me and is your sister single? :inquisitive:

I dont and yes she is

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm going to go against my recent trend and say yes on this one. Although I am quite strongly opposed to the idea of polygamy and I think the government should be very careful in ensuring that no coercion is involved and in breaking up cults where women are in reality forced into such marriages.

[Somebody Else]

I'm just not so sure I could stand all the nagging... Isn't one supposed to be enough work?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Once gays can get married I won't have a problem with this one. It will help dissolve civil marriage faster.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Polygamy, polyandry, homosexual marriage (without parentage) and all means of consenting adults willing to live together should be legal and under the protection of law.
.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Here ya go, scientific proof that polygamy is the key to a long life (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14564-polygamy-is-the-key-to-a-long-life.html).

[ICantSpellDawg]

What if you marry someone that your wife doesn't want to marry? What if she marries someone that you don't want to marry. Can marriages exist in an Olympic pattern? I'm married to meg, mary, steve, trent and beau - but mary doesn't like beau because he is gay and she does like biff, but I hate that guy. Our marriages would eventually look like this:

http://tornandfrayed.typepad.com/tornandfrayed/images/olympic_symbol.jpg

[Viking]

What if you marry someone that your wife doesn't want to marry? What if she marries someone that you don't want to marry. Can marriages exist in an Olympic pattern? I'm married to meg, mary, steve, trent and beau - but mary doesn't like beau because he is gay and she does like biff, but I hate that guy. Our marriages would eventually look like this:

http://tornandfrayed.typepad.com/tornandfrayed/images/olympic_symbol.jpg

Well since you don't appear to be interested in marrying the polygamy way; that shouldn't really bother you. :smash:

[Sigurd]

Why do you want to become a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), Strike? :stare:

[Mouzafphaerre]

What if you marry someone that your wife doesn't want to marry? What if she marries someone that you don't want to marry. Can marriages exist in an Olympic pattern? I'm married to meg, mary, steve, trent and beau - but mary doesn't like beau because he is gay and she does like biff, but I hate that guy. Our marriages would eventually look like this:

http://tornandfrayed.typepad.com/tornandfrayed/images/olympic_symbol.jpg
.
Consent is the key word here. Joe is married to Jane and wants to marry Jenny in addition. It requires the express consent of all three. Likewise for John and Jane plus Jim. :juggle:
.

[Kagemusha]

I'm just not so sure I could stand all the nagging... Isn't one supposed to be enough work?

There is the best case against polygamy presented in this thread. :2thumbsup:

[ICantSpellDawg]

.
Consent is the key word here. Joe is married to Jane and wants to marry Jenny in addition. It requires the express consent of all three. Likewise for John and Jane plus Jim. :juggle:
.

But why? Why couldn't you operate more than one if there was a clash of interests? People can work for more than 1 corporation, people can have different treaties with different parties. Why limit love?

[HoreTore]

But why? Why couldn't you operate more than one if there was a clash of interests? People can work for more than 1 corporation, people can have different treaties with different parties. Why limit love?

Because if Jim and Janet are married, Janet wants to marry Ted, and Jim doesn't approve of that he will file divorce and leave Janet and Ted alone. ~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Because if Jim and Janet are married, Janet wants to marry Ted, and Jim doesn't approve of that he will file divorce and leave Janet and Ted alone. ~;)

Why should we make them choose between who they love when the whole idea of polygamous marriages was to get away from that? Jim still loves Janet and Janet still loves Jim, but she also loves ted?

Numerous marriages operate in this way now without legal recognition, why are we so bigoted against their love?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I believe that any form of civil union should be legal as a contractual choice between consenting adult citizens (and appropriately qualified non-citizens). Such unions should be administered under contract laws and utilize whatever contractual penalities for non-performance/adherence stipulated in the contract itself. The legality of an option does NOT always mean its a good option. You can exercise your legal right to cross a busy street at the crosswalk immediately after the indicator light suggests that it is your (pedestrian) turn to do so. The car that runs the red light would be in the wrong, not you -- but you would still be in traction.

Though deserving of legal status, I do not believe most poly-unions would be either wise or morally correct. I would also NOT view them as near equivalents to the sacrament of matrimony.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I believe that any form of civil union should be legal as a contractual choice between consenting adult citizens (and appropriately qualified non-citizens). Such unions should be administered under contract laws and utilize whatever contractual penalities for non-performance/adherence stipulated in the contract itself. The legality of an options does NOT always mean its a good option. You can exercise your legal right to cross a busy street at the crosswalk immediately after the indicator light suggests that it is your (pedestrian) turn to do so. The car that runs the red light would be in the wrong, not you -- but you would still be in traction.

Though legal, I do not believe most poly-unions are either wise or morally correct. I would also NOT view them as near equivalents to the sacrament of matrimony.

In reality I am against polygamous civil marriages until Homosexual civil marriage becomes legal. If they ruin civil marriage I want it to become so absurd that the only option is some loose business contract between any number of people regardless of their relationship. I believe that the decline of civil marriage will eventually strengthen religious marriages - because that is the whole idea anyway, it was just hijacked by secular society when they thought it could work.

[HoreTore]

Why should we make them choose between who they love when the whole idea of polygamous marriages was to get away from that? Jim still loves Janet and Janet still loves Jim, but she also loves ted?

What on earth are you talking about...?

If everyone is happy with what their partner(s) is doing, what's the problem? If someone isn't happy with what their partner is doing, then they will of course leave, won't they?

If you're fine with being married to someone who is also married to someone you don't approve of, I don't really see any problem.

[Fragony]

What on earth are you talking about...?

If everyone is happy with what their partner(s) is doing, what's the problem? If someone isn't happy with what their partner is doing, then they will of course leave, won't they?


Why do, it is perfectly possible to have a girlfriend and be married, why ask so much from people that actually care about something. Same old thing, the minute somebody wants something different everybody should be openminded about it. Being different doesn't make you special it just makes you different. Some people care about marriage, it's just bullying, why mock it and aspire to be part of it at the same time, just laugh it off and do your thing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

?

If you're fine with being married to someone who is also married to someone you don't approve of, I don't really see any problem.

You just agreed with my point! Get a camera!

[HoreTore]

Some people care about marriage, it's just bullying, why mock it and aspire to be part of it at the same time, just laugh it off and do your thing.

Religious marriage no longer exists, Fragony, marriage is a legal contract to provide a legal framework for how people live together. And that's important for everyone, not just monogamous heterosexual couples.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Religious marriage no longer exists, Fragony.

Where do you live, North Korea? Religious marriage is the only one that matters and it very much exists everywhere. The whole idea is religious.

[HoreTore]

Where do you live, North Korea? Religious marriage is the only one that matters and it very much exists everywhere. The whole idea is religious.

Not to me, and not to a lot of other people. Marriage to me has absolutely nothing to do with religion, if I get married it will be because of the legal framework. Oh, and that marriage will take place in the city hall, not a church.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not to me, and not to a lot of other people. Marriage to me has absolutely nothing to do with religion, if I get married it will be because of the legal framework. Oh, and that marriage will take place in the city hall, not a church.

oh. Ok. So it doesn't exist to you. We know that.

The idea of 2 people of different genders in marriage is a pretty traditional and religiously inspired concept. The further we get away from it, the less it makes sense to have at all - especially since we don't need the government to tell us to have kids.

Civil marriage has nothing to do with monogamy or ensuring a lasting relationship. It is a joke in its current form. It is a business transaction between two people and nothing more. If we are going to review it for homosexual unions we should review it for all unions or maybe disband it. This wouldn't affect the dissolution of marriage, just civil marriage that has ceased to mean all that much. Since the left no longer views 2 parents as necessary for the rearing of children, maybe they should support such a resolution that makes civil marriages simply business contracts between any number of people irrespective of who they are or where they come from.

[HoreTore]

It is a business transaction between two people and nothing more.

Which is exactly what I want ~;)

If you want your own relationship to be about something else, do as you wish, however keep your religion far, far away from me. I want none of it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Which is exactly what I want ~;)

If you want your own relationship to be about something else, do as you wish, however keep your religion far, far away from me. I want none of it.

OK, but why does it have to be 2 people? Why can't people be in more than one? Why does it need tax benefits?

If we are going to destroy the meaning, we need to re-evaluate the entire system.

[HoreTore]

OK, but why does it have to be 2 people?

It doesn't. How people live their lives and arrange their families is none of my business.

[Husar]

OK, but why does it have to be 2 people? Why can't people be in more than one? Why does it need tax benefits?

If we are going to destroy the meaning, we need to re-evaluate the entire system.

Well, one could say the meaning was already destroyed when it was limited to only 2 people, look at the old testament, they all had more than one woman and noone had a problem with it, when was it limited and who thought that heresy up? :inquisitive:

[Divinus Arma]

"Marriage" should be eliminated as a legal term in all cases. Every one should have a right to a civil union. Marriage is a religious matter and has no place in the law.

[Kekvit Irae]

I support polygamy (particularly polyandry, though polygyny is good too) in countries that do not have an extensive bureaucratic history. For countries with an established legal system, such as the United States, Great Britain, China, and Japan, polygamy is more of a headache than a help. As such, the only cultures you'll find polygamy in are those with pastoralism, horticulturalism, or non-intensive agriculturalism subsistence strategies, in which multiple marriages are more for utility and survival than bowchickabowbow.

[Csargo]

I dont and yes she is

Is she hot? :huh:

[PBI]

Where do you live, North Korea? Religious marriage is the only one that matters and it very much exists everywhere. The whole idea is religious.

I very much doubt that. I suspect marriage is older than religion and certainly older than Christianity, religion just co-opted it in order to exert more control over people's lives. It is an attempt to prevent those who do not follow the One True Faith from reproducing so that they will eventually die off, or at least to ensure that their offspring will have to bear a severe social stigma.

Marriage is about two people who love each other declaring that love to each other and to the world in front of friends and family, and taking an oath to be faithful to each other. The definition of what counts as faithfulness is up for the couple to interpret for themselves.

A religious marriage is an extension of that in that the couple also consider their vows to be witnessed by god. The definition of what counts as faithfulness is strictly prescribed by scripture regardless of the couple's wishes.

The additional legal marriage contract is simply a declaration by the state that it recognises the marriage and will not try to interfere, for instance by compelling spouses to be unfaithful by testifying against each other.

The religious and legal aspects of marriage are icing on the cake (no pun intended), the important bit is the couple's vows to each other, and those vows are just as real if they are made in a city hall as if they are made in a church. To pretend they are not and to declare all non-religious marriage to be a sham as you seem to be doing smacks simply of a mean-spirited attempt to claim those who are not religous are incapable of love or faithfulness.

[CountArach]

I very much doubt that. I suspect marriage is older than religion and certainly older than Christianity, religion just co-opted it in order to exert more control over people's lives. It is an attempt to prevent those who do not follow the One True Faith from reproducing so that they will eventually die off, or at least to ensure that their offspring will have to bear a severe social stigma.
Religion as something that the state has any right to interfere in came about under Augusts - before Christianity, however after religion. Marriage had still existed up until this point, however it was not a legal or state-controlled thing.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Marriage is about two people who love each other declaring that love to each other and to the world in front of friends and family, and taking an oath to be faithful to each other. The definition of what counts as faithfulness is up for the couple to interpret for themselves.

The three rings of marriage:

The engagement ring, the wedding ring, and the suffering.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"Marriage" should be eliminated as a legal term in all cases. Every one should have a right to a civil union. Marriage is a religious matter and has no place in the law.

I agree with you. Religious marriages should translate into civil unions in the State. People should be able to involve themselves in contractual agreements with their favorite person or the most important person in their lives no matter who they are. It isn't a right, but we can make that happen without ever referring to or legitimizing homosexuality.

As far as "marriage existed before religion" maybe, but not in the way it exists now. I suspect it had more to do with powerful men collecting women that they liked in bushels. Concepts of love were very different. The modern concept of love is a socially evolved form of lust combined with respect. Monogamous marriage seems to be a similar social evolution. Either way it is better and I support it, but I could support it whether the state recognized love or not.

[atheotes]

I very much doubt that. I suspect marriage is older than religion and certainly older than Christianity, religion just co-opted it in order to exert more control over people's lives. It is an attempt to prevent those who do not follow the One True Faith from reproducing so that they will eventually die off, or at least to ensure that their offspring will have to bear a severe social stigma.

Marriage is about two people who love each other declaring that love to each other and to the world in front of friends and family, and taking an oath to be faithful to each other. The definition of what counts as faithfulness is up for the couple to interpret for themselves.

A religious marriage is an extension of that in that the couple also consider their vows to be witnessed by god. The definition of what counts as faithfulness is strictly prescribed by scripture regardless of the couple's wishes.

The additional legal marriage contract is simply a declaration by the state that it recognises the marriage and will not try to interfere, for instance by compelling spouses to be unfaithful by testifying against each other.

The religious and legal aspects of marriage are icing on the cake (no pun intended), the important bit is the couple's vows to each other, and those vows are just as real if they are made in a city hall as if they are made in a church. To pretend they are not and to declare all non-religious marriage to be a sham as you seem to be doing smacks simply of a mean-spirited attempt to claim those who are not religous are incapable of love or faithfulness

My thoughts exactly... more clearly stated :2thumbsup: