Your opinion on polygamy?

31 posts

Flag Post

Are you for or against polygami and why?
I myself am for it because i think aslong as its fully consensual it shouldnt matter who you are with really. It wont affect me so who am i to stop someone from being happy?

 
Flag Post

The most accurate and succinct 3 sentence post I’ve ever seen. You nailed it: There’s nothing wrong with consenting, non-coerced adults engaging in relationships with more than one partner, and having laws that describe and regulate those relationships. That said, I think many people in polyandrous relationships are being taken advantage of.

All that aside, “Sister Wives” is quite possibly one of the most captivating shows I’ve ever watched. It’s nice to see people living a different lifestyle than my own, and for the most part, I think it works for them.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Agree with your post OP.
Nothing more to add.

 
Flag Post

Why not? I am not a bigot who minds others’ business when they are all satisfied and happy.

However, the laws are there only to protect people from abusing the name of polygamy. If you want to do it and mutual consent is given, you are free to engage in a physically, socially, economically and psychologically deep relationship with multiple partners.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Pulsaris:

However, the laws are there only to protect people from abusing the name of polygamy.

Explain.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Pulsaris:

However, the laws are there only to protect people from abusing the name of polygamy.

Explain.

In the context of First world, a de jure marriage only carries two extra benefits compared to a de facto one:

1. Legal approval, which symbolizes the moral values the majority can agree on, for your relationship; and
2. Termination of relationship now needs a lawyer.

Therefore, marrying without registering it becomes more and more common. Same for polygamy. Nobody can stop you from having multiple partners, but you can’t legally say that it’s “marriage”. That is, a de facto polygamy is okay, but it won’t get a legal status.

Now, why can’t polygamy get a legal status? The point is that, sham marriage is already a big problem, and how can you prove that you can really take on several partners at once without treating them as sex slaves or scam victims? It would be a headache for officials (who would be responsible when things go awry), so they don’t do it.

 
Flag Post

Pulsaris, ya left out Domestic Partnership and how it compares to Marriage & Civil Unions.

Plus, ya’re a long way off on how much (civil) marriage benefits differ from civil unions.
There are quite a few (at least 1,049 Federal varies from state-to-state) disparities between the two.

“A civil union is a legal status granted by a state. The State of Vermont created civil unions in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections, as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word “marriage”."

“Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes but questions remain as to how civil unions will be treated in other states. The two appellate courts that have addressed the issue in Connecticut and Georgia have disregarded them based on the fact that their own states do not grant civil unions. "

SO,
it appears that even w/ a lawyer involved,,,
a civil union couple can’t get a divorce:
“Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disregard civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than establishing residency in Vermont and filing for dissolution there. This has already created problems for couples who now have no way to terminate their legal agreement.”

Why do ya think a “real” marriage can’t be a big problem?
And, why do ya think single-partners can’t have treating a partner as a sex slave or scam victims,, or even a lot of things much worse?
Why do ya think single-partner marriages can’t be a headache for officials?
Why do ya think these “officials” somehow become responsible when things go awry?
I am under the impression that a MARRIAGE contract OBLIGATES the responsibility upon ONLY the shoulders of those who are married.

Now, tell me how legal approval has anything to do with moral values the majority can agree on.
AND, haven’t ya contradicted yourself by saying: “marrying without registering” ?
I thought your “marrying” IS the legal aspect of “registering”?
Maybe ya’re thinking of sui juris_ marriage?

So, I’m very much w/ tenco: Explain

And, in doing so, please use YOUR concepts of: de jure & de facto
“De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means “concerning law”, as contrasted with de facto, which means “concerning fact”. The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of “in law” and “in practice”, respectively, when one is describing political or legal situations."

“In a legal context, de jure is also translated as “concerning law”. A practice may exist de facto, where for example the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it, yet there is no such law. A process known as “desuetude” may allow de facto practices to replace obsolete de jure laws. On the other hand, practices may exist de jure and not be obeyed or observed by the people."

 
Flag Post

Ultimately, you know who you love, and that is almost enough. What would be ideal, if you love more than one person, is to have that love formally recognised by contract law. It doesn’t need a lawyer involved, but as things stand, if you are in a love triangle or quad, you won’t be recognised as family by the hospital should your loved one have an accident or be taken ill. Neither will you be recognised as family if they are charged with something.

Its not the marriage status and monetary benefits thing that gets annoying with such relationships, its the inability to be legally recognised as a close loved one.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Civil Union? Really? Civil Union is too faulty to be called anything. Don’t even get me on the inequality part. As I think you know how flawed it is, I can’t understand why you speak like it’s a good solution or substitution for (same-sex) relationship.

Domestic Partnership is little more than cohabitation. Little.

So, all in all, the distance between marriage and non-marriage is still pretty large, although it can be partially reconciled by the use of contracts, but hey, isn’t contracts too cold for an intimate relationship? Contract is a substitute for trust, which should be present in such relationship.


Why do ya think a “real” marriage can’t be a big problem?
And, why do ya think single-partners can’t have treating a partner as a sex slave or scam victims,, or even a lot of things much worse?
Why do ya think single-partner marriages can’t be a headache for officials?
Why do ya think these “officials” somehow become responsible when things go awry?
I am under the impression that a MARRIAGE contract OBLIGATES the responsibility upon ONLY the shoulders of those who are married.

Firstly, things are more complicated when there are more stakeholders. Secondly, new stuffs are often more messy than old stuffs. As there is larger probability to make mistakes, people tend to avoid it. And yes, a marriage should obligates the responsibility on only the married ones, but the fact is, if polygamy is made legal and bad things, e.g. an increase in crime rates, appear, the lawmakers are going to be challenged. Also, some people, e.g. social workers, may need to clean up the mess when there are side-effects. Chances are the unwanted side-effects will not be significant, but why do the lawmakers need to take that risk when the gain is not obvious?

Also, the lawmakers are (indirectly) elected by the people. Therefore, the will of the lawmakers should be in accordance to the will of the people. That is why the law is moral values the majority can agree on. Putting that point aside, we can also see a significant portion of people taking the law as their moral codes automatically.

AND, haven’t ya contradicted yourself by saying: “marrying without registering”_?
I thought your “marrying” IS the legal aspect of “registering”?
Maybe ya’re thinking of sui juris marriage?

Correction: “marrying” without registering. Punctuations (or lack of it) can alter the meaning very much. Sorry, it’s my fault. I apologize.


The acceptance of monogamy comes from the era when women were socially inferior. Monogamy was there to protect them. That was why the laws are there.

Whether modern woman needs that protection is up to debate. Because we have freedom to choose our partners now, we should also have the freedom to recognize them legally. Nowadays, our social environment allows our relationship to be based on trust and true love, hopefully.

 
Flag Post

If anyone truly want’s to live in a polygamous union, I won’t stand in their way. But I do not believe that it is possible to live in such way and be true equals. In love and in marriage there has always been certain amount of greed involved, is not the marriage ceremony in a way a shout to the world; “Hands Of, Hes/Shes Mine?

I cannot believe that any single human with a healthy ego would be capable of sharing something so intense as a loved one with another human and remain fully committed. Before anyone should be allowed to commit into a polygamy I would like to get answers to 2 questions.

1. Do you believe yourself to be so great that one human cannot satisfy your needs?

And in reverse

2. Do you believe yourself/your love to be so small that you need another person to ‘fill in the gap’?

 
Flag Post

Gendalf,
how many friends do ya have?
How many parents do ya have?
How many XXXXXX do ya have?

Seriously,
just because YOU can’t grasp a concept,,,
why do YOU “believe” some others aren’t capable of it?
Ya know….diffrnt strokes for diffrnt folks.
To each his own.
March to the beat of your own drummer.
To thine own self be true.
Tend to yer own knittin’.
Don’t be overly critical….unless other people’s moccasins can FIT your feet & ya can walk a mile in them.

 
Flag Post

Pulsaris, do ya even diligently read ALL of the posts in order to FULLY grasp their point?
Or, do ya “miss the point” on purpose in order to be able to maintain your position…rather than concede the parts (all?) of it that are “lacking”?
AND, if YOU aren’t going to make a quote,,
ya really ought to establish an antecedent for the “you” ya use.

Originally posted by Pulsaris:

Civil Union? Really? Civil Union is too faulty to be called anything.

Really?
Do tell?
What is YOUR point here?
I established this in my post.

Don’t even get me on the inequality part.

Why not?
Well, why not WHAT?
Do ya mean I don’t “get”—as in: understand—the concept?
Or, did ya mean: “don’t get me STARTED to talking about”?
Well, if ya don’t want to talk about your point,,,
what the hell is yer interest in being in a discussion?

As I think you know how flawed it is,…

Well, I hope I had well establish that in my post.

I can’t understand why you speak like it’s a good solution or substitution for (same-sex) relationship.

Ya probably don’t understand,,,
because I didn’t do that…AT ALL.

Domestic Partnership is little more than cohabitation. Little.

Good to know.
However, THAT is what I said/quoted in my post.

So, all in all, the distance between marriage and non-marriage is still pretty large,…

Well…yes AND no.
Maybe such is how YOU understand the issue.
But, I think most rational ppl are able to see the concept isn’t all that easily described.

…. although it can be partially reconciled by the use of contracts,…

Now ya’re begining to show that ya are at least heading in the right direction in order to understand this issue.

… but hey, isn’t contracts too cold for an intimate relationship?

Oooopps…I spoke too soon,,,
ya just did an about-face.
Typically, a “contract” of marriage becomes “coldly” important when the union loses it “warmth-of-intimacy”,,,
known as divorce.

However, it appears that ya haven’t been reading along on what is (has been?) posted on this thread. That “contract” affords many external" RIGHTS w/in the functions of society.

Contract is a substitute for trust, which should be present in such relationship.

Well….MAYBE.
Perhaps ya’re thinking of “pre-nuptuals”?
Again, that “contract” does establish trust when it says that ya want your partner to speak for you should ya not be able to do so yourself.



KKK said: Why do ya think a “real” marriage can’t be a big problem?
And, why do ya think single-partners [as opposed to “married” ones] can’t have treating a partner as a sex slave or scam victims,, or even a lot of things much worse?
Why do ya think single-partner marriages can’t be a headache for officials?
Why do ya think these “officials” somehow become responsible when things go awry?
I am under the impression that a MARRIAGE contract OBLIGATES the responsibility upon ONLY the shoulders of those who are married.

Firstly, things are more complicated when there are more stakeholders.

Always?
If so…WHY?
Explain this.

I think they can be more INVOLVED.
But, my experience is that a two-people marriage can be extreeeeemly “complicated”.
Ever head of: marriage counseling?

Secondly, new stuffs are often more messy than old stuffs.

Define “stuffs”….and “messy”.
I won’t accept any of that as being very worthy for a good discussion.

As there is larger probability to make mistakes, people tend to avoid it.

This correlation really doesn’t hold MUCH water.
The real probability to “make mistakes” (whatever THAT means) is a function of the character of each individual in the marriage.

And yes, a marriage should obligates the responsibility on only the married ones, but the fact is, if polygamy is made legal and bad things, e.g. an increase in crime rates, appear, the lawmakers are going to be challenged.

WHAT THE FUCK?
Now my head hurts…on several levels.
Please…PLEASE stop it w/ these “failings-to-establish-merit” by using concepts like: “bad things”.

“an increase in crime rates”
Really, I haven’t a clue why ya “think” there is some correlation here.

“lawmakers are going to be challenged”
Good grief…THAT is Excedrin Headache # 38 (a type of commerials run in the distant past) for me.

Also, some people, e.g. social workers, may need to clean up the mess when there are side-effects.

LOL,
now my headaches are becoming exteme-hangovers.
But, the upside is that I “must have?” had some fun.

Pray tell what are: “messes” & “side-effects”?

Chances are the unwanted side-effects will not be significant, but why do the lawmakers need to take that risk when the gain is not obvious?

Now, my hangover is causing me to drink a pint of “the hair-of-the-dog”.

I’m NOT EVEN going to ask how ya arrived at THAT.
I’m not quite ready for the padded cell.

Also, the lawmakers are (indirectly) elected by the people. Therefore, the will of the lawmakers should be in accordance to the will of the people.

Okay…
NOW I just signed a very long-term lease on that padded cell.

That is why the law is moral values the majority can agree on.

Boy-O-boy, is THAT ever soooo wrong on soooo many levels.
Yes, there is a “correlation” between moral values & laws.
But, a popular saying goes: you can’t legislate morality
Did ya see (if ya even looked at all) where there was NO mention of legality?

Putting that point aside, we can also see a significant portion of people taking the law as their moral codes automatically.

Yes, this does happen.
BUT, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is a “good thing” when they, in turn, believe these codes ARE LAW.

KKK said:

AND, haven’t ya contradicted yourself by saying: “marrying without registering”_?
I thought your “marrying” IS the legal aspect of “registering”?
Maybe ya’re thinking of sui juris marriage?

Correction: “marrying” without registering. Punctuations (or lack of it) can alter the meaning very much. Sorry, it’s my fault. I apologize.

No need to apolgize.
Ya STILL haven’t understood the concept that—as things now stand in America—marriage IS the legal registering the union. I made that clear in my post.


The acceptance of monogamy comes from the era when women were socially inferior. Monogamy was there to protect them.

NO…NO…NO.
Ya have it backwards.
The era where women were “considered” to be socially inferior meant that SHE was monogamous…but he was free to engage in extra-marrital activities.
Old saying about those times: My wife is married….I am not.

That was why the laws are there.Ya really, REALLY ought to do a little research on these “opinions” ya have. A very easy effort would be to see the movie Iron Jawed Angels
Whether modern woman needs that protection is up to debate.

Excedrin-headache # 89.

Because we have freedom to choose our partners now, we should also have the freedom to recognize them legally.

Well….DUH.

Nowadays, our social environment allows our relationship to be based on trust and true love, hopefully.

No shit, Sherlock.
AND, are ya telling me that such wasn’t possible…before “nowadays”.
Seriously, YOUR profile is private. But what is yer age?
 
Flag Post

Polygamy is illegal and is therefor immoral

doing immoral things is wrong so polygamy should be illegal.

 
Flag Post

Marriage is between a man and a woman…… period.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kablob:

Marriage is between a man and a woman…… period.

Or two men and two women. Or one man and two women. Or one woman and two men. Much beyond four or five people gets a little unstable. But there’s no reason marriage has to be defined as between just two consenting adults.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kablob:

Marriage is between a man and a woman…… period.

I think it should be that way.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AllStarDominatio:
Originally posted by Kablob:

Marriage is between a man and a woman…… period.

I think it should be that way.

Hey.
That’s great.
FOR YOU.
I think THAT is exactly what YOU should do.

However, grow up and realize that YOU ARE NOT KING and don’t get to DICTATE the lives of others….esp. in areas that have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on yours.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AllStarDominatio:
Originally posted by Kablob:

Marriage is between a man and a woman…… period.

I think it should be that way.

Could you at least give some basic details on why you have that opinion, please? Making statements based on a foundation of nothing is not helpful to the discussion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by AllStarDominatio:
Originally posted by Kablob:

Marriage is between a man and a woman…… period.

I think it should be that way.

Could you at least give some basic details on why you have that opinion, please? Making statements based on a foundation of nothing is not helpful to the discussion.

I hate to sound prejudice, but their reasoning are most likely based on religious principles. I apologize if I am wrong.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by KingZeldar3:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by AllStarDominatio:
Originally posted by Kablob:

Marriage is between a man and a woman…… period.

I think it should be that way.

Could you at least give some basic details on why you have that opinion, please? Making statements based on a foundation of nothing is not helpful to the discussion.

I hate to sound prejudice, but their reasoning are most likely based on religious principles. I apologize if I am wrong.

Nope, your right. Millennia old thinking in the modern world. Sad really, though the whole marriage definition is it inhertently religious etc debate probably comes in here, but that has it’s own thread

Some people enjoy polygamy, some do not, as long as those who don’t are not being coerced into anything they don’t want then I really don’t mind. Personally I am the sort of person who only has eyes for a partner I am with at the time (and for a while after, though sloe gin helps), but I myself have some likes that differ from ‘the norm’ so not about to damn others for theirs simply because I don’t share them

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by KingZeldar3:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by AllStarDominatio:
Originally posted by Kablob:

Marriage is between a man and a woman…… period.

I think it should be that way.

Could you at least give some basic details on why you have that opinion, please? Making statements based on a foundation of nothing is not helpful to the discussion.

I hate to sound prejudice, but their reasoning are most likely based on religious principles. I apologize if I am wrong.

I hate to sound prejudiced, but their reasoning is most likely based on the fact that they are from OT and trying to troll.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by KingZeldar3:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by AllStarDominatio:
Originally posted by Kablob:

Marriage is between a man and a woman…… period.

I think it should be that way.

Could you at least give some basic details on why you have that opinion, please? Making statements based on a foundation of nothing is not helpful to the discussion.

I hate to sound prejudice, but their reasoning are most likely based on religious principles. I apologize if I am wrong.

I hate to sound prejudiced, but their reasoning is most likely based on the fact that they are from OT and trying to troll.

This is also sadly true. Though the only solution is to ignore comments not made by known SD posters, which seems wrong, but as OT declared war on SD years ago and the mods have done nothing this maybe the best option

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by KingZeldar3:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by AllStarDominatio:
Originally posted by Kablob:

Marriage is between a man and a woman…… period.

I think it should be that way.

Could you at least give some basic details on why you have that opinion, please? Making statements based on a foundation of nothing is not helpful to the discussion.

I hate to sound prejudice, but their reasoning are most likely based on religious principles. I apologize if I am wrong.

I hate to sound prejudiced, but their reasoning is most likely based on the fact that they are from OT and trying to troll.

This is also sadly true. Though the only solution is to ignore comments not made by known SD posters, which seems wrong, but as OT declared war on SD years ago and the mods have done nothing this maybe the best option

I’m an OTer.
There just are a few who are interested in SD and some who are interested in stirring up SD. Most troll posts are pretty obvious.