Oh. Yeah, I'm represented not by these idiots but (formerly) by someone who did drugs and drank a lot and the only reason he'd be re-elected is 'cause he's a Kennedy. No offense, Patrick, but...seriously?
And the whole Bible thing...y'see, the Bible says that you should have only one spouse.
Where? I can think of a whole lot of biblical examples where they have have way more then one spouse.
So what of the Mormons who are polygamists? Do we condemn them?
Actually, yeah. The nation changed laws and marriage codes just to spite the Mormons. Heck, in at least one state women got the right to vote (in state elections, not federal elections) 'cause people thought women would vote against polygamy. Didn't work out that way, but it was tried.
Not to mention that one of Mitt Romney's biggest hurdles to getting the GoP nomination for president is that he's a Mormon, and many people just don't trust them.
So yes. Quite a few people condemn Mormons, and not just for the polygamy thing (which they've formally renounced).
Oh. Yeah, I'm represented not by these idiots but (formerly) by someone who did drugs and drank a lot and the only reason he'd be re-elected is 'cause he's a Kennedy. No offense, Patrick, but...seriously?
Umm, Id ... you're only represented by people that actually represent you. Well, at least that's the way I see it. In other words, unless you're all about bein' a drug addict alcoholic and decided to cast a vote for Kennedy, he didn't represent you. I mean, he did represent you but he certainly didn't represent you, if you follow.
Anyway. I don't have anyone in current government that I feel comes close to representing me... but maybe that's for the best
People who look upon polygamy as exploitation have lost track of one thing: The menstrual cycle. Women who live together tend to have their menstrual cycles become synchronised over time. So to anyone who thinks that having a half-dozen wives is cool: Do you really want 6 women mad at you at the same time?
Besides (since we've brought up the Bible), the only requirement to have one wife is applied to church deacons (1 Timothy 3:12).
Myself, I have one wife, and am quite happy with her, and she with me.
The first post makes no sense!)...*sigh*...Honestly, I got no problems with gay people. Trust me, Esch would know if I did. Even though I love all o' you. But I know not everyone feels that way. And the whole Bible thing...y'see, the Bible says that you should have only one spouse. So what of the Mormons who are polygamists? Do we condemn them? Y'know what, I'm gonna stop now before I rant too much.
...I think I'm missing something here. You go from gay people to the Bible to Mormons to Polygamists. Who's representing what?
I don't get what people have against polygamy.
It is considered that the women of such unions are exploited. Like mormon girls do not really have a choice in the matter and have to accept that their husbands can have many wives.
It is open for debate. You have polygamy in urban areas with women and men who aren't doing for religious reasons and have college degrees and such.
I don't see why everyone automatically assumes it applies to a man with multiple women, or that the women don't get a say in it...
As long as everyone in the relation is happing with including a new member, I don't get the issues. Yet it's still forbidden by law pretty much, at least to the point where you cannot be legally bound to more then one person at a time.
Also, in your example, you would be (trying to be) sleeping with every walking woman except Marie probably, so it evens itself out
Anyway. It's probably just me, again xD
All those points can be made of regular marriage as well, yet that's allowed.
I agree. Lets ban marriage! Free love! You hear that Marie? I will sleep with every walking women! That will teach you! Bitch... /runs crying
hmmm very well then...but yes....as for government representation, don't like Corrine Brown, don't like Mayor Peyton, and I don't like Obama
Either Boraxe deleted his post or someone deleted Boraxe.
Yesh, it looks like "somebody" reported my post. I wonder who it could possibly be…
Why does it need to be one man and several wives eh?
Why can't it be one woman and all her plaything guys?
Plus you learn the true cost of polygamy when you find out they really only consider you their 5th favourite partner, and they rarely have any need for anyone past their first two favourites.
And again, that doesn't need to be interpreted as the usual one guy many women version.
so true lol thought about it but didnt wanna say it and be a ball breaker.
polygamy isn't always about love and sex. often its about money and finances...something to think about lol
On that point, polygyny is much more common as an accepted practice world wide and throughout history then polyandry, which tends to need a very particular kind of environment to be acceptable and never really grows as a society because by it's own nature there aren't that many kids.
As for "group marriage" (that is, multiple husbands, multiple wives)... it's even more uncommon, and doesn't have a special term for it.
So they delete the OP but not the stuff that responded to it? What the ...
Just wanted to ask about that. Wouldn't be the first time.
Oh yeah, and some local elections are coming here shortly as well. I'm stumped, as I'm living outside my hometown right now, so I don't know the candidates but I wouldn't want to skip the elections.
I agree. Lets ban marriage! Free love! You hear that Marie? I will sleep with every walking women! That will teach you! Bitch... /runs crying
...Don't you already do that?
Besides, people will still couple--and even have ceremonies--even if there is not legal recognition of that union. See religious weddings, ceremonies (not required), and homosexual couples in many places for proof that this exists even when legal recognition is possible.
As for "group marriage" (that is, multiple husbands, multiple wives)... it's even more uncommon, and doesn't have a special term for it.
Polyamory?
...Don't you already do that?
I somehow can't help thinking that people who declare such things actually have trouble finding a willing woman to sleep with.
Or maybe I'm just nasty.
...Don't you already do that?
I somehow can't help thinking that people who declare such things actually have trouble finding a willing woman to sleep with.
Or maybe I'm just nasty.
the latter haha
My heart is bleeding because of your polyandry!
Aw, did somebody learn a new word today?
Besides, people will still couple--and even have ceremonies--even if there is not legal recognition of that union. See religious weddings, ceremonies (not required), and homosexual couples in many places for proof that this exists even when legal recognition is possible.
I think there should just be a legal status that connects people. You should be able to chose who you want to be connected with and with how ever many people you want to be connected. The reasons should be entirely up to the people. Then you can have whatever ceremonies and personal relationships. Government should have little to no say in it.
We really should divorce (no pun intended) the legal status with the cultural/religious/personal relationship.
Polyamory?
Polyamory is a funny term. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't refer to a specific form of a relationship, just a marriage of more then two. It encompasses both polygyny and polyandry, as well as marriages that include more.
But again, I'm not familiar with any societies, modern or historical, where this is actually done.
It should also be noted that all these terms refer specifically to committed families/marriages; there's more to them then just sexual liaisons.
Now I just want to cut off my penis and mail it to her.
Well, it'd certainly be keeping with the season, I suppose. Still. Don't.
As anyone found out why polygamous unions have been outlawed? Why Christians usually do not approve of it?
I couldn't find anything.
Allowing polygamy has serious potential for insurance fraud. I'm not saying regular marriage doesn't, but I can see instances of someone marrying a bunch of people just so they can get health insurance. Maybe they pay said person a small amount of what he saved them, and there would be an underground marriage market.
And I'm sure the Bible has something bad to say about polygamy. I mean, if it says shaving is wrong, then it's got to have something on polygamy...
It sort of already does that by recongnizing religious marriages and civil unions. Only thing missing are same sex marriage.
As anyone found out why polygamous unions have been outlawed? Why Christians usually do not approve of it?
I couldn't find anything.
Not really. I think they're just expanding the definition of marriage. They should just remove the idea of marriage. People should just have a legal status which they are granted specific rights and responsibilities. It should just be a willing contract/status. Then hopefully they can remove all the moral objections to certain unions.
I don't know if I am being very clear...
Now I just want to cut off my penis and mail it to her.
Well, it'd certainly be keeping with the season, I suppose. Still. Don't.
ur like a crazier van gough
And then in the 1800s it became a bone that Christians had with Mormons, and outlawing polygamy was seen as a way to attack them directly since that was a major visible difference 'tween Mormons and Christians.
And I'm sure the Bible has something bad to say about polygamy. I mean, if it says shaving is wrong, then it's got to have something on polygamy...
The Bible is a huge book written by a large number of people over a long stretch of time and much of it was oral tradition before being written down. Different parts were originally written in different languages, theyt's been translated from language to language, and we're not even completely sure which parts started as what language. There are a variety of modern translations which don't always match up perfectly.
If you're going to pick out bits and pieces, it's possible to use the Bible to justify almost anything--trust me, it says so in the Bible!
They should just remove the idea of marriage. [...]
It should just be a willing contract/status.
Er, so, civil marriage?
And then in the 1800s it became a bone that Christians had with Mormons, and outlawing polygamy was seen as a way to attack them directly since that was a major visible difference 'tween Mormons and Christians.
The Mormon Church is a denomination of Christianity, no? One often unpopular with people from other denominations, true, but one nonetheless.
Er, so, civil marriage?
Possibly, but I would remove any sort of reference to marriage since it has certain implications and historical context. Civil Unions would be fine, although people say that civil unions and marriages aren't the same. (so make it the same). Also, less to no rules about who you can get unioned to, how many, etc.
Make the civil union part legal. Make the marriage part separate and personal based on beliefs.
Sweet. Now a old virgin is telling us what is right and wrong when it comes to sex.
One of the tennets of Christianity has always been a cadre of old virgins telling everyone what is right and wrong when it comes to sex.
When a couple ie just two only people decide to divorce, it is a lot less messy than 1 guy and one of serveral wives where one of them decides she no longer wishes to be part of the list.
If she gets half of everything, well the other ladies won't be too amused with that deal.
Possibly monogamy laws have similar roots.