Again, I feel obliged to rep you but can't :L No doubt she has.. She seems bright enough (if a little short sighted to begin with, which is not meant as an insult even though technically it is), so it'd be hard to not see it >.<
Kind of. Sort of. You've basically started off by saying married people should be monogamous. Then, claiming polygamy is frightening. Then saying you support polygamy, but claiming your completely neutral. Then, saying how you know so many polygamists, how great it is, and that you fully support it. Although, mainly your position at this point appears to be whatever Helvetii says, and I'm certain he enjoys having a cheerleader. OK, and? I do too. But, I suppose that was to insinuate anyone that thinks polygamy should remain illegal is a sinister person that hates human rights. Absolutely ridiculous, and I've explained why polygamy is discriminatory to women. With few exceptions, yes. Really? Is polygamy now legal in the UK? Any actual statistics, or should I just take your word for it? I think many involved in this are brainwashed to believe they don't deserve better, like the women in the FLDS Church for example. Great, a straw man argument. Now, defending your straw man argument... You're claiming to know polygamist women that are married to many men, and the other way around as well? You're so close to them, that you can actually vouch for how wonderful their marriage is? Are they in the UK too? LOL. Don't tell me what I need to realize.
You remind me of a line in the book animal farm by George Orwell when Pig tells the other animals that "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.". You are saying that all women should have a right to decide about their life but some women (you) should have a right to decide for them.
LOL - so true gworld.. Rebecca.. I started writing my reply.. But your childish little quote-spam irritated me in the end. Funny how you seemed to like what I had to say when I first started with one side of my opinions, then when you heard the other side of my views then I just became yet another lesser being than yourself How strange
I have no problem with polygamy, but you do have to admit legalizing it will be asking for trouble. Two married couples can't keep their relationship going, think how bad the divorce rate would be when marriage starts being between 3 to 1000 people. Also picture how messy divorces would be, especially when there are kids involved. *I'm too lazy to google it and since there are many muslims in here I'll probably get a more precise answer to this question: Can a woman have more than 1 husband or is it just a one way street?
I can agree with that... But at the end of the day.. Give it a few generations and people would learn, but still have the opportunity to be polygamous if they so choose to, knowing the 'fail-rate'..
Lol, Gworld. You are such a riot. Life of the party. Animal farm, George Orwell, pigs, Ha Ha you just totally crack me up! You're right, what childish quotes! I wouldn't respond to me either. Oh wait, those were quotes written by you... This sentence gave me a bit of a headache, but to clarify for you, it's human nature to like what someone has to say when you agree with them. It should not be a difficult concept for you to understand that people generally tend to like ideas they agree with? You said "marriage is a sign of monogamous devotion", in which I absolutely agree with. Then, you began to post contradictory statements to what your position initially appeared to be. Not really a big deal, nor a concern for me, as people change their mind all the time. The point that seemed odd, is when you began to be a cheerleader for Helvetii, for reasons that are only apparent to you and him. Helvetii is obviously still bothered by an old thread in which I said that head scarfs should not be banned, and this is thread he took the quotes from. Obviously, he feels that I must be a hypocrite because I think head scarfs should be legal and polygamy illegal, and he feels the only proper way to believe is that head scarfs should be illegal and polygamy legal. LOL. Whatever. Honestly, I didn't really feel as though his post was worth my time, but you are right there telling Helvetii - "I have to say; WHAT A POST. xD I enjoyed that one. +REP (Apparently I've given you rep before now, recently? Don't remember where but it means that +rep was bogus." At that point, I started to think hmmm, LOL. Still, I say absolutely nothing to you. Then, you address me specifically in this post... So, I answer. Yet, my response is apparently now making you feel like a victim. BTW, I never said, or insinuated in any way that you are a lesser being than myself. What I did is simply respond to your post. So, now that I've had to explain our entire conversation to you, I'm really tired. Ha Ha. Perhaps we could put each other on mutual ignore? It's ok if you want to get the last word, LOL. Yes, isn't it? @Obamanation, If you want to have a sincere debate on the discriminatory aspects of polygamy, I'm always happy to discuss this with you. Even though I think your support for polygamy is way over the top, I do have a great deal of respect for you, as always. But, I really miss Karl Rove.
This is becaue you have not figured out what is the difference between Communism and USSR. Good way to avoid the discussion but the fact remains that while you call some men scum because they control the women and decide for them, you consider that there is nothing wrong if you decide for them and force them to live the way you think is right because your actions is for their "own good". Every women should have a free will unless you don´t agree with it.
Speaking from personal experience, polygamy is not what many may think it is. 1. In polygamy, it is not a bed of roses for the man. Not by a long way. Imagine having two cars. Paying installments on two cars. Paying maintenance on two cars. And only being able to use one car at a time. That's what polygamy is like for the man. Maintaining two households and yet only able to enjoy the comforts of one at a time. 2. Polygamy benefits the women involved more than the men. The wives enjoy board and lodging full-time yet only have to take care of the husband part-time. Can't think of a better deal. It's like work for three days a week and get paid for seven. One other thing. Love has got nothing whatsoever to do with a successful marriage. Love is a commercial commodity. It sells perfume. It sells novels. It buys Rolls Royces for divorce lawyers. It is over-rated and over-priced. It is created out of nothing and can be exchanged for everything. Men use it to get into the women's panties. Women use it to get into the men's wallets. I am serious. Don't confuse maternal compassion with love. Don't confuse mutual attraction and mutual understanding with love. Don't confuse devotion to God with love. Like I said at the beginning, this is based on my own personal experience. Your experience is not necessarily the same as mine.
I think one can make legitimate complaints about any lifestyle, including homosexuality and heterosexual monogamy. These complaints may even be true, in a general sense, and completely untrue on a case by case basis. I only weigh in on the polygamy issue as it relates to the supreme court overturning the will of the people. In regard to the rightness or wrongness of polygamy and the abuse of women, there are many monogamous relationships that are abusive of women. Abuse is already something that is addressed by the law, so why does the very nature of the relationship needs to be dictated by the state? A relationship is like a partnership. It works until it is no longer mutually equitable. Not very romantic, I know, but its practical. Again, the whole argument changes when it comes to raising children. If the state is involved to assure the next generation of citizens is given the best possible start, then one would turn existing scientific studies, which I suspect will bear out that children have their best shot with two parents in a loving and committed relationship. I highly doubt there is sufficient information available regarding children raised by homosexual couples to support tax subsidies for child rearing. Its just another expanding tax break which started for one reason, but now must be given to everyone. Perhaps I should file suit for disability benefits, even though I'm not disabled. I have no idea what makes the state think it can discriminate against healthy people.
But how much less stressful is divorce in a marriage where the loss of one mommy or daddy is lessened by the presence of three or four redundant mommies and daddies?
If the majority of California wants to legalize gay marriage, I don't see any reason why it can't happen eventually. But, in regards to polygamy, it doesn't appear to be the will of the people. In America, about 91% of the people consider polygamy morally wrong, at least according to the statistics I've found. In regards to making gay marriage legal, about 50% of Americans consider homosexuality wrong, but the trend is moving towards acceptance of homosexuality. If gay marriage is made legal, it does leave an open door for polygamist to protest, but I think they will be soundly rejected. Polygamy is part of an oppressive culture that has historically discriminated against women, and I'm confident that the women's rights movement will rightly fight it tooth and nail. I do support gay marriage, but completely reject polygamy. I don't see it so much as the State dictating the nature of relationships, but as a refusal to recognize, condone, or endorse a discriminatory institution against women. It would not only be importing the belief system of oppressive cultures around the world that treat women as second class citizens, but providing credibility to abusive polygamy cults that currently exist in the United States. If Polygamy became legal, it's extremely unlikely any women raised to be confident in their rights and equality, would be that interested in sharing a man with 5 other sister wives. We could debate that, I don't have any statistics, but do believe I'm right anyway. I strongly believe the effect of legalizing polygamy in the US would first and foremost empower and provide credibility to unofficial polygamists organizations such as the FLDS Church that abuse the rights of women: Bottom line, is that I don't consider polygamy as a marriage choice, I view it as part of an extremely oppressive culture/cult that brainwashes girls from adolescence to be subservient and obedient to men. IMO, this is not something that is, or will necessarily be addressed by the law. I think that you're right, a child would probably be better off with two loving parents. Definitely. You certainly have a strong case, as your Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional rights have obviously been violated.
Try this for a very twisted view of the topic at hand. Polygamy is invented by women who want to be the sole beneficiary of whatever wealth their spouse may have. Polygamy runs counter to nature in general. Where human beings do not interfere with the general scheme of things, the normal composition of any breeding group is one male and many females. Nature is frugal and nature must be doing something right because nature has been around for so long. By comparision, human beings hardly constitute a blip in the course of time. Oops, typo there. Please replace the word "polygamy" with the word "monogamy" up there and you will see what I am talking about. Mind you, it is a very twisted view of the topic at hand and said view is definitely not supported by any laws formulated in legislative councils influenced by women in one way or another.
60 years ago, interracial marriages were considered morally wrong. What you say about polygamy today is based on groups like FLDS, not on the free wheeling orgy loving porn crowd. Anyone whose hung out with hippies for any length of time knows its only a matter of time before your get your turn(works for both sexes). These free loving people have nothing to do with the oppressive cults you are referring to, yet they are punished for their life choices. There is a good chance 50 years from now views will have changed, and they too will be able to enjoy marital bliss(talk about your oxymoron). One thing I noticed was glaringly absent from your response was any comment about the judiciary making this decision for the voters. In fact, you went an extra step to say you thought gay marriage would soon be voted in(and I agree). Do you think the voters should be entrusted to decide these types of moral issues, should the judiciary make the decision for us, or should we not be making laws about marriage whatsoever?
Do you have any examples of this "free wheeling orgy loving porn crowd" that is concerned about legalizing polygamy? When I think of polygamy, nice easy going hippies are the last thing on my mind, and you're absolutely right, I tend to associate the practice of polygamy with oppressive cultures/cults. A. Do you think the voters should be entrusted to decide these types of moral issues? B. Should the judiciary make the decision for us? C. Should we not be making laws about marriage whatsoever? That's a good question. In what I would consider a perfect world, I don't think any of those options completely fits, but lets say D. - No State issued license for anyone? That may seem contradictory to my position on polygamy, but is my most honest answer.
I agree with Rebecca. here is why. I've been in multiple relationships w/ women at one time (all pre marriage). I couldn't deal w/ it. the women couldn't deal w/ it. Those I know who have had multiple relationships at one time have all had problems with it. Every one of them. The only relationships I've seen where this might work are those w/ one person who is completely controlling of his/her mate. In those cases one mate is superior and one is obviously subserviant. That is not a modern Western relationship. The subserviant mate might as well be a slave or a servant. If polygamy is okay in that form of relationship...so be it. Its more a form of serfdom than marriage IMHO.
I've seen it work, but it's definitely not for everyone. Luckily, no one (here) is arguing for it to be mandatory. But hey, monogamy doesn't work for most people and we're also not trying to outlaw that.
Hypocrisy too much? I have got 2 questions for you. Don't avoid them. 1) Do you support free will and freedom of choice? 2) Should women be banned from wearing burqas and police have the power to arrest the ones who do? Waiting for your answers..
If you've seen it work were the parties in the relationships equals or was someone the dominant person in the relationship and the other(s) subserviant?