Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 11/27/2007 5:23:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/27/2007 5:24:29 PM EDT by Sweep]
I'm a Robert Heinlein fan and Polygamy is a common theme in a lot of his books.

Polygamy of course being defined as having many wifes and many husbands and not polygyny ( 1 husband several wives) or polyandry, ( 1 wife several husbands).

Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.

Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:24:59 PM EDT
Cons?

Multiple women bitching at you.

Multiple women wanting in your wallet.

Multiple women wanting late night trips to the drugstore for tampons.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:25:37 PM EDT
Well look who it is...
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:28:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:


Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.




How would it benfit society ?
dont you think we have enough messed up kids, with all of the divorce in our society.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:40:41 PM EDT
Pro: Lotsa wimmen. You get to choose.

Con: Lotsa wimmen. You get henpecked by the pack.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:42:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
Well look who it is...


Yeah, where the hell have you been, anyway?
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:44:18 PM EDT
Nothing wrong with it at all. Silly that there are laws against it. To tell you the truth, my wife has indicated that she would not at all be against it, given the right fit. But, we don't have any religious basis for this, so to me, I simply see the downside: TOO MANY WOMMENZ! I love my wife, but she's all the wife I need, or can handle. Two? More? No, thank you.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:45:13 PM EDT
Synchronistic Cycles
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:47:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 4v50:
Pro: Lotsa wimmen. You get to choose.

Con: Lotsa wimmen. You get henpecked by the pack.


This is why only ONE shares the bed each night and the rest stay in the harem all day.

Also, who would be stupid enough to educate them? Then they think their opinion matters. All they should know is that their job is to cook, clean, take care of any children, and let you stick it in whenever you want. Otherwise you'll wake up one day and they're strangling you with your own intestines.

Sheesh. Learn how polygyny works. If you're gonna be an evil dictator bent on ruling the world like me, you gotta know these things.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:50:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By walttx:

Originally Posted By Sweep:


Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.




How would it benfit society ?
dont you think we have enough messed up kids, with all of the divorce in our society.


Exactly. Personally I think children would be better off in a large multiple family than being torn between two bickering parents. Why not have multiple wives and husband. Maybe everyone wouldn't get bored having to go to bed with the same person every single night and there would be less heart ache all the way around.

Pipe dream I know because I'm not willig to take that step. This is just purely hypothetical.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:50:53 PM EDT
If you can pay for them and the spawn you create good for you. I don't have a particular problem with monogomy, but I could see how others may want to expand. Having multiple adults in the family could have economic benefits, and you could do the Blonde, Brunette, Redhead thing without cheating.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:51:09 PM EDT
Im sorry, but you would be okay with another man fucking your wife/SO/PERSON YOU SUPPOSEDLY LOVE in the ass?


Multiple "partners" in a relationship tends to turn them into "objects".
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:51:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
Well look who it is...


Howdy!

Saw a hogs head on the side of the road about 2 weeks ago. Made me think of you and TRG.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:53:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
Well look who it is...


Yeah, where the hell have you been, anyway?


Sold the Chimney Sweeping business and went to work for an engineering firm. Where I use to work 60-80 hour work weeks 6 months out of the year, I've been working them year round lately but with a couple of promotions it's starting to slow down again for me. ...so I decided to start wasting time here again.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:53:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By F22_RaptoR:
Im sorry, but you would be okay with another man fucking your wife/SO/PERSON YOU SUPPOSEDLY LOVE in the ass?


Multiple "partners" in a relationship tends to turn them into "objects".


That's one way of looking at it, but not the only way.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:55:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By F22_RaptoR:
Im sorry, but you would be okay with another man fucking your wife/SO/PERSON YOU SUPPOSEDLY LOVE in the ass?


Multiple "partners" in a relationship tends to turn them into "objects".


Where did you read into my original post that anal sex was involved?

...and a lot of you are forgetting about the fact there are multiple husbands and not just multiple wives so there's plenty of sharing in the hen pecking.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 5:55:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By walttx:

Originally Posted By Sweep:


Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.




How would it benfit society ?
dont you think we have enough messed up kids, with all of the divorce in our society.


Exactly. Personally I think children would be better off in a large multiple family than being torn between two bickering parents. Why not have multiple wives and husband. Maybe everyone wouldn't get bored having to go to bed with the same person every single night and there would be less heart ache all the way around.

Pipe dream I know because I'm not willig to take that step. This is just purely hypothetical.


It didn't work for dumbass 'it takes a village' hippies, and it won't work for you. A child needs a stable relationship with TWO parents.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 6:00:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By walttx:

Originally Posted By Sweep:


Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.




How would it benfit society ?
dont you think we have enough messed up kids, with all of the divorce in our society.


Exactly. Personally I think children would be better off in a large multiple family than being torn between two bickering parents. Why not have multiple wives and husband. Maybe everyone wouldn't get bored having to go to bed with the same person every single night and there would be less heart ache all the way around.

Pipe dream I know because I'm not willig to take that step. This is just purely hypothetical.


It didn't work for dumbass 'it takes a village' hippies, and it won't work for you. A child needs a stable relationship with TWO parents.


Hippies didn't practice polygamy. They practiced "free love" which spread all kinds of filth.

Polygamy is where you enter an arangement with several other people as a "spouse" and you are committed to just that group. True polygamy could would have to be at least two husbands and two wives or any variation of those four or more. However, unlike the hippies who just got together and had orgies, polygamy is an economic unit and "family" based.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 6:01:13 PM EDT
Just watch "Big Love" and see how fun having multiple wives can be. Personally I don't care how you live as long as you leave me alone. To each their own.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 6:04:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ZuIu:
Cons?

Multiple women bitching at you.

Multiple women wanting in your wallet.

Multiple women wanting late night trips to the drugstore for tampons.


You left out "Multiple mother-in-laws"!

Link Posted: 11/27/2007 6:04:09 PM EDT
One woman is bad enough. A group of them....good god thats concentrated evil right there.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 6:06:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/27/2007 6:07:19 PM EDT by Gartchen]
the real deal.

Read up on a place called Pinesdale, MT - a little hillside town about 35 miles South of Missoula, Montana.

The real deal is a lot of uneducated, brainwashed , YOUNG girls being rushed into marriage with older - usually quite bizarre males. The children coming out of this town are SIMPLE, at best.

Incest and Child rape come to mind as well.

Joseph Smith got the whole ball rolling with the "missing?" tablets - seemed the only real way he could get into that young girl's pants and have her parents go along.

Pretty strange that an ENTIRE religion was based on sex with a child. And even more shamful it is allowed to go on today at the cost of these lost youngs girl's lives.

I would use the term Pedo...but i don't want to upset anyone.

Link Posted: 11/27/2007 6:12:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gartchen:
the real deal.

Read up on a place called Pinesdale, MT - a little hillside town about 35 miles South of Missoula, Montana.

The real deal is a lot of uneducated, brainwashed , YOUNG girls being rushed into marriage with older - usually quite bizarre males. The children coming out of this town are SIMPLE, at best.

Incest and Child rape come to mind as well.

Joseph Smith got the whole ball rolling with the "missing?" tablets - seemed the only real way he could get into that young girl's pants and have her parents go along.

Pretty strange that an ENTIRE religion was based on sex with a child. And even more shamful it is allowed to go on today at the cost of these lost youngs girl's lives.

I would use the term Pedo...but i don't want to upset anyone.





Believe everything you read and hear, don't you?

Polygamy -- or more accurately, polygyny -- as practiced by Mormons in the 1800's was a far cry from what is practiced today.

But I realize you probably don't know anything about Mormons other than lurid, unsubstantiated tales so I'll let it go at that.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 6:14:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:


Where the hell have you been?!


Originally Posted By ZuIu:
Cons?

Multiple women bitching at you. Keep the pimp hand strong.

Multiple women wanting in your wallet. They can share. One woman often buys enough for 20 women. Only difference here is that the clothes will be put to use.

Multiple women wanting late night trips to the drugstore for tampons. There's more women than man, they should be able to remember on their own... If not, tough.


Besides...
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 6:16:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GarandM1:


Believe everything you read and hear, don't you?

Polygamy -- or more accurately, polygyny -- as practiced by Mormons in the 1800's was a far cry from what is practiced today.

But I realize you probably don't know anything about Mormons other than lurid, unsubstantiated tales so I'll let it go at that.


GarandM1
Member



Joined :: April 2007
Post Number :: 2225


UT, USA

Uh-oh
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 6:30:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gartchen:
the real deal.

Read up on a place called Pinesdale, MT - a little hillside town about 35 miles South of Missoula, Montana.

The real deal is a lot of uneducated, brainwashed , YOUNG girls being rushed into marriage with older - usually quite bizarre males. The children coming out of this town are SIMPLE, at best.

Incest and Child rape come to mind as well.

Joseph Smith got the whole ball rolling with the "missing?" tablets - seemed the only real way he could get into that young girl's pants and have her parents go along.

Pretty strange that an ENTIRE religion was based on sex with a child. And even more shamful it is allowed to go on today at the cost of these lost youngs girl's lives.

I would use the term Pedo...but i don't want to upset anyone.



That would be wrong and is not what I'm talking about.

Honestly, I can't think of any examples of the polygamy that I'm talking about except for what's described in Robert A. Heinlein's novels. Basically it's adults entering into the marraige of their own free will, no reliegous reasons.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 7:16:08 PM EDT
Why would you get married if you are going to have multiple spouses?
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 7:24:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By walttx:

Originally Posted By Sweep:


Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.




How would it benfit society ?
dont you think we have enough messed up kids, with all of the divorce in our society.


Well, I would define "true polygamy" as being polygyny (which, as already stated in this thread, is one man married to two or more women at the same time) and geniune polygyny would, in fact, benefit society.

Allow me to explain.

First of all, if modern society accepted polygyny (as opposed to polyandry or run-of-the-mill swinging), it would help society as a whole because it would remove (for the most part) one of the primary causes of divorce: adulterous affairs. Why sneak around and have an adulterous affair when society accepts open and honest polygyny? If a man desires a new wife (for whatever reason) but doesn't desire to divorce his present wife then he should be free to do so (but it shouldn't be forced on anyone----ESPECIALLY his current wife----as it should be completely consensual between all parties ) .

Polygyny would also strengthen society because it would encourage and develop large strong families which would develop strong bonds between all family members. Polygynous families would have a father present and they would have at least 2 mothers as well. These families would also have numerous children who would (again, for the most part) develop strong ties with each other in much the same way monogamous families do today. This, in turn, would naturally lead to the development of a stronger nation.

It would also help economically because more than two paychecks can be included and accounted for in the overall family budget plus it would allow for one of the mothers to stay at home and care for the children if she desired to do so. Let's say, for example, a man is married to 3 women. The man could be the primary bread winner while wife #1 and #2 could (if they desired to) seek full time careers while wife #3 (again, if she desired to) could stay at home and take care of the house and the children. Plus, with 3 wives, no one wife would be forced to care for the house all by herself as she would have additional help that would come via the other wives as well as some of the older children who could be given the responsibility to help assist around the home (by assisting with the cooking and laundry, for example).

The above would all be true (90+ percent of the time) in genuine polygynous families because the whole point of polygyny is to be involved in committed relationships. If being involved in multiple committed relationships (at the same time) isn't desired then why get involved in polygyny in the first place? People who don't desire that kind of relationship will, naturally, avoid polygynous relationships. Those who do get involved in polygynous relationships will be able to do so with full knowledge of what will be expected of them (by society, as a whole). Obviously, strong commitment to (and from) all involved parties will be the primary societal expectation. Those who are willing to give that simultaneous commitment (to their several marriage partners and the children which come from them) may be attracted to polygyny whereas those who don't desire polygyny (and the committment it would require) would, naturally, avoid it.

Women, as a whole, would benefit from polygyny because they would be free to seek out and marry men who have already proven to be successful husbands and fathers rather than being forced to basically except the also-rans that monogamy only societies force them to except currently. Men would have to work harder in courting a wife because "the guy across the street" is no longer "off the market" simply because he already has one wife. This, in the end, benefits women because they would be free to seek out and marry the cream of the crop. In a polygynous society, no woman would be forced into lifelong singlehood because "the guy across the street" or "the guy at work" already has a wife. Now, he could two, three, four or as many wives as he is willing (or able) to support.


FYI: I am currently a southern baptist and not a mormon (and never have been a mormon) and I am coming at this issue from the perspective of a person who was raised as a lifelong southern baptist (despite the fact that most main line denominations---including the SBC---currently reject all forms of polygamy). The reason I mention this is because, inevitably, mormonism (in particular) and religion (in general) and many of their related precepts and excepted practices (of christianity, as a general rule) are introduced into the polygamy debate. So, for the sake of full disclosure, I wanted to include the perspective of which I was coming from in the hope that I could answer that question before (or if) it arose in this thread.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:01:24 PM EDT
Having dealt with the offspring of a certain group out of southern Utah, (I'm trying to be delicate here) these people were not 'pleasing to the eye'. Not the kid's fault they were butt ugly, males and females.

And in every known situation, the young males were pushed out of the nest, leaving the young females for a bunch of old reprobates.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:04:07 PM EDT
Um...STDs?
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:07:13 PM EDT
Pro: sex with lots of wimmnz is hawt. Plus, they can't cut you off as a power play, they must compete for your favor.

Con: If I happen to lose out and not get a woman because you have 12, I'm coming to kill you and take yours. Nothing personal, this is just what happens in every polygamous society. See, e.g., the last 10,000 years of Middle East history.

Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:09:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pale_pony:
Synchronistic Cycles


My first thought.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:10:59 PM EDT
Short term fun traded for long term destruction.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:23:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SevenPaul7:
Having dealt with the offspring of a certain group out of southern Utah, (I'm trying to be delicate here) these people were not 'pleasing to the eye'. Not the kid's fault they were butt ugly, males and females.

And in every known situation, the young males were pushed out of the nest, leaving the young females for a bunch of old reprobates.


Some good points. I would like to bring some historical perspective into this.

Polygany in Utah 150 years ago was very different than today for a number of reasons. First of all, there was no government welfare or entitlement system to exploit like there is today. So if a man was going to marry more than one woman he better be confident that he could provide for her.

Contrast that to how modern polygamist abuse the system: www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2142621

Secondly, polygamy (polygany) wasn't illegal 150 years ago. So the communities weren't living "underground" at the time and weren't havens for predators.

Contrast that to today where polygamy is illegal but for years law enforcement hasn't wanted to prosecute it or even touch the issue if they can possibly avoid it. The result is that these modern polygamist communities operate largely under the radar and are havens for people who prey on women and children.


Having pointed those things out, I'm not advocating that people choose a polygamist lifestyle. Just showing how it is logically incorrect to look at how most polygamist communities operate today and assume that it was lived the same way 150 years ago.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:25:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:


Believe everything you read and hear, don't you?

Polygamy -- or more accurately, polygyny -- as practiced by Mormons in the 1800's was a far cry from what is practiced today.

But I realize you probably don't know anything about Mormons other than lurid, unsubstantiated tales so I'll let it go at that.


GarandM1
Member



Joined :: April 2007
Post Number :: 2225


UT, USA

Uh-oh


1GUNRUNNER,

I've noticed that the majority of your posts are to contribute nothing but take unprovoked potshots at others.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:27:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

Originally Posted By Gartchen:
the real deal.

Read up on a place called Pinesdale, MT - a little hillside town about 35 miles South of Missoula, Montana.

The real deal is a lot of uneducated, brainwashed , YOUNG girls being rushed into marriage with older - usually quite bizarre males. The children coming out of this town are SIMPLE, at best.

Incest and Child rape come to mind as well.

Joseph Smith got the whole ball rolling with the "missing?" tablets - seemed the only real way he could get into that young girl's pants and have her parents go along.

Pretty strange that an ENTIRE religion was based on sex with a child. And even more shamful it is allowed to go on today at the cost of these lost youngs girl's lives.

I would use the term Pedo...but i don't want to upset anyone.





Believe everything you read and hear, don't you?

Polygamy -- or more accurately, polygyny -- as practiced by Mormons in the 1800's was a far cry from what is practiced today.

But I realize you probably don't know anything about Mormons other than lurid, unsubstantiated tales so I'll let it go at that.


Gartchen does seem rather gullible to spew all that out.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:30:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By F22_RaptoR:
Im sorry, but you would be okay with another man fucking your wife/SO/PERSON YOU SUPPOSEDLY LOVE in the ass?


Multiple "partners" in a relationship tends to turn them into "objects".


Where did you read into my original post that anal sex was involved?

...and a lot of you are forgetting about the fact there are multiple husbands and not just multiple wives so there's plenty of sharing in the hen pecking.


Yeah that usually only occurs before the wedding, not after!
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:41:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2007 1:55:24 PM EDT by wise_jake]
As a strong believer in freedom of contract, it's hard for me to see problems ("cons") in any agreement entered into by two adults capable of informed consent.


ETA: No more than you see dealing with any other types of contracts, that is. And we give those legitimacy.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:42:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
Well look who it is...

Yeah, where the hell have you been, anyway?

No shit. I almost fell out when I saw you post in the other thread, and now I see you in two threads in two days.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:46:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By walttx:

Originally Posted By Sweep:
Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.

How would it benfit society ?
dont you think we have enough messed up kids, with all of the divorce in our society.

Exactly. Personally I think children would be better off in a large multiple family than being torn between two bickering parents. Why not have multiple wives and husband. Maybe everyone wouldn't get bored having to go to bed with the same person every single night and there would be less heart ache all the way around.

Pipe dream I know because I'm not willig to take that step. This is just purely hypothetical.

Hypothetically it would/could work well as long as the kids don't outnumber the parents (or at least by much).

The two of us have enough trouble with two kids, one about to be 2 and the other just turned 4.

When the mother-in-law comes to visit, the workload decreases exponentially and the wife and I actually have "free" time.

I'd imagine it'd be similar if it was another spouse instead of a mother-in-law.

Add another spouse (and no more kids) and they wouldn't be outnumbered, and the wife and I could even sneak away for an evening out together once in a while.

Once a month would be more frequently than we're presently able.....
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:47:52 PM EDT
Several years ago I worked with some South Africans and they practice this, they had a saying;

"One wife is trouble, Two wives are trouble and three or more wives are hormony"

They believed if you had at least three then at least one of them was in the mood.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:51:48 PM EDT
Personally I don't think it should be illegal. They liked it in the Old Testament to take care of widows.

I don't think I would participate in it. I neglect my one wife enough.

And other posters have made a good case, the real life examples I see here in America makes it look like older men abusing young girls.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:56:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By F22_RaptoR:
Im sorry, but you would be okay with another man fucking your wife/SO/PERSON YOU SUPPOSEDLY LOVE in the ass?

Multiple "partners" in a relationship tends to turn them into "objects".

You need to have done the required reading in order to properly understand the concept of [for example] "line marriages".
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 1:58:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By F22_RaptoR:
Multiple "partners" in a relationship tends to turn them into "objects".


i am ok with this
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 2:03:37 PM EDT
My wife is annoying as fuck as it is... why the hell would I want another one?
~Dg84
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 2:06:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:

Originally Posted By Sweep:

Originally Posted By walttx:

Originally Posted By Sweep:


Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with.




How would it benfit society ?
dont you think we have enough messed up kids, with all of the divorce in our society.


Exactly. Personally I think children would be better off in a large multiple family than being torn between two bickering parents. Why not have multiple wives and husband. Maybe everyone wouldn't get bored having to go to bed with the same person every single night and there would be less heart ache all the way around.

Pipe dream I know because I'm not willig to take that step. This is just purely hypothetical.


It didn't work for dumbass 'it takes a village' hippies, and it won't work for you. A child needs a stable relationship with TWO parents.


It's certainly never worked for any tribal groups.

As long as those 2 figureheads are in the picture, everything else is GRAVY. (Unless old uncle filmore takes a liking to your young daughter, obv)
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 2:07:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gartchen:
the real deal.

Read up on a place called Pinesdale, MT - a little hillside town about 35 miles South of Missoula, Montana.

The real deal is a lot of uneducated, brainwashed , YOUNG girls being rushed into marriage with older - usually quite bizarre males. The children coming out of this town are SIMPLE, at best.

Incest and Child rape come to mind as well.

Joseph Smith got the whole ball rolling with the "missing?" tablets - seemed the only real way he could get into that young girl's pants and have her parents go along.

Pretty strange that an ENTIRE religion was based on sex with a child. And even more shamful it is allowed to go on today at the cost of these lost youngs girl's lives.

I would use the term Pedo...but i don't want to upset anyone.



The profundity of the ignorance this post displays is truly dazzling.

Do you put effort into being clueless? It seems impossible one could come by such a degree of cluelessness naturally.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 2:09:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 4v50:
Pro: Lotsa wimmen. You get to choose.

Con: Lotsa wimmen. You get henpecked by the pack.



Young and naive


You don't get to choose, they choose for you when they are not PMS'ing, raggin' or just pissed off because were with one of the others.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 2:27:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 2:30:15 PM EDT
Watch the show "Big Love" and you will quickly see the cons.
Link Posted: 11/28/2007 2:31:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By SevenPaul7:
Having dealt with the offspring of a certain group out of southern Utah, (I'm trying to be delicate here) these people were not 'pleasing to the eye'. Not the kid's fault they were butt ugly, males and females.

And in every known situation, the young males were pushed out of the nest, leaving the young females for a bunch of old reprobates.


Some good points. I would like to bring some historical perspective into this.

Polygany in Utah 150 years ago was very different than today for a number of reasons. First of all, there was no government welfare or entitlement system to exploit like there is today. So if a man was going to marry more than one woman he better be confident that he could provide for her.

Contrast that to how modern polygamist abuse the system: www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2142621

Secondly, polygamy (polygany) wasn't illegal 150 years ago. So the communities weren't living "underground" at the time and weren't havens for predators.

Contrast that to today where polygamy is illegal but for years law enforcement hasn't wanted to prosecute it or even touch the issue if they can possibly avoid it. The result is that these modern polygamist communities operate largely under the radar and are havens for people who prey on women and children.


Having pointed those things out, I'm not advocating that people choose a polygamist lifestyle. Just showing how it is logically incorrect to look at how most polygamist communities operate today and assume that it was lived the same way 150 years ago.



Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah or Arizona, but bigamy is. These splinter sects from the LDS Church (and some other faiths), have found a LEGAL way to practice what, for them, is a faith-based mandate towards procreation.

i.e., "go forth and multiply.

Some of these social practices are not so unusual in human history.

The forced inequality of the women, and suppression of their education while growing up, to forcibly and effectively indoctrinate them into a set of beliefs that they may not otherwise hold, is wrong.

But any adults that freely choose to practice this type of social-construct marriage aren't harming society by their behavior any more than monogamous couples.

If the marriage (plural or single) provides a stable, safe, caring environment for the children, and the adults honor and respect each other, society always benefits.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top