| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What are the benefits to society; of Polygamous Marriage? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 8 2007, 03:07 PM (1,301 Views) | |
| pianojerome | Jan 8 2007, 07:52 PM Post #26 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
In many cultures, past and present, women didn't (and don't) have much choice in monogomous mariages, either -- nor did (or do), for that matter, many men (arranged marriages). Polygomy just means more than two people in one marriage. |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 8 2007, 07:54 PM Post #27 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I know what it means. Yes, those were ancient marriages. My point is valid. Edit: ok. Srranged marriages still exist, but that's not the issue at hand. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | Jan 8 2007, 07:55 PM Post #28 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
In today's society, women wouldn't be forced into it as they used to be, just as in today's society most men aren't forced into arranged marriages, either. Times have changed. The question is about polygomy as polygomy -- with the assumption that in modern times both women and men who choose such a relationship will not be forced into it any more than they would be forced into any other kind of marriage relationship. |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 8 2007, 07:58 PM Post #29 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Actually, I'm sure some of them would be, just as some are into arranged marriages today. One of my best friends' parents had an arranged marriage, and it took a lot of persuading (sp???) to not force Nina into one. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 8 2007, 08:00 PM Post #30 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Ok, then, I'll use the argument that many have used for gay marriage: why change something that has worked for generations. (Not a very good argument, I know) |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | Jan 8 2007, 08:01 PM Post #31 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
OK. So *regardless* of the type of relationship (monogomy, polygomy, gay, straight, dating, living together, etc), it is probable that at least *some* people will be forced into it, -- but this is not getting us antsy about banning monogomous marriage or dating, just because some people are forced into these relationships, is it? |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 8 2007, 08:03 PM Post #32 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
True. Ok...well, I think polygamy would make men lazy. Unless we're talking about one woman and lots of husbands Equality, and all. If polygamy were made legal, it would have to work both ways.
|
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Jan 8 2007, 08:16 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Sam, I think you're assuming a lot. Read this quote from the opinion of our Supreme Court. It might help you. [size=7]Two principal cases decided after Bowers cast its holding into even more doubt. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows: " These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid. Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.[/size] |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jan 8 2007, 08:17 PM Post #34 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Polygamy has absolutely no place in a modern secular society with universal suffrage and an industrial or post industrial economy. It is an anachronistic remnant of a tribal and semi-nomadic society. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 8 2007, 09:01 PM Post #35 |
|
But if they all do, is the scenario I'm thinking of. |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 8 2007, 09:06 PM Post #36 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Yeah, we got that cleared up. I guess I just automatically think that polygamy = forced marriage. I need to get over that before I can actually think about the thread title. I just can't think why women would do that. Share a husband? Half or less of the work, yes, but it's still weird.
|
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 8 2007, 09:10 PM Post #37 |
|
What if you had 9 males that all consented and wanted to get married to each other...then you have to let them adopt too...etc. At what point do you say enough is enough? I know where I draw the line!
|
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 8 2007, 09:12 PM Post #38 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Me too. My line is gay marriages. No polygamy, no human + animal....just two humans. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jan 8 2007, 09:19 PM Post #39 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Man, that's gonna limit the options for some of the lawyers...... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 8 2007, 09:25 PM Post #40 |
|
You may want to add "unrelated" and "adult" to the characteristics describing these two humans. ![]() |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Jan 8 2007, 09:26 PM Post #41 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
The opening question is given in light of the same sex marriage debate as follows: If you allow one immoral thing (homosexuality) what's to stop you from allowing every other immoral thing (eg polygamy). A hetereosexual person has a legally recognized relationship. A homosexual person does not have a legally recognized relationship. What's at issue is the same right, not a different one. The idea that if you allowed same sex marriage there's nothing to stop you from allowing polygamy assumes the line being proposed is arbitrary. It's not. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 8 2007, 09:37 PM Post #42 |
|
Sure it is. Look at the very lines drawn by LW and I. |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 8 2007, 09:40 PM Post #43 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Errr....right. I was actually going to say 'adult' but I figured people would know what I meant. And, of course unrelated. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| apple | Jan 8 2007, 09:41 PM Post #44 |
|
one of the angels
|
i wouldn't mind having extra wives around.. i so need a free worker and and someone to 'sit in' when i want to practice. |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 8 2007, 09:43 PM Post #45 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'm tired, but I think I understand what you're saying Daniel, and I agree with 89th.
|
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Jan 8 2007, 09:49 PM Post #46 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
No, the arbitrary line being drawn is that heterosexual persons can marry and homosexual persons cannot. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 8 2007, 09:52 PM Post #47 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That is 89ths line. Mine is different, so isn't any law concerning changning the definition of marriage arbitrary? Right now, at least? |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Jan 8 2007, 09:57 PM Post #48 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I know this is not what many on this board want to hear but the line as drawn is arbitrary. Changing it will not be changing it for an arbitrary reason but because the way it is now is a violation of a constitutional law- eg equal protection. Of course I'm talking about the US- that's all I'm familiar with. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 8 2007, 10:02 PM Post #49 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Er...ok, but I still agree with what I quoted from 89th...it is arbirtrary, because many people have differing views, and there are no legal facts about it all....I don't know if that makes sense. Man, I'm soooo tired. I think I'll come back to this thread in the morning. It makes my brain hurt. |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Jan 8 2007, 10:08 PM Post #50 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Well, think about that some more. If it was an arbitrary line then there would be no telling where it should be drawn (or shouldn't). |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |






Unless we're talking about one woman and lots of husbands
Equality, and all. If polygamy were made legal, it would have to work both ways.

I need to get over that before I can actually think about the thread title. I just can't think why women would do that. Share a husband? Half or less of the work, yes, but it's still weird.



6:40 AM Jul 11