Polygyamy

[PopCulturePooka]

Its illegal pretty much everywhere in the free world.

Why?

Honest to god question.

Why is it illegal? Who does it hurt?

Is this yet another law that comes from bible based nonsense?

[valentine]

Obviously because then everyone would be married to everyone else, and we would really be in a pickle then, wouldn't we?

[Daishikaze]

Why do you ask? Are you in trouble Pooka? J/K :D

I don't know why, but I'm happy with my one woman, so I don't really care

[Pierrot le Fou]

For a variety of reasons, going from Christian morality nonsense, to social planning by governments. There is a vested interest by governments in population increases, and productive children and parenting.

The latter makes sense if you consider the fact that when most (all?) Western/first-world countries cut out the monogamy, men were the primary wage-earners, and with the costs of education and the labours of parenting, a man probably wouldn't be having more children with two women than he would with one, it isn't any more beneficial to the state to have a father with two wives over one, let alone 10 wives over one.

That doesn't make it right, but it could help as an explanation.

[NERD]

What's the point of polygamy when you can go around and sleep with women without marrying them, like Unkie Hugh?

[Jiant Flying Panda]

Hmmmmm. Polygyamy is the one with multiple wives right? (I always confuse it with the other one)

Anyways.

I think making it illegal is a good thing. Not like out of ethics but if you think about it in thr long run it would reduce population overgrowth.... Or I think it would at least :confused:

[Deadhead]

I dunno, it sounds like a good idea in theory, but the reality isnt that appealing.

There is a ton of inbreeding because of it, and sometimes it rolls over into child molestation. At least with the Mormons anyways.

[NERD]

I really don't know much about ill effects of polygamy, but what if they all had their PMS on the same time? Even worse, they rotate it...

[Shamu]

I've seen some stories on it and it just seems complicated. I mean, the guy had to keep a schedule to see what wife he was going to sleep with on a given night and he had to feed all of them, and clothe all of them, not to mention the bazillion kids he had! If he gave one wife something, he had to get them all something (imagine having 10 wives that all loved Tiffany's and the home shopping network!:p )
It just seems like a big complicated mess!
I know there are some cultures that this is exceptible in, and thats fine for them, but it seems more trouble than it's really worth (and really expensive too). :D

[Ahimsa]

Its illegal pretty much everywhere in the free world.

Why?

Honest to god question.

Why is it illegal? Who does it hurt?

Is this yet another law that comes from bible based nonsense?



Number one, I will not be objectified by a man and treated like a piece of property. I will not be one of 6 other wives and be considered Tuesday's vagina. Secondly, a man cannot provide the emotional support and attention for one woman as it is now..how the hell do you expect him to provide it for 7 wives? LMAO. Now if we bring a dozen children or so into the picture, how the bloody hell would he provide for them monetarily, emotionally, etc. I think polygamy is nothing but a preverse male fantasy that is retarded....just retarded, lol. Now let's talk about Monogamy.....what would you think if a female had 7 husbands? Lucky? Or would we call her a whore? O.o Anywho, the man I am sleeping with better only be sharing his thing with one vagina at a time = MINE, LOL!

So that's my 2 cents on that. lol >.<

[Pierrot le Fou]

Polygamy makes perfect sense in a developing country in which education is still remedial, and wealth is built through substinence farming and tending to the lands of the parents. In that case more kids mean more labour, which means better use of the land. Sure they have to feed them, but the benefit for one kid is more than the cost it takes to feed that kid, so in the long run it works out.

One man can impregnate as many women as he wants. One woman can only be pregnant one time. It ain't some perverse male fantasy, it is a concept developed in a time when population growth was pretty durned important methinks.

[Ahimsa]

Polygamy makes perfect sense in a developing country in which education is still remedial, and wealth is built through substinence farming and tending to the lands of the parents. In that case more kids mean more labour, which means better use of the land. Sure they have to feed them, but the benefit for one kid is more than the cost it takes to feed that kid, so in the long run it works out.

One man can impregnate as many women as he wants. One woman can only be pregnant one time. It ain't some perverse male fantasy, it is a concept developed in a time when population growth was pretty durned important methinks.

ahhh, but it has no business in modern civilized nations. Most of us aren't living off the land, needing more hands to work the farms and take care of the chickens. In the past it may have been necessary to help build the population, but in modern America or other modernized nations - pffffttt! lol

[Pierrot le Fou]

Why not?

If a man can support two or ten wives, who all not only want to marry him, but don't mind not being the only one, and can support the children who are born from those marriages, what's the problem? It's not hurting anyone. I'd argue that unmarried parents in low-income areas are a far bigger problem than polygamous marriages are. And who are we to legislate something like that? Why? What's the point?

Why the Hell is it that people always want to illegalize anything that they wouldn't do themselves, or think isn't 'civilized' even when it doesn't hurt anyone else?

[Ahimsa]

No man alive can emotionally support that many people....it wouldn't be fair to the women or the children =/ And besides, unless your are the Prince of Saudi Arabia, Donald Trump, or Bill Gates, how are you going to afford to take care of that many women and put that many kids through college? O.o Most of the polygamous relationships that are located in Utah are all extremely poor and are at least partially supported by the government. None of them our proper providers.

[Pierrot le Fou]

It's the job of a man to support everyone around him emotionally? In that case, Japanese men shouldn't be able to get married if they're working in a salaried position in an office, because they can't even support THEMSELVES emotionally.

Furthermore, NOBODY is under an obligation to put their kids through college. Otherwise you'd be sitting here and talking about how single mothers are a man's perverse fantasy.

You're not making an argument based on any rational logic, you're making an argument based on the fact that you find it ridiculous that others would want to do that, and therefore we should illegalize the ability to do it. Screw the fact that it may suit some men and women perfectly, and won't likely harm anyone.

[hapacheese]

Actually, Mormons no longer (and according to some Mormon friends, it was never really a part of "mainstream" Mormon culture) condone polygamy...

My personal feeling is that I don't like polygamy as an idea. However, I have to ask Ahimsa this question: do you need a man for emotional support? There are a lot of tribes of "primitive" peoples that still persist today where the burden of raising children is not placed on the mother, but the village as a whole. If that were the case - if you could trust your neighbors with your children - would you necessarily need the singular support of your husband?

To further Pierrot's point, if you're a developing country, the financial needs of a family would not be anything significant... Therefore, a single man would be able to provide.


That being said, the way our society is right *now*, it would cause too many emotional (and legal) issues. Given the way humans are biologically built, there isn't anything unnatural about it, say, but we've grown dependent on each other as individuals, making it difficult to face sharing our loved one with others.

[Daishikaze]

OK, but lets put the shoe on the other foot shall we?

Why can't a woman do the same? Why can't she hava a male harem?

Would you guys be comfortable sharing a woman with who knows how many other guys? I sure as hell wouldn't, and I don't think there are many women who would want to share their man with who knows how many other women either

[hapacheese]

Of course not :) I could argue that biologically (for procreation purposes, that is), it's more natural for a man to have multiple partners, but that's not what you're talking about. (Just a quick side note: Men are built for physical labor and violence... Is it any wonder that we protect our women and let our young men die? That's because it only takes a few men, but a whole lot of women to properly rebuilt a population.)

Like I said, we've grown too emotionally dependent on each other and have expectations to be able to argue this reasonably in modern society. I think what Pierrot (and to some degree, I, as well) has been arguing is that it's not necessarily unnatural, but rather, we are taught to be monogamous. This is not a judgement on which is better or worse - simply what is.

[Pierrot le Fou]

OK, but lets put the shoe on the other foot shall we?

Why can't a woman do the same? Why can't she hava a male harem?

Would you guys be comfortable sharing a woman with who knows how many other guys? I sure as hell wouldn't, and I don't think there are many women who would want to share their man with who knows how many other women either
Just because I won't be a part of woman's male-harem doesn't mean I oppose polygamy for women. It just means I wouldn't choose to partake in it.

If the laws regarding polygamy required the permission of all current marriages for these people before going forward, then what's the problem with it? The only danger I can see in allowing polygamy is getting married to a woman who states she is looking for monogamy, and then sneaks out in the night and gets married at an Elvis chapel to a second man, and I'm forced to put up with it despite not having chosen it.

[Ahimsa]

It's the job of a man to support everyone around him emotionally? In that case, Japanese men shouldn't be able to get married if they're working in a salaried position in an office, because they can't even support THEMSELVES emotionally.

Furthermore, NOBODY is under an obligation to put their kids through college. Otherwise you'd be sitting here and talking about how single mothers are a man's perverse fantasy.

You're not making an argument based on any rational logic, you're making an argument based on the fact that you find it ridiculous that others would want to do that, and therefore we should illegalize the ability to do it. Screw the fact that it may suit some men and women perfectly, and won't likely harm anyone.


Hmmmm... If my logic is so irrational, why isn't pologamy more popular?? Because it just doesn't work in today's modern society of free thinking and increased woman's rights. You may not be required to pay for your child's tuition, but you are required to take care of them and provide for them - which requires a hell of a lot of money (have you examined the cost of diapers, toys, clothing, etc? Not to mention little Johnie or Sally may want to do Karate or join Ballet). By lacking the appropriate income to provide for excessive amounts of children, you are denying them opportunities in life. Hmmmm....how would you provide transportation for these kids? You would need multiple cars and OMG the price of gas! We are all bitching about that...imagine dragging all those wives and kids around to places. Easy for a man to defend this idea, since he isn't the one sitting at home all day dealing with a room full of bitchy women and crying babies living in substandard conditions. My argument isn't so much for the morality of a man being with a bunch of women, it is more for the sake of women and children in this environment. The psychological effects on those children is most concerning to me. Do you honestly think each child would get the appropriate amount of time with their father? If you wanna go fuck a bunch of women go do it....all the power to you, but if you wanna fuck up a bunch of children, you don't have my support there. But this is a free country where we are free to think as we please, so let me think what I want and you think what you want. We aren't changing worldviews in this forum....just individual's minds....so your resistance to anti-polygamy laws is futile! LoL, this is all in good fun, I hope you take no real offense to what I say here, I mean no disrespect to ya. =)

[chgu]

Just putting in a comment here.

I don't like how everything is put on the man, including the idea of having multiple partners. There are plenty of women who would want more than one husband. It's about equal on both sides, besides the obvious limits to reproduction.

If anything, I'd rather only let women have multiple husbands. I don't really see anything wrong with that, if you take out the problem of men being possessive(and diseases, of course). But when a man knocks up a bunch of women, it obviously becomes a problem. In today's world, at least.

I dunno, I've never been the possessive type. And that probably didn't make much sense, but you get the idea...I hope.

[akitaka]

In recent months I've read in the news on a polygamist village within Colorado City (Arizona) being shut down, of which had troubles in both financial and marital levels. The apparent leader was quite abusive/chauvinistic, and is a wanted man, along with numerous followers.
Cases like these show a lot of what polygamy is like in a developed nation, where most kids are raised in a fashion to support their own insterests, rather than the needs of others. With this said, in a developed nation, this could pose a serious problem, as it's a concept like communism; a system that's easily abused.

Personally I think that, while the problems are mutally caused, that women (being higher in number) in polygamist relationships should really know when to put their feet down. Think lion prides; if the male is seen as weak, than the females instinctually chose a 'better' male. I'm not condoning in polygamy as a general system for our relationship/economic well-being, but I'm just saying that it's on responsibility of the people, rather than the figmentous concept.

With this, law is a very dicey thing. Knowing the way in which our society is. Being taught that monogamy is good >>> cheating is bad >>> polygamy is taboo only makes it more difficult.
As a personal preference I'd find it to be too much trouble to relate with multiple women; but if I were a super-religious man supporting polygamy, then that opinion may have been the opposite out of what I learned, and not of what I truely think.

It's responsibility that most men will not live up. At least not myself.

[DarkFire168]

I feel that if I can't comfortably make a woman happy I shouldn't be with her, and who could take care of two women at once?

Women are inscrutible enough as it is, just thinking about dating more than one at once is insanely difficult to tolerate.

[Tssss..]

honestly, can you imagine if two or three of the wives decided to divorce the guy all at once? his finances would be fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked.

but on another note, i think its not a good idea for several reasons. for one, there is the risk of sexual disease. if just one of those woman had a disease, it would be spread to the rest of them through the husband. thats a problem with guys that cheat too.

also it degrades women to make them out like that. regardless of whether they're willing to be treated like they are only a physical comfort for a man or not, that doesn't make it ok to allow them to be treated that way.

there are also financial reasons. what if he dies? is the money split between the wives and the kids? what if they divorce? then all of their finances would be ruined. beyond that, housing for that many people would be outrageous. its already difficult to own a home for most people unless they have a good job. it would be insane trying to house that many wives. especially once they have kids. the norm right now is 2.5 kids. so if even if there were only two wives that would mean two wives, one husband, and 5 kids. thats 8 rooms.

i can think of other stuff. but i'm too tired right now.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Hmmmm... If my logic is so irrational, why isn't pologamy more popular?? Because it just doesn't work in today's modern society of free thinking and increased woman's rights. You may not be required to pay for your child's tuition, but you are required to take care of them and provide for them - which requires a hell of a lot of money (have you examined the cost of diapers, toys, clothing, etc? Not to mention little Johnie or Sally may want to do Karate or join Ballet). By lacking the appropriate income to provide for excessive amounts of children, you are denying them opportunities in life. Hmmmm....how would you provide transportation for these kids? You would need multiple cars and OMG the price of gas! We are all bitching about that...imagine dragging all those wives and kids around to places. Easy for a man to defend this idea, since he isn't the one sitting at home all day dealing with a room full of bitchy women and crying babies living in substandard conditions. My argument isn't so much for the morality of a man being with a bunch of women, it is more for the sake of women and children in this environment. The psychological effects on those children is most concerning to me. Do you honestly think each child would get the appropriate amount of time with their father? If you wanna go fuck a bunch of women go do it....all the power to you, but if you wanna fuck up a bunch of children, you don't have my support there. But this is a free country where we are free to think as we please, so let me think what I want and you think what you want. We aren't changing worldviews in this forum....just individual's minds....so your resistance to anti-polygamy laws is futile! LoL, this is all in good fun, I hope you take no real offense to what I say here, I mean no disrespect to ya. =)
Why isn't polygamy more popular? Because it's been demonized, illegalized, and de-socialized from our consciousness for the past 100+ years. That's like asking why cocaine addiction isn't more popular. A hundred years ago, you could buy cocaine freely, it was considered medicine, and very few viewed those who partook in laudnum to be depraved addicts. When society deems something 'improper' it has a huge effect on its popularity, not necessarily on its merits, but rather on fears, lies, and creating a social force against that thing.

There is no reason polygamy wouldn't work today. There are polygamists out there. They're just on the fringes. Legalizing it won't suddenly make them less capable of having a polygamous relationship. There is also nothing under current law preventing me from living with 8 different women, having children with 8 different women, helping me to raise the kids of those 8 different women, and all the other miscellany. I just can't marry all 8 of them legally under current law. Doesn't change the reality of how I'm living.

And you say that this has to do with women's rights? The same women you claim need the emotional and fiscal support of their husband? If all the women worked and took turns having babies, it would most likely be a MORE secure financial relationship since you can buy more things in bulk, and bulk lowers cost. But you don't consider that, because you are taking the irrational view that polygamy is about men with a perverse view of women who want to subjugate them, eliminating any other possible way that polygamy could exert itself in modern society. God forbid.

Furthermore, you create unrealistic expectations of parents in polygamous relations that are not applied to the population at large for monogamous ones.

I have no requirement to put my kid in karate. I have no requirement to give him emotional support. I have no requirement to drive him around. I have no requirement to help raise him. I can go out today, impregnate a woman (or several), and then bail. And while they could theoretically find me, I would only be forced to pay child support -- and that's it. So arguing to me that a polygamous man would have to send all his kids to college is entirely false and misleading. And irrational. Yet again.

There is NO HARM to allowing multiple marriages to one person with a few simple precautions (like the permission of all people currently married to that person). Yet you disagree with it because parents wouldn't be able to support their kids (which isn't a current requirement of marriage), because husbands couldn't emotionally support their wives (again not a current requirement), and because he would 'fuck up' his children (but not for moral reasons of course!)...

Sorry, none of them are decent arguments. You're going to have to come up with something better...

[Kustom]

Hmmmm... If my logic is so irrational, why isn't pologamy more popular?? Because it just doesn't work in today's modern society of free thinking and increased woman's rights. You may not be required to pay for your child's tuition, but you are required to take care of them and provide for them - which requires a hell of a lot of money (have you examined the cost of diapers, toys, clothing, etc? Not to mention little Johnie or Sally may want to do Karate or join Ballet). By lacking the appropriate income to provide for excessive amounts of children, you are denying them opportunities in life. Hmmmm....how would you provide transportation for these kids? You would need multiple cars and OMG the price of gas! We are all bitching about that...imagine dragging all those wives and kids around to places. Easy for a man to defend this idea, since he isn't the one sitting at home all day dealing with a room full of bitchy women and crying babies living in substandard conditions. My argument isn't so much for the morality of a man being with a bunch of women, it is more for the sake of women and children in this environment. The psychological effects on those children is most concerning to me. Do you honestly think each child would get the appropriate amount of time with their father? If you wanna go fuck a bunch of women go do it....all the power to you, but if you wanna fuck up a bunch of children, you don't have my support there. But this is a free country where we are free to think as we please, so let me think what I want and you think what you want. We aren't changing worldviews in this forum....just individual's minds....so your resistance to anti-polygamy laws is futile! LoL, this is all in good fun, I hope you take no real offense to what I say here, I mean no disrespect to ya. =)

So you don't oppose polygamy, you just oppose having more than 2 kids... How come monogamous families with 8 kids are not outlawed then? At least with polygamy you get more share of your mom's attention. This argument is off.

Furthermore, even if having 6 wives, or husbands (which is called polyandry) was such a huge cost (but what about the 5 extra salaries?), there is no law against "fucking up" your finances, and I assume that the people in a polygamous marriage would be responsible adults that can figure it out for themselves. What right do I have to ban their marriage? Are marriages between poor ghetto teens that can't support themselves forbidden?

I don't care for polygamy myself, having always been rather focused on one, but if there are consenting men and women out there who want it, I'm not going to interfere. Unless they are under-aged or legally irresponsible, who am I to make choices for them?

But I find the claim that polygamy is ok but not polyandry, or vice-versa, particularily outrageous and indicative that it's more a personal fantasy than a stand on principle. If you allow it one way you have to allow it the other.

[chgu]

Polygamy \Po*lyg"a*my\, n. [Gr. ?; cf. F. polygamie.]
1. The having of a plurality of wives or husbands at the same
time

No longer just for men!

And for further reference, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Polygamy

[Kustom]

Polygamy \Po*lyg"a*my\, n. [Gr. ?; cf. F. polygamie.]
1. The having of a plurality of wives or husbands at the same
time

No longer just for men!

:confused:


poly means several, gamy means wives... Damn language evolution!

[chgu]

Yeah, that's what the America does to a word. :p

[jaychou]

:confused:


poly means several, gamy means wives... Damn language evolution!

1st off, kustom is using the right term, polygamy is 1 man many wives, polyandry is 1 woman many husbands. people who use polygamy to describe both aren't wrong but it is not as correct.

2nd off, Ahimsa, on your first or 2nd post, you mentioned monogamy, which should have been polyandry. 3 cheers for the spelling/grammar/engrish police?

and also, there were and still are both polygamous (sp?) societies around that works very well in their own respective cultures. However, there seems to be more polygamy's than polyandry's in human history.

in regards to emotional support/financial support, studies found that women in polygamous societies often welcome new/additional wives for their husband because household work would be split amongst more people. sure there is conflict sometimes but wives would hang out together while doing chores and work and have emotional support from the other wives and vice versa.

and just because we don't see polygamous marriages in north america or most post modern societies doesn't mean its wrong. if it works and if all parties are in agreement, why not?

lastly, for those who were saying how polygamy degrades women and is basically a male fantasy, this belief is not accurate. Polygamy often happens not due to lust or multiple "do it" partners but because of economical reasons.

hurray for anthropology 101?

[jaychou]

i'd like to add that in the past men of royal status had multiple wives for lineage insurance reasons, to make sure they had a male child to pass on their status or position within the society.

and in the case of the romans/greeks, big orgies

j/k ;)

[yao_yao]

I actually don't really care, but that's possibly because of my ancestry. My mother's family was extremely powerful and wealthy (pre-Communist China), and my great-grandfather had five wives (and seventeen kids from them). Each woman was extremely independant, and had their own estates and servants. The hiearchy between the wives was the same as the other Chinese at the time: the first wife is the most powerful, followed by the lesser wives. She also held more weight in her decisions, although whoever was the 'favorite' of the husband at the moment also held weight. Husbands, while some did choose favorites, had to be very careful in favoring their wives. Favoring does not mean he slept with her more... My great grandfather's favorite was his second wife, because she was a powerful woman who was more than capable of running the main mansion and all the connected estates without bothering him. While from not as powerful and wealthy family as his first wife, she had very good connections. Sadly though, she was the only wife who didn't have any children.

Part of the reason this worked out was that they were mostly arranged marriages. Everyone knew where they stood, and how to move around that. I actually find it extremely fascinating.

[Maian]

I have no requirement to give him emotional support. I have no requirement to drive him around. I have no requirement to help raise him. I can go out today, impregnate a woman (or several), and then bail. And while they could theoretically find me, I would only be forced to pay child support -- and that's it. So arguing to me that a polygamous man would have to send all his kids to college is entirely false and misleading. And irrational. Yet again.

There is NO HARM to allowing multiple marriages to one person with a few simple precautions (like the permission of all people currently married to that person).

While I agree that polygamy is mostly unpopular because it's demonized, I would consider doing (or rather the lack of doing) those things for your kids as HARM.

Although I'm pretty protective of my rights and don't want the govt to screw around with them with the almighty Bible clause, this is an exception. If you abandon your child, I hope you go straight to hell (and I'm not even Christian).

[Kass]

Of all the people I know in poly relationships, and I know a lot of them, women are just as likely to have multiple “husbands” as men are multiple “wives.” (Quotes because while not legally so, they do consider themselves to be married.)

Modern polygamy/polyandry is not the misogynistic institution its opponents wish it was.

The reality for poly relationships is the same as it is for monogamous ones. You can’t get by on a single income unless the wage earner earns an outrageously large salary. Two incomes is almost mandatory to meet subsistence level income in a large part of this country.

No one in the poly relationship wants to be broke all the time and you can’t forget that people in poly relationships today were raised just like people in monogamous relationships today. They have the same views on issues as their monogamous counterparts. Some are liberal; some are conservative. Some are Christian; some aren’t. Some want kids; some don’t.

Poly households are also more economically feasible and secure. In most poly households, all adults work. That means the home has three to four incomes, since triads and quads are the most common forms of poly relationships. Expenses are spread over a broader income base and buying power is increased.

If each individual could afford $1,000 of their salary for rent if they lived alone, that is a pool of $4,000 for housing. A comfortable home for four won’t run that full $4,000. More likely it will be $2,500. That leaves an extra $1,500 to go toward other expenses.

Buying in bulk is cheaper. Planning meals and shopping trips greatly reduces expenses and time spent doing those activities.

Utilities will be higher because there are more adults using them, but there is also that money freed up from reducing housing and grocery expenses.

The economics of polygamy/polyandry is far easier than the actual relationships. It requires more consideration, thoughtfulness, selflessness and work than the average American is capable of to be in a successful poly relationship.

[Ahimsa]

It's funny that most of the ones here defending polygamy are men. Not seeing many women in the forum jumping up and down supporting it. I am finished with this obsurdness, leaving you once again with my final thoughts - argue all you want in this thread, you will NOT change the worldview on polygamy. You will not change the law and you will not change my mind. Take the energy you are pouring into defending this obsurdness and go take care of one your wives instead XD

the end.

[Kass]

Last time I checked, I was female. I have been in two poly relationships. The vast majority of my social circle are in some form of a poly relationship. You want to know why they aren't here jumping up and down? They aren't registered.

Not everyone involved is here to defend themselves. Want a picture of what practical poly done right is? http://www.ourlittlequad.com Mostly done by one of the women in the quad.

Not all poly relationships turnout so well, a lot like not all monogamous ones do. More than half of all marriages end in divorce, remember?

However, in practice, poly is a choice that all partners have to want and all partners accept. Women are not disadvantaged, nor are they abused, neglected nor treated like chattel.

The simple fact is you base your opinion of polygamy/polyandry on an antiquated Joseph Smith/Mormonesque model that rarely exists anymore. There are cases of that type of relationship, especially Mormon holdouts who dislike the change that occured in the church, but they are far from common. The model of modern polyamorous relationships does not in anyway resemble Joseph Smith's one man/10 women archetype. Most often it is two couples or a couple and a secondary partner (male or female). Not all involved have relationships beyond friendship with everyone else.

You don't have to change your opinion on whether or not is right for you, however you have no right to impose that viewpoint on others. Polygamy is not misogynistic, immoral or abusive. Until you've lived it, you really don't know otherwise.

There are significant advantages to the poly family, not the least of which is LOVE, but also financial, parenting support, better division of labor and companionship.

[kiev33]

ahhh, but it has no business in modern civilized nations. Most of us aren't living off the land, needing more hands to work the farms and take care of the chickens. In the past it may have been necessary to help build the population, but in modern America or other modernized nations - pffffttt! lol

Exactly why do I care if some guy has more than one wife. He can have any of them that I would possibly have in the future. I think I'm done with them.

Kevin

[Roxie]

OK, but lets put the shoe on the other foot shall we?

Why can't a woman do the same? Why can't she hava a male harem?

Would you guys be comfortable sharing a woman with who knows how many other guys? I sure as hell wouldn't, and I don't think there are many women who would want to share their man with who knows how many other women either
It's called Polyandry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry)

It's so funny how most ppl don't know the name for it, but know polygamy. Shows you who we really think about.

[Monkey]

Last time I checked, I was female. I have been in two poly relationships. The vast majority of my social circle are in some form of a poly relationship. You want to know why they aren't here jumping up and down? They aren't registered.

Not everyone involved is here to defend themselves. Want a picture of what practical poly done right is? http://www.ourlittlequad.com Mostly done by one of the women in the quad.


That's a really interesting site, thanks for linking it.

Personally I can't see why people are against polygamy nowadays. It's about time the laws were relaxed to keep up with modern times. The western world has seen a sharp decline in religious views in favour of the views of equal rights.

When you still see countries that ban same-sex marriages it's odd. After all don't homosexuals have the same rights as any other people?

Same for polygamy/polyandry, isn't it possible for a man to fall in love with two women? In fact it's quite common, just think of the modern divorce rate where cheating is the major reason given for the break up. I just can't see why polygamy isn't legal. If it doesn't hurt you, why are you preventing others from enjoying they're marriage?

After all as has been said before, there is no law preventing a man living with as many women as he likes (or any combination of men and women for that matter). There is no law preventing them from raising children together. So why are the laws still preventing them from getting married?

[Kass]

There are no laws against living together, but children in some states have been removed from poly households and put into foster care because apparently having more than two loving parents is bad for children.

[Monkey]

There are no laws against living together, but children in some states have been removed from poly households and put into foster care because apparently having more than two loving parents is bad for children.


Which is exactly why they should relax the laws and allow people the same legal rights as any other marriage.

Of course the likelyhood of them doing this is rather slim. You still seem to be debating the whole gay marriage issue in America. Civil partnerships have been around for quite a while. So the chances of them legalising polygamy anytime soon are even slimmer.

[chgu]

It's called Polyandry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry)

It's so funny how most ppl don't know the name for it, but know polygamy. Shows you who we really think about.

The definition of polygamy is for both. It even says there that polyandry is just the very specific term for women with multiple husbands. It's an "either/or" situation.

Edit: Hah! If you want to be so specific, why aren't we arguing that it's called polygyny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny) for men?

[Kash]

Kass,
In your experiance have you found that regardless of the sex of the persons, isn't there often a homemaker and two or more wage earners? I'm not the expert that you seem to be, but the instance or two that I know of had a "homebody" that made meals and did the 1950's-esque homemaker stuff for the wage earners.

Also, because it's hardly been touched, It seemed to me that most everyone involved in a poly had seperate bedrooms. Far from the decadent "everyone in one bed" that the fundi's wring their hands about.

Just wondering what your thoughs were on this. For the record, I've never poly'ed, but we've never restricted our outside relationships either.

Gotta edit to add for the language nazi's...

Polyamory = loving more than one to a time.