Maybe we SHOULD push for polygamy?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

May 26th, 2004, 03:35 AM
travelinman

I'm not sure I understand your point.

There is nothing in polygamy that violates tradition.
May 26th, 2004, 03:52 AM
jumper69

Yeah, I mean other than the infantismal likelyhood of finding women who would be okay with polygamy, what's the problem?

[img]biggrin.gif[/img]

[ May 25, 2004 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Jumper69 ]
May 26th, 2004, 11:59 AM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by travelinman:
I'm not sure I understand your point.

There is nothing in polygamy that violates tradition.

You were being facetious. I'd like to hear legitimate reasons regarding why polygamy should not be legal.

If you facetiously offer reasons why polygamy should be endorsed, I challenge you to provide reasons why it shouldn't.

Can you argue the polygamy issue on its own merits?

[ May 26, 2004 09:25 AM: Message edited by: reason ]
May 26th, 2004, 12:11 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by travelinman:
I'm not sure I understand your point.

There is nothing in polygamy that violates tradition.

Then why did you write this?

Quote:

We are broad-minded and advanced enough as a culture to handle this. Forget the lessons of the past. In fact, don't even look at tradition.



[ May 26, 2004 09:27 AM: Message edited by: reason ]
May 26th, 2004, 01:50 PM
travelinman

Quote:

Originally posted by reason:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by travelinman:
I'm not sure I understand your point.

There is nothing in polygamy that violates tradition.

Then why did you write this?

Quote:

We are broad-minded and advanced enough as a culture to handle this. Forget the lessons of the past. In fact, don't even look at tradition.

[ May 26, 2004 09:27 AM: Message edited by: reason ]<hr /></blockquote>If you re-read the first post you will see that I didn't write it, I stole it from another board and was looking for comments.
May 26th, 2004, 02:24 PM
LAKE

Why is it assumed that the man will be the one with multiple partners????

I could probably make due with a stable of young studs. One for house maintenance, one in charge of vehicles, one to watch the kids, one to clean the house, one (okay, maybe all) for wife maintenance. [img]wink.gif[/img]
May 26th, 2004, 02:53 PM
travelinman

Quote:

Originally posted by LAKE:
Why is it assumed that the man will be the one with multiple partners????

I could probably make due with a stable of young studs. One for house maintenance, one in charge of vehicles, one to watch the kids, one to clean the house, one (okay, maybe all) for wife maintenance. [img]wink.gif[/img]

I believe in the old way of doing things.

Men get married at 35 and women get married at 16. This benefits both.

When men are older and need a little encouragement, they have a young women with a tight body and limited expectations.

When women get older and the old man has kicked the bucket and there are all these young men with tight bodies that would love to spend time with an experienced women.
May 26th, 2004, 02:54 PM
travelinman

Quote:

Originally posted by LAKE:
Why is it assumed that the man will be the one with multiple partners????

I could probably make due with a stable of young studs. One for house maintenance, one in charge of vehicles, one to watch the kids, one to clean the house, one (okay, maybe all) for wife maintenance. [img]wink.gif[/img]

I believe in the old way of doing things.

Men get married at 35 and women get married at 16. This benefits both.

When men are older and need a little encouragement, they have a young women with a tight body and limited expectations.

When women get older and the old man has kicked the bucket and there are all these young men with tight bodies that would love to spend time with an experienced women.
May 27th, 2004, 03:18 AM
Shaun Havlin

Quote:

Originally posted by reason:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by travelinman:
I'm not sure I understand your point.

There is nothing in polygamy that violates tradition.

Then why did you write this?

Quote:

We are broad-minded and advanced enough as a culture to handle this. Forget the lessons of the past. In fact, don't even look at tradition.

[ May 26, 2004 09:27 AM: Message edited by: reason ]<hr /></blockquote>Out-FUCKING-Standing!!! [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
May 27th, 2004, 11:27 AM
reason

Quote:

If you re-read the first post you will see that I didn't write it, I stole it from another board and was looking for comments.

Ok, I'm just going to drop this because I'm not following along. I guess I misunderstood when you started off by saying "I think this is a great idea."

Anywho, I'm neither endorsing nor condemning the idea, but I've wondered what kind of legal nightmare this might cause in courts with regards to divorce, paternity, property rights, child custody, etc. I'm not an attorney, so I cannot begin to surmise.

With that in mind, I'm not sure I get the reference to "Adam and Steve." What does gay marriage have to do with polygamy? Other than "violating" commonly accepted social order, the two issues have distinct characteristics that should be argued on their own merits.

[ May 27, 2004 08:34 AM: Message edited by: reason ]

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page