Maybe we SHOULD push for polygamy?

**jumper69** · May 28th, 2004, 06:48 PM

I'm surprised no one flamed me about my racist comment regarding the chaos of Father's Day in Avondale

Can't flame someone for the truth can you?? [img]smile.gif[/img]

**Piña** · May 28th, 2004, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by reason:
Black illegitimacy is upwards of 75%, thus generations are raised outside the confines of a traditional family structure. Perhaps this is a bad analogy, but I can see similarities between the breakdown of the black family due to illegitimacy and polygamy.

75%? Source? (just curious)

I think that drawing an analogy between illegitimacy and polygamy is completely off the mark. Illegitimacy is a function of lack of familial structure and polygamy is an imposistion of structure. True, maybe not a structure most are familiar with, but still it is designed to add to stability by encouraging committment to family. Polygamy is not about rejecting monogamy, it's about adding alternatives. (IMHO)

**gae** · May 28th, 2004, 08:38 PM

Since Trav started this thread, I've been thinking about the whole polygamy thing.

Here's the definition, according to M-W:

Main Entry: po?lyg?a?my
Pronunciation: -mE
Function: noun
1 : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time

Because of the Mormons of yore, we tend to think of it as one man, many woman, so I'm going to address that.

Women, by their nature (and no, I don't know if it's societial or genetics) tend to band together against a common "enemy". Could be the boss, the hot new chick in the office or the husband. It really doesn't matter who it is; when a group of women feel threatened, they'll put aside differences and become one.

So, let's take the example of Trav and I and throw in some extra wives of varying ages. Like all other humans, Trav has his days when he is a true asshat. As number 1 wife, all I'd have to do is pass the word, and only the most naive of the wives would be willing to overlook it.

See, in the scenario that Trav set up, the man would THINK he'd get to choose who he slept with, but the number 1 wife (ME for those of you not paying attention) would actually be in charge.

So, we'd have a matriarchy, except that the man would be providing for 4 wives instead of just one. Not to mention college educations for all the children. And I must reiterate the idea of one man living with 4 women who are all PMSing at the same time.

I am liking this whole thing more and more. The man's an asshat? We'll all go shopping!

**Boo Boo** · May 29th, 2004, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by travelinman:
It's funny, I posted this to get my wife's comments and it has had some decent discussion.

Actually Trav you got your reponse...
Find some women that will do cleaning, laundry, and yardwork... then a pool boy...you are in like flint.

I knew there was a reason I liked Gae!
[img]wink.gif[/img]

**Lew** · May 29th, 2004, 03:23 PM

Or, the alternative way to look at it is to simply look at the laws as written, figure out whey they were passed in the first place, and then decide if they should be changed. Marriage as a religious concept goes back to the beginning of time, and if the Mormons wanted to recognize polygamy, that was their business to do so.

As states began recognizing marriage in the late 1800s, the one-man/one-woman notion was codified. In a way, the Mormons could argue (and did, unsuccessfully) that their religious beliefs were being trampled when the state refused to allow polygamy. And in a way, I suppose that is correct.

But again, some religions practice human sacrifice, and we certainly have no problem trampling on their religious beliefs by stating, in no uncertain terms, that murder is illegal.

Marriage laws were enacted ostensibly to promote nuclear families. And I don't care what anyone says, that is a worthy aspiration. However, in reality, the government had financial concerns it was looking after as well.

Things have certainly changed in the past 100 years, and perhaps the legislatures will revisit marriage in time. As fas as I'm concerned, they cheapened marriage big time when they made it easier to obtain a divorce. But the divorce laws were changed to reflect changing attitudes. Perhaps marriage laws will follow.

**reason** · June 1st, 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Pi?a:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by reason:
Black illegitimacy is upwards of 75%, thus generations are raised outside the confines of a traditional family structure. Perhaps this is a bad analogy, but I can see similarities between the breakdown of the black family due to illegitimacy and polygamy.

75%? Source? (just curious)

I think that drawing an analogy between illegitimacy and polygamy is completely off the mark. Illegitimacy is a function of lack of familial structure and polygamy is an imposistion of structure. True, maybe not a structure most are familiar with, but still it is designed to add to stability by encouraging committment to family. Polygamy is not about rejecting monogamy, it's about adding alternatives. (IMHO)<hr /></blockquote>I don't have the source. I'll have to look it up. The 75% number is a useless piece of information that I'm accustomed to storing in my brain for future uses. I'm fairly certain this is accurate. But I'll look it up anyway.

Before we can assertain whether polygamy is a structure of a lack thereof, maybe we should define what exactly polygamy is. Gail gave a definition from the dictionary that defines it as having sex with more than one person. I gave an example that defines it as marrying as many people as one desires. Someone else gave yet another defintion.

For those wanting to legalize polygamy, what exactly is it they are asking for? What form would it take?

**gae** · June 1st, 2004, 02:07 PM

Reason, I don't think anyone here is pushing to have polygamy legalized, but you raise an interesting question regarding the definition.

I think it would be as varied as folks definition of marriage. To some, that word means that the man is the breadwinner and the woman raises the children and keeps the house clean.

To others, it's an equal partnership.

[img]wink.gif[/img] It seems to me that the guys are thinking about, umm..., legalized variety, and the woman are thinking about having other people do the daily drudge work.

According to this site, reason lied. The illegitimacy rate is 70%.

**reason** · June 1st, 2004, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by gae:

According to this site, reason lied. The illegitimacy rate is 70%.

I am obviously a true racist. Amanda Mayes told me so.

**reason** · June 1st, 2004, 05:00 PM

I don't think anyone here is pushing to have polygamy legalized,

Didn't mean to imply anyone here was, though trav did start out by saying (facetiously) it was a great idea.

In light of the gay marriage thing, I did hear that polygamists are pushing their agenda to legalize marriage to multiple partners. I was actually referring to those people, not anyone here.

Emperor Napoleon · June 2nd, 2004, 03:53 AM

However you want to package it I don't want any part of it. It would be bad enough to have one ball and chain around the neck, why would anyone want to multiply it? And if you say "for the sex" if sex is that much a controlling factor of your life I feel sorry for you.

Thread: Maybe we SHOULD push for polygamy?

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions