Maybe we SHOULD push for polygamy?

Printable View

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

May 21st, 2004, 05:45 PM
Sluggo

If you want more than one wife to nag you and if you can afford more than one wife to spend your money and more than one wife's parent and family to worry about - fine with me! But, FRANKLY, I think you are NUTS!!!!!!!!!!! [img]confused.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/wilted.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_down.gif[/img]
May 21st, 2004, 05:48 PM
jdf

I think soem one need to look up the meaning of the word "facetiously".
May 21st, 2004, 06:42 PM
Raven Soul

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/stfu6.jpg
May 21st, 2004, 06:56 PM
travelinman

Quote:

Originally posted by Sluggo:
But, FRANKLY, I think you are NUTS!!!!!!!!!!! [img]confused.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/wilted.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_down.gif[/img]

I would handle it like the Chinese. The number one wife is in charge of the other wives, she controls the money and the spending of the others. She is also the one that runs interference so the others get to nag her.

Of course the number one wife gets special compensations. As she is the oldest and we have been together the longest, she is probably looking at the pool boy with some interest. Now if number two and number three are keeping me happy, then I will not be inclined to worry about what number one is doing.

And as far as affording them, if all four work then I could spend my days riding and fishing.

[ May 21, 2004 03:59 PM: Message edited by: travelinman ]
May 21st, 2004, 07:52 PM
gae

<<contemplating>>

Let's see...

I get the young, lithe, six pack ab poolboy(s).

Trav gets 3 or women PMSing at the same time.

I get to be in charge.

No more cleaning...
No more laundry...
No more yardwork...

I'm in!
May 22nd, 2004, 03:30 AM
travelinman

I think this is a great idea.

Bump if you think it's time to stand up, be counted, write your congresspersons, and demand the right to marry more than one woman!

Why not? Maybe the current Mrs. Joe Republc would appreciate some help around the house.

Again, why not? After all....

- It doesn't HURT anyone.

- It only affects what happens in the bedroom.

- It's a PRIVATE matter.

- Only narrow-minded Christians have insisted on this in the past.

- 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.

- If we ask the Mass. Supreme Court to look into it, I'm sure it's constitutional.

- If Adam and Steve can do it, why can't Joe R. and Brittany and Tiffany?

Again, it's my OWN business, and who does it HURT?

Let's have a National Call for Polygamy Day. How about June 21, the day after Father's Day? Let's all call Congress, ABC, NBC, CBS, the local paper, and DEMAND the right to marry more than one woman.

Oh, and let's not forget to call NOW, Ms. magazine, and maybe Barbara Walters.

In the meantime, I'll look for a bigger bed...

Facetiously yours,

-- Joe
May 22nd, 2004, 03:45 AM
Emperor Napoleon

Just move to Utah...

Personally I'm not even too keen on ever being married, but several wives? How ghastly.
May 22nd, 2004, 03:48 AM
cincygreg

Should we allow people with multiple personalities to marry themselves? [img]eek.gif[/img] [img]confused.gif[/img] LOL!
May 25th, 2004, 04:07 PM
travelinman

Quote:

Originally posted by 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 ]

It would not be as difficult as you may think. It's not like you go out and marry all 4 at once, you stagger them. I think when the 1st wife understands she is not being replaced, but is actually getting more security and freedom she will help you in the selection of the rest. After all it would be in her best interest to make sure she is in charge of this.

[ May 25, 2004 01:07 PM: Message edited by: travelinman ]
May 26th, 2004, 03:18 AM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by travelinman:
I think this is a great idea.

Bump if you think it's time to stand up, be counted, write your congresspersons, and demand the right to marry more than one woman!

Why not? Maybe the current Mrs. Joe Republc would appreciate some help around the house.

Again, why not? After all....

- It doesn't HURT anyone.

- It only affects what happens in the bedroom.

- It's a PRIVATE matter.

- Only narrow-minded Christians have insisted on this in the past.

- 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.

- If we ask the Mass. Supreme Court to look into it, I'm sure it's constitutional.

- If Adam and Steve can do it, why can't Joe R. and Brittany and Tiffany?

Again, it's my OWN business, and who does it HURT?

Let's have a National Call for Polygamy Day. How about June 21, the day after Father's Day? Let's all call Congress, ABC, NBC, CBS, the local paper, and DEMAND the right to marry more than one woman.

Oh, and let's not forget to call NOW, Ms. magazine, and maybe Barbara Walters.

In the meantime, I'll look for a bigger bed...

Facetiously yours,

-- Joe

Perhaps you should give us some good reasons why this shouldn't be legal. Violating tradition isn't a good reason, and one can argue that there's plenty of tradition to support such a thing.

So far, you've offered nothing.
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 ]
May 27th, 2004, 12:17 PM
travelinman

Quote:

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

As far as I'm concerned I don't think gay marriage and poygamy have anything to do with each other.
May 27th, 2004, 01:19 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by travelinman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by reason:
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?
[ May 27, 2004 08:34 AM: Message edited by: reason ]

As far as I'm concerned I don't think gay marriage and poygamy have anything to do with each other.<hr /></blockquote>Apparently, a lot of people do. After the Supreme Court decision on that recent Texas case, many conservatives thought it would open marriage to not just gays, but polygamy, man-child, and all assorted perverted variations.

While I think it's certainly a topic of discussion, each has its own unique set of circumstances that should be evaluated on their own merits. They simply cannot be lumped together like "Joe" did above and many others attempt to do.

I can get into this later, but I think polygamy would do more to disrupt the social order than gay marriage would. Actually, I think gay marriage would provide social order, while polygamy could be very disruptive.
May 27th, 2004, 01:26 PM
Emperor Napoleon

Arab sheiks have multiple wives so it can't possibly be a good thing IMO.
May 27th, 2004, 04:59 PM
reason

Carrying on the thought of my last post, if polygamy were legal, hypothetically a man could marry any number of women married to other men, and women could marry any number of men married to other women. Throw the family tree out the window. It would be chaos, like Father's Day in Avondale.

Add to the mix gay marriage, and hypothetically any man could be married to any number of men or women and any woman could be married to any number or women or men.

In the first scenario it is reasonable to think that a man married to more than one woman who is married to more than one man may have spouses in multiple homes. I suppose the man in the other house would also be considered a (step?)father because he too is also legally wed to the mother. A child could conceivably have any number of mothers and fathers. In the event of the death of the biological father/mother, I wonder who retains custody of the child.

In the gay marriage scenario, your bisexual mother and bisexual father can hypothetically marry ten women and ten men and the ten mothers marry ten other women and ten other men, so it would be possible to have spouses of some spouses living in the same abode married to the spouse of their spouse, but not other spouses and vice versa.

I suppose some limit could be placed on the number of marriages, but who is to put a limit on love?
May 27th, 2004, 05:09 PM
travelinman

That sounds like something Lazarus Long would say.

Wasn't he married to his mother and his daughter at the same time?
May 27th, 2004, 05:25 PM
Euclid

I have to agree with Gae, more women in the house to do the chores, etc, and I get to be in charge of them...what is the problem?

I, of course, would certainly be installing another pool in the yard so I could hire, Juan, the pool boy! [img]wink.gif[/img]

I see no connection to gay marriage and polygamy. If a transexual can marry because it is then a "man and a woman" even though both are genetically men, then why can't two genetically and phenotypically men marry?

If the ban on gay marriage is to deter "deviant" behavior, then why isn't the scenario above more deviant than a gay couple getting married?

Gay people should be afforded the same rights and privileges as straight people. They should be able to marry, possess property jointly, have survivorship of jointly held property as well as social security benefits, raise a family, share employment benefits, etc.

No one else's marriage, no matter the shape or form of that marriage will ever affect MY marriage to Jumper...and that is all that should matter to anyone!
May 27th, 2004, 05:28 PM
Euclid

I have to agree with Gae, more women in the house to do the chores, etc, and I get to be in charge of them...what is the problem?

I, of course, would certainly be installing another pool in the yard so I could hire, Juan, the pool boy! [img]wink.gif[/img]

I see no connection to gay marriage and polygamy. If a transexual can marry because it is then a "man and a woman" even though both are genetically men, then why can't two genetically and phenotypically men marry?

If the ban on gay marriage is to deter "deviant" behavior, then why isn't the scenario above more deviant than a gay couple getting married?

Gay people should be afforded the same rights and privileges as straight people. They should be able to marry, possess property jointly, have survivorship of jointly held property as well as social security benefits, raise a family, share employment benefits, etc.

No one else's marriage, no matter the shape or form of that marriage will ever affect MY marriage to Jumper...and that is all that should matter to anyone!
May 27th, 2004, 05:33 PM
travelinman

Can a transexual marry him/herself?
May 27th, 2004, 06:09 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by travelinman:
Can a transexual marry him/herself?

If so, I want to be invited to the wedding just to see the vows. But spare me the details of the wedding night.
May 27th, 2004, 06:11 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by reason:
I guess if gay marriage and polygamy were legalized bisexuals could marry men and women. It would be like one, big, weird orgy.

It would be interesting to see how it would affect society at large. Personally, I'm in favor of allowing adults to enter into any marital arrangement that works for them. Having said that, I do think the logistics would be daunting but then I'm pretty locked into a monogamous mindset and that may be skewing my perspective.

It's also interesting that most here have assummed a one man - many women scenario.
May 27th, 2004, 06:19 PM
reason

Quote:

It's also interesting that most here have assummed a one man - many women scenario.

I didn't, but unless I'm wrong, it seems historically the model has always been one man - many women.

Of course one man - many women won't fly in today's modern culture if the same opportunity is not afforded to women to marry more than one man. And quite frankly if both sexes are allowed to marry multiple partners, I don't see the polygamy model working. I think it would create true societal disorder.
May 27th, 2004, 06:24 PM
jumper69

Quote:

if polygamy were legal, hypothetically a man could marry any number of women married to other men, and women could marry any number of men married to other women.

Not likely as I suspect the law in this case would be the same as it is today. You could have multiple wives or husbands but the woman or man must have been single first.

In other words, D2 and I are married and I want to marry another woman. She must be single. Ergo if D2 wants another man, he must also be single.
May 27th, 2004, 06:32 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Jumper69:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />if polygamy were legal, hypothetically a man could marry any number of women married to other men, and women could marry any number of men married to other women.

Not likely as I suspect the law in this case would be the same as it is today. You could have multiple wives or husbands but the woman or man must have been single first.

In other words, D2 and I are married and I want to marry another woman. She must be single. Ergo if D2 wants another man, he must also be single.<hr /></blockquote>That seems rather arbitrary, don't you think?
May 27th, 2004, 06:37 PM
reason

My other thought is that while the family tree would change from a top down chart growing ever larger as time progresses, to more of a wheel and spoke model.

From a genetics standpoint I could see it getting rather difficult to determine how far apart two people are in the gene pool. It would be kind of like living in Kentucky.
May 27th, 2004, 06:38 PM
Emperor Napoleon

Quote:

Not likely as I suspect the law in this case would be the same as it is today. You could have multiple wives or husbands but the woman or man must have been single first.
In other words, D2 and I are married and I want to marry another woman. She must be single. Ergo if D2 wants another man, he must also be single.

That would be violating the 14th amendment which guarantees "equal protection under the law"

If you and D2 are already married what would give you the right then to marry someone else? Why would the other person have to be single, you're not.
May 27th, 2004, 06:42 PM
jumper69

Quote:

If you and D2 are already married what would give you the right then to marry someone else? Why would the other person have to be single, you're not.

So then polygamy would not work. If someone else wanted to marry D2, and I were already her husband, I would not agree to that. If other men, or women, feel the same as I suspect they would, then it can't work.
May 27th, 2004, 06:44 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Sea Gull:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Not likely as I suspect the law in this case would be the same as it is today. You could have multiple wives or husbands but the woman or man must have been single first.
In other words, D2 and I are married and I want to marry another woman. She must be single. Ergo if D2 wants another man, he must also be single.

That would be violating the 14th amendment which guarantees "equal protection under the law"

If you and D2 are already married what would give you the right then to marry someone else? Why would the other person have to be single, you're not.<hr /></blockquote>That was my thought. Well, kind of. Seems like a kind of marriage penalty.
May 28th, 2004, 03:27 AM
travelinman

It's funny, I posted this to get my wife's comments and it has had some decent discussion.
May 28th, 2004, 03:51 AM
reason

I guess if gay marriage and polygamy were legalized bisexuals could marry men and women. It would be like one, big, weird orgy.
May 28th, 2004, 06:35 PM
reason

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

I put that there for future reference, but I think there's something to that. Reminds me of a friend who owned a bunch of rental properties in predominately black areas. He said it was rather common to see 5 or 6 names on the mailbox.

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.

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