Polygamy, Your thoughts.

Options
1…89111314…19

Replies

  • macpatti
    macpatti Posts: 4,280 Member
    Options
    We can't start pulling kids out of every home we see as not perfect.
    Agreed.
    Example: I don't think you'd find a single study that says it's beneficial for children to be raised in homes below the poverty level. That's pretty much universally a negative thing, or at the very least not a positive. Do we start pulling kids out of homes earning less than x? Should only the financially well off, as determined by the state, have the option of starting a family? Of course not.
    No, we don't pull them out. We offer the families financial assitance.
    Children are raised in less than ideal homes on a daily basis throughout the entire country. Life ain't always easy. There's no way to guarantee that every child grows up in the best possible home.
    Again, I agree. I would just rather keep trying than just give up, though. How? I have no idea. I just hate the idea of "live and let live because life ain't always easy".
  • spartangirl79
    spartangirl79 Posts: 277 Member
    Options
    Like I said, since polygamy is even more hushed and taboo than gay couples raising children, I doubt there are as many studies out there -- or, if they exist, they may not be as representative as they could be of the community.
    That's what I was initially asking. I wanted to know if there were any decent impact studies.
    I find studies interesting, but I know plenty of kids from all types of families -- some had one parent, some had two, some had gay parents, and just having a mom and dad who love each other and were married forever doesn't ensure that kid is going to grow up and be a happy, well rounded adult. It doesn't matter who is in your house (abusers not included, obviously); what I believe truly influences children's development is the mental and emotional health and wellbeing of the parent(s) and how that is translated into their parenting practices.
    I find studies interesting, too. Of course, you're going to have the exceptions and individual cases. But, if there are more than 1 million homes raising children by homosexual parents, you'd think we'd have better impact studies than 78 families (as in the first article). I just wish we could do a much larger study.
    Take a look at today's helicopter parents... [disclaimer: not always, but for the sake of the example] you have traditional families (mom and dad, they love each other and love their kid to a fault) yet you have kids with no concept of how to function in the world once they are adults. NPR did a series on helicopter parents and there are parents attending job interviews with their adult children, calling their college professors to argue about their children's grades, and calling HR departments to negotiate benefits for their adult children. These parents would probably tell you they love each other, and love their children more than anything... but just loving each other and loving their kids is not necessarily enough. It's the parenting practices that really shape the children into adults, whether it's one parent, two parents, gay parents, or six parents.
    Agreed. But shouldn't we be able to find the better of all scenarios if there is one? Or should we just say, "They all can suck, so everyone should just do their own thing"? I don't know the answer or pretend to.

    We shouldn't just ignore those who need help, but once we find the "better of all scenarios," what do we do? Do we make all the other scenarios illegal?

    I would just think that with 50% of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, any argument that a two-parent traditional household is the best way to raise children has gone right out the window. Should people sign a contract that says they will not divorce before procreating?

    I don't believe that the presence of one or two humans in a household, and the gender of thoes humans, determines a child's future success and/or failure, or future happiness. It's much more than that, but it's so much easier for society to point a finger and say "it's THOSE people that are runining the children! Stop them!"

    What we REALLY should do is provide more education for any potential parents and really teach them how to be parents, even go so far as to provide classes for them before they have babies, to help them decide whether they really want to be parents in the first place. Who is in the house becomes inconsequential (again, not including abusers) when you get to the real root of the problems children have, and grow up with.
  • future_runner
    future_runner Posts: 136 Member
    Options
    ...do we want submissive doormat women? do we want girls raised in this thinking they should be a doormat? boys raised to think their king of the castle?

    Sorry, but I think we already teach those very ideas with many TV shows, movies, books, and music.

    You said it beautifully! We also raise to believe its not ok to express emotions which leads to a whole mess of other issues once they get into adult relationships (I know, not for everyone, but it's an applicable generalization)
  • madamepsychosis
    madamepsychosis Posts: 472 Member
    Options
    I've starting feeling like, as long as people are happy and aren't causing harm to others, let them live their damn lives. Regardless if they're gay, polygamists, Mormons, whatever. People should be allowed to be happy - no one should infringe on that (as long as there's no harm being caused.)

    This. It's not for me, but what other people do is none of my business!
  • spartangirl79
    spartangirl79 Posts: 277 Member
    Options
    We can't start pulling kids out of every home we see as not perfect.
    Agreed.
    Example: I don't think you'd find a single study that says it's beneficial for children to be raised in homes below the poverty level. That's pretty much universally a negative thing, or at the very least not a positive. Do we start pulling kids out of homes earning less than x? Should only the financially well off, as determined by the state, have the option of starting a family? Of course not.
    No, we don't pull them out. We offer the families financial assitance.

    I grew up on welfare. Financial assistance doesn't fix ANYTHING except to put (crappy) food on the table. It's usually the folks on long-term financial assistance that are mentally ill and untreated, or have other serious issues that just slip through the cracks. Until we start addressing the root of problems, these are just band-aids and kids are going to repeat the cycles of the problems that their parents had, whether they had one parent, two parents, or six parents.
  • _the_feniks_
    _the_feniks_ Posts: 3,443 Member
    Options
    Any man who would want more than one wife is certifiable ****ing insane.
  • SeasideOasis
    SeasideOasis Posts: 1,057 Member
    Options
    -=Shrugs=- Not for me, personally. However, what other people are doing in their beds is REALLY up to them in my opinion.
  • macpatti
    macpatti Posts: 4,280 Member
    Options
    We shouldn't just ignore those who need help, but once we find the "better of all scenarios," what do we do?
    Well, at one time, there were financial benefits/incentives given to what was thought to be the "better of all scenarios" at the time.
    I would just think that with 50% of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, any argument that a two-parent traditional household is the best way to raise children has gone right out the window. Should people sign a contract that says they will not divorce before procreating?
    I agree that the ideal has gone out the window! I'm certainly not saying people should never divorce.
    What we REALLY should do is provide more education for any potential parents and really teach them how to be parents, even go so far as to provide classes for them before they have babies, to help them decide whether they really want to be parents in the first place. Who is in the house becomes inconsequential (again, not including abusers) when you get to the real root of the problems children have, and grow up with.
    We'd need to include what we've found to be harmful to children in each type of home.
  • TheRoadDog
    TheRoadDog Posts: 11,788 Member
    Options
    Just my luck that I would get 4 women to go along with this idea and then their TOM didn't synch up. Every week there would be one woman p*ssed off.

    One out of four pissed at all times is better than four at once...
    Not really. If they all synch up, that's the week I go for a ride on my motorcycle.
  • 86_Ohms
    86_Ohms Posts: 253 Member
    Options
    That's X many in-laws to deal with...

    And subsequently if their parents are divorced, that's 2x the holiday parties you have to drive/fly to attend. Ever see four-christmases with Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon? You might have to deal with your wife's/husband's brother's/sister's 4 wives/husbands that also have 5 wives/husbands each.

    Argh! Headache.

    Just my luck that I would get 4 women to go along with this idea and then their TOM didn't synch up. Every week there would be one woman p*ssed off.

    ^^^ that too lol
  • spartangirl79
    spartangirl79 Posts: 277 Member
    Options
    We shouldn't just ignore those who need help, but once we find the "better of all scenarios," what do we do?
    Well, at one time, there were financial benefits/incentives given to what was thought to be the "better of all scenarios" at the time.
    I would just think that with 50% of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, any argument that a two-parent traditional household is the best way to raise children has gone right out the window. Should people sign a contract that says they will not divorce before procreating?
    I agree that the ideal has gone out the window! I'm certainly not saying people should never divorce.
    What we REALLY should do is provide more education for any potential parents and really teach them how to be parents, even go so far as to provide classes for them before they have babies, to help them decide whether they really want to be parents in the first place. Who is in the house becomes inconsequential (again, not including abusers) when you get to the real root of the problems children have, and grow up with.
    We'd need to include what we've found to be harmful to children in each type of home.

    I certainly don't want to be the one coming up with that list. What emotionally damages one child may roll right off the back of another. That's why such general incentives (tax incentives for marriage = protects children by keeping parents together) just won't work anymore, at least not the way they were originally intended.

    I get tax benefits for being married and I'm not having kids... which is probably the best thing I could do for kids considering the state of the world today, ha ha.
  • macpatti
    macpatti Posts: 4,280 Member
    Options
    I get tax benefits for being married and I'm not having kids... which is probably the best thing I could do for kids considering the state of the world today, ha ha.
    :laugh:
  • GiaFox
    GiaFox Posts: 48
    Options
    I don't really care what people do with their personal lives and how they handle their relationships. If they can emotionally handle sharing their partners, then, good for them. What can I say? But personally, I could never ever share my partner with anyone. I can only fully love one person at a time, and I believe the same holds true for other people, or it should. If they think differently, then I'm no one to say any more, as I wouldn't know what perspective they come from and what their mentality is, which I would fail to understand. Emotionally and morally, I could never handle polygamy. If they feel they can put their member in other women, and at the same time tell me they love me, I would think they are gravily deluded.
  • kockadoodledoo
    kockadoodledoo Posts: 2
    Options
    i did beleived in this before! and i was really enjoying it, but i lost everything due to this. And now, i just am waiting for death to take my pain away.

    Lots of fun.... till someone gets hurt!
  • Bella3119
    Bella3119 Posts: 104
    Options
    I wonder how many people who posted their opposition to polygamy has had an affair......

    <Crickets>

    I'm talking about those who are shocked some would want more than one set of in laws, or the men who agreed that women are "expensive." I wonder how much money they spent on their mistresses.
  • focus4fitness
    focus4fitness Posts: 551 Member
    Options

    Also I know the popular thing to say lately is the government should stay out of everything, but I don’t know if that would be a comforting sentiment to me if I found out my spouse was legally married to multiple other women that I was unaware of. lol

    Or I guess for some people their spouse could be legally married to multiple men and women that they were unaware of.

    but that's not poly - that's bigamy. in Poly, everyone is aware and consenting.

    That might be bigamy, but I don't see that big of a differene. With poly the women do not enter into a contract with each other. They only do with the man. So if they don't actually have a legal document showing that the women are consenting there is really not much to stop the man from having multiple marriages with or without the womans support.
  • focus4fitness
    focus4fitness Posts: 551 Member
    Options
    i did beleived in this before! and i was really enjoying it, but i lost everything due to this. And now, i just am waiting for death to take my pain away.

    Lots of fun.... till someone gets hurt!

    Were you in a polygamist marriage?
  • mrmanmeat
    mrmanmeat Posts: 1,968 Member
    Options
    Probably has something to do with religion. Can't upset the prudes.
  • saxmaniac
    saxmaniac Posts: 1,133 Member
    Options
    I would just think that with 50% of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, any argument that a two-parent traditional household is the best way to raise children has gone right out the window.

    Such a misleading statistic. The divorce rate per marriage is high, because people who divorce keep doing it over and over! The ever-divorced rate per-person rate is lower.
  • emilyc92
    emilyc92 Posts: 182 Member
    Options
    I've starting feeling like, as long as people are happy and aren't causing harm to others, let them live their damn lives. Regardless if they're gay, polygamists, Mormons, whatever. People should be allowed to be happy - no one should infringe on that (as long as there's no harm being caused.)

    I'm not sure why Mormons are included in this list haha. We don't practice polygamy. Mormonism is a religion, not a sexuality.

Categories