Polygamy, Your thoughts.

Doesn't matter what we think, opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has one. Personally, I miss the keep it simple mind frame, no one is satisfied, everyone is always trying to push the limits a little farther. Soon folks will be complaining because they can't marry thier dog/cat or a doll. These topics always become heated because someone always disagrees and then a dramatic thread unfolds with people being rude and telling that person how stupid and close minded they are. SMH, people have lost the ability to respectfully agree to disagree.

Because some people equate polyamory with bestiality. It's kind of..what's the phrase..unbelievably offensive.

Then be unbelievably offended sir...again, my opinion, you have yours and I can care less about it.

One daddy and one mommy is not the best way to raise a child. How can I say this? Easy. Give me one drunk, abusive daddy and one enabling mommy and there goes your theory. It has to be done on an individual, case by case basis.

While true, the problem is you can't make social policy (laws) that work on an individual basis. The line has to be drawn somewhere to apply to everyone. People who say "the government should stay away" don't seem to understand that the law HAS to be written otherwise someone IS going to break it.

Case in point - everyone here seems to agree thinks that "18" is the magic age for being an adult, when the age of consent is 15-17 in the US, lower in other countries, and marriage laws are still very different. Like it or not, that *is* the government getting involved in enforcing the law.

Well here's where we really flip the script.

Why does government have to have ANY say in marriage? I'm serious. Any. There should be no tax breaks or considerations for married couples (or groups in this discussion). People are free to get married, they do it constantly, there's no reason for a tax incentive. None.

For purposes of a census exam? I'm sure the forms can be slightly modified without riots in the streets.

If there is no law, no one is breaking it. Marriage is a decision for individuals to make. The state has no business in it.

I have a problem with it when the men take young girls as their "wives" and anything they can "legally" get their hands on.

From what I've read about such as in religious cults, it's only advantageous to men and not the women that are involved.

Usually the women are miserable and/or jealous.

However, if that is not the case, and it's a happy choice, that's different.

But if you're born into it and forced into it as a woman and made to feel like a second-class citizen and sex slave, then, of course, it's not a good thing.

So, it depends on the setup and arrangement. Between CONSENTING ADULTS is one thing ...

I personally couldn't be just another wife. lol But I was watching the show Sister Wives on Sunday and they were trying to get 4 home loans. What got me thinking is this.....3 of the wives had to apply for a loan as a SINGLE mother. I wonder how they like being called SINGLE mothers when in their eyes and their religion they are married.

Why does government have to have ANY say in marriage? I'm serious. Any. There should be no tax breaks or considerations for married couples (or groups in this discussion). People are free to get married, they do it constantly, there's no reason for a tax incentive. None. For purposes of a census exam? I'm sure the forms can be slightly modified without riots in the streets. If there is no law, no one is breaking it. Marriage is a decision for individuals to make. The state has no business in it.

Are you saying marriage should be abolished entirely? There are a zillion things tied up in marriage law - property benefits, power of attorney, paternity, inheritance to spouse and kin. How do you get rid of all that stuff?

Or are you saying government has no power to define who marries who, even if it is multiple people? Who's going to write the laws to split up inheritance between 3 husbands and 2 wives? It gets mind-bogglingly complex very fast once you go past two people!

I don't have a problem with it as long as the people are of age and it is their decision to enter into this type of lifestyle. I am actually quite intriged and watch sister wives every week.

how about we just let people choose to love one another in the way that makes them happiest? What right do we have to do anything else?

Because what makes some people happy isn't good for the whole. We have an obligation to protect children of society. I think impact studies can be important. I don't think it's fair to say, "Well, this isn't any worse than a drunk, abusive father". Of course a drunk, abusive father is harmful to the children, and we've created laws to protect children from that (not that CPS always works). Because of impact studies, we know that males growing up with a single mother are at certain disadvantages, so we have "Big Brother" programs and other similar programs so society can help. Just because a mom is happy slapping her kid upside the back of his head doesn't mean I'm not going to say something to her. You ask what "right" I have to say anything. I look at it as an obligation.

But we are a society focused on the freedoms of the individual, our right to pursue happiness. We do not view ourselves as a collective in this country. The rights of the individual have always been upheld as very important, at least in the U.S.

As I said before, those studies are useless becase this isn't science. It has to be individual. I was raised by a single mother and came out better than many who were raised by two parents. Does that make the study invalid? If it were hard science it would have to.

Yes you should say something to a mother slapping her kid upside the head. A few years back (and still today) that would not be the opinion. That would have been an example of the "Basic Family Values" that were mentioned earlier. So clearly we see, what we thought we knew was wrong, why think we now know exactly how children should be raised?

Most people are just trying to do the best they can. If they want a few partners to do it with I have zero problem with that. All I ask is that they don't hurt the kids.

Why does government have to have ANY say in marriage? I'm serious. Any. There should be no tax breaks or considerations for married couples (or groups in this discussion). People are free to get married, they do it constantly, there's no reason for a tax incentive. None.

Well, it used to be that a man and woman received incentives to marry because government wanted to promote the growth of families. It was thought that the "best" type of family unit was both a married father and mother raising their own children. It was thought that "healthier" children came from that type of family unit (assuming it was a healthy marriage), and were better future members of society. So, to encourage that type of family unit, tax breaks were given. The question we have now is: What is the "best" type of family unit for raising children? How do we know? Well, how about we do a study on positive, adult members of society and see how they were raised? Impact studies, again.

They are useless studies. You know why?

What happens to parents who don't meet the studies example of "best family unit"? Are the children taken away? Are single mothers forbidden from getting pregnant or raising kids. No. Nothing happens. The studies just get used in arguments like this one. They are useless.

One daddy and one mommy is not the best way to raise a child. How can I say this? Easy. Give me one drunk, abusive daddy and one enabling mommy and there goes your theory. It has to be done on an individual, case by case basis.

While true, the problem is you can't make social policy (laws) that work on an individual basis. The line has to be drawn somewhere to apply to everyone. People who say "the government should stay away" don't seem to understand that the law HAS to be written otherwise someone IS going to break it.

Case in point - everyone here seems to agree thinks that "18" is the magic age for being an adult, when the age of consent is 15-17 in the US, lower in other countries, and marriage laws are still very different. Like it or not, that *is* the government getting involved in enforcing the law.

In the US, 18 is the age in which men have to sign up for the draft, and adults in general can vote and sign contracts. It is also considered the "age of majority" in dealing with statutory rape cases (if one party is under 18 and the other is over, the older one is guilty of statutory rape, pretty much regardless of the circumstances (some states have other things, such as age difference, but this is the basics of it)). These are the general matters when talking about things like marriage and sexual relationships (marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is a meta-contract, and thus requires the signers to be 18 or have consent from a legal guardian).

Also, you can't break laws that don't exist.

Sorry, all this "save the children" stuff by keeping them close minded and closeted is ridiculous. What we are basically stating is that the Western Civilization way is the only way. Matriarchal societies exist throughout the world, and a lot of them are polygamous. And yet all I've seen throughout the thread is how it only benefits men and how men can't be shared.

The other thought is that one mommy and one daddy is the natural way to raise your kids. Some cultures the entire community raises the children as part of the community. For us to chastise this as wrong just seems a bit conceited to me. I've seen lots of messed up kids, myself included, that had one mom and one dad. In addition to this, the fact that the divorce rate is in double digits should tell you, as an individual, and us, as a society, that marriage isn't for everyone. At least not in it's current state.