The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

So what's wrong with polygamy, anyway?

Kulindahr

Kulindahr

Knox's Papa
JUB Supporter
50K Posts
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Posts
123,002
Reaction score
4,576
Points
113
Location
on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
Some Republicans love to claim that if we allow gay marriage, we'll have to allow polygamy. Many gays love to scream that it's not so.

Well, if we believe in liberty, it is: if there's a right to marry who we want, that right can't be limited by number. Those Republicans are right. People who love liberty should be agreeing with them -- and fighting for it, too.

The proper response to that Republican claim is, "So what?"
The secondary response is, "We thought you believed in liberty and small government. Why do you want government limiting people's freely made choices?"


I know there are a bunch of folks on here who object to polygamy -- it was recently referred to as "gross". Well, so are fat asses, but we don't outlaw them. So what's really wrong with polygamy?
 
Kulindahr said:
Some Republicans love to claim that if we allow gay marriage, we'll have to allow polygamy. Many gays love to scream that it's not so.

Well, if we believe in liberty, it is: if there's a right to marry who we want, that right can't be limited by number. Those Republicans are right. People who love liberty should be agreeing with them -- and fighting for it, too.

The proper response to that Republican claim is, "So what?"
The secondary response is, "We thought you believed in liberty and small government. Why do you want government limiting people's freely made choices?"


I know there are a bunch of folks on here who object to polygamy -- it was recently referred to as "gross". Well, so are fat asses, but we don't outlaw them. So what's really wrong with polygamy?
Click to expand...

Bisexuals no scream then?
or a concern a their penguins?

lucky planet got zillions of vegetables
or how human race survive
@ yea @

:-)
 
swerve said:
Haven't you been LISTENING Kuhli???

Marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman...

The Bible says so...

(even though it doesn't)...

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
Click to expand...

It points to that as the ideal, but even the New Testament doesn't limit it to that.

Of course it also points to it being the same woman throughout life, not one man and one woman, then a few years later the same man and another woman, then a year or two later the same man and a different woman.....


edit:

that makes me wonder what the fuss from the elephangelicals is all about anyway: goverenment marriage stopped being biblical marriage the moment divorce was made easy.
 
StarCrasher said:
What the Bible does say, however, is it's OK to force girls into arranged marriages and sex at ages as young as 12. So much for drawing morality from the Bible. Many Christians are among the biggest hypocrites on the planet. They ignore some parts of their Bible while making up entirely new parts all on their own. What a Gong Show.
Click to expand...

It would be hard to argue that doing marriage that way is loving and kind. Since it doesn't meet that standard, the Bible is definitely not okay with that.

OTOH, since the Bible shows it was once done that way, it has to be part of the definition of "traditional marriage" -- as does polygamy.
 
this topic about sex aint it?
or how internet 2 folk like a polish theirs a shoes?
# yea but is a it BI polish or gay or straight folk or half a staight with curious chaser? #
@ it not about Angkor Wat then ? @
thnik dat bell
$ nah not a bell it bulb $
% this about gardenins wot a custom of da 12 closet knomes? %
Wot?
^ glass gay wata ? ^
& is it straight ? %
# only wen it half wednesday #
@ wot luck @

thankyou
 
Marriage acknowledges the healthy bond proclaimed freely by two people to be kind to each other and treat each other as equals. In the modern form, as secular constitutional states have developed it into, over the past few centuries of progress.

It used to be about obeying and ownership. That became unsustainable in practice - women stopped obeying - and then untenable in ceremony too. Even if some crazy fundamentalist would still like to have a ceremony centred around "obeying" it is of no consequence at law; one cannot consent to the deprivation of rights. So, while a woman may simulate obeying, she isn't really, because there is no possible legal compulsion to do so. It is legally just an act.

When two people make that declaration of mutual regard, it is easy for the state to confirm.

Polygamy is banned because historically it was just another failed form of marriage, like the whole "obey" thing. If people want to reformulate polygamy as an institution of equals, let them make their case. I think it can be made, but I also think it is not my case to make.
 
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't polygamy when multiple young girls are forced to marry much older men?
 
This husband says you need 'the balls' to have two wives.
The woman has multiple motives for getting into a polygamous marriage~

 
Ask most married men if they'd want two wives and I'm sure most would tell you they don't even want the first.

As to your question I say there's nothing wrong with polygamy. There is, however, something wrong with the way most view polygamy. It's no different that the "eww bad" reaction to most things which people don't understand, comprehend or care to do either.
 
Saybrooke said:
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't polygamy when multiple young girls are forced to marry much older men?
Click to expand...

No, that's just the Mormons. :p


But I do think that polygamy is a cover for dudes wanting to emotionally and sexually dominate women. Sure, the idea of polygamy is all fine and dandy... until you consider the people that actually live in this world.
 
1) The biblical definition of marriage has changed tremendously since way back then. Too bad the bible-bashers haven't caught up yet.

2) The problem with polygamy isn't that in and of itself is there anything wrong with it, but that there some feminist issues with it. Polygamy as practiced involves several women whose desires and lifestyles are subject to the one husband. Because women are subjugated and they become dependent on the man's desires, they tend to be dominated rather than there being a more give-and-take as a marriage should be.

Besides the unhealthy and usually competition-based dynamics of the sister-wives, there are also issues with the children. Daughters tend to be seen as something to be married off as quickly as possible, as well as rewards for other males in the group that are doing well. Since the sons are seen as competition for the females, they tend to be shunted out of the clan when they reach the age of majority and are not allowed in until they have proven themselves not only valuable members of the group, but also willing to support the existing structure.

It's something that worked out "well" when men died young and thus there are more women than men, as well as when women were not as liberated as they are now. Basically, it requires "properly respectful" women and most of the men to essentially fail to work well. But...you create some very poisonous group dynamics when you attempt to apply it to situations in today's world.

It should be noted that polyamorous groupings would work, but it would take a very dedicated group of individuals to even a chance. Otherwise all I see is something going down in flames...

RG
 
Just as the biblical view of "one man one woman" does not matter to the law in terms of making marriage only monogamously heterosexual, so to does the Koranic view of "four wives for every husband" not matter to the law in terms of providing support for polygamous unions.

We're basing marriage on the quality of the relationships involved and in the public good that comes from supporting them. Until it is clear what the nature of the polygamous union is, and until it is clear what the public interest is in supporting it, then it will not happen.
 
How about a triad, where each of the three are spouses of the other?
 
GiancarloC said:
...The public interest shouldn't be involved in the marriage of a couple, or two or more people (as I don't think polygamy should be illegal). ...
Click to expand...
The public interest was very much involved in the instance given in post no.# 14. The public taxpayers are paying for the food and shelter of one husband, two wives and multiple children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top