Polygamy/Polyandry

[Captain_Vietnam]

Because fascists are subhuman pigs? Or because you're a conservative communist?

 

 

You don't even know what you are. 

im a conservative communist and fascists are support of racism and capitalism i am against

 

can you read?

[Spite]

Yeh, you're against racism but you call other people untermench, makes sense.

[Fox Fire]

im a conservative communist and fascists are support of racism and capitalism i am against

 

can you read?

I can read just fine. The problem here, that you are clearly having a hard time trying to grasp, is that what you're saying is not only inconsistent, but hasn't made any sense. I would tell you to keep trying, but I don't think you're ever going to get it.....

[Captain_Vietnam]

Yeh, you're against racism but you call other people untermench, makes sense.

that is not racist

 

fact is Vietnamese people are stronger then americans. due to genetics and diet. american like fast food

 

is this study racist? - http://www.techyville.com/2013/06/news/study-finds-that-blacks-are-genetically-stronger-than-whites/

 

Vietnam should also be for Vietnamese people and Vietnamese people alone. 

[Fox Fire]

that is not racist

 

fact is Vietnamese people are stronger then americans. due to genetics and diet. american like fast food

 

is this study racist? - http://www.techyville.com/2013/06/news/study-finds-that-blacks-are-genetically-stronger-than-whites/

 

Vietnam should also be for Vietnamese people and Vietnamese people alone. 

So you're a communist who hates fascists, but you're actually just a closet fascist.^

Do you see where you're not making sense yet? 

[Captain_Vietnam]

So you're a communist who hates fascists, but you're actually just a closet fascist.^

Do you see where you're not making sense yet? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_communism

[Fox Fire]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_communism

Yeah, I know what communism is and it's pretty much the exact opposite of all your beliefs.

[Mike Haggar]

Why people insist on arguing with caricatures, I'll never know. Anybody that far off the deep end is either a cartoon or too mentally isolated to argue with. Sometimes, silence is the best answer, especially to avoid giving them a chance to ramble. Choose your attention wisely, people.

 

"Government should have no say in marriage"

 

I guess they should remove tax breaks from marriages then, and only apply it to people who are raising children.

It's not always a tax break. Sometimes people are actually penalized for being married. Any couple with two incomes in the U.S. are much better off filing separately. Three or more would be far better off not being recognized by the government, since at least two would be working.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty

 

Either way, it shouldn't concern the government. Children should, and I have no problem with moderate subsidization of children, since children should grow into taxpayers (theoretically, at least). I'd place a subsidization cutoff at the population replacement rate, though, to discourage overpopulation. Oh, you can have more kids the cutoff, but you won't be receiving more money for them.

 

As an aside, this would probably encourage monogamy unintentionally, since two partners could claim more children as dependents than one partner and a fraction of a partner. Or, non-procreating partners could claim a child as a dependent on their own taxes. If you loosened the rules so that a child could be claimed on anyone's tax form, but the child can only be claimed on one, those with more children than the replacement rate could get a payment for others to claim their children, forming a kind of private market Welfare. While the logistics of this would be nightmarish and pretty much require a central computer database of everyone born, it would be the fairest way for a government to regulate population growth if implemented. Want more citizens? Increase the subsidy. Somebody doesn't have kids but wants some of the subsidy? They can pay to claim someone else's kid.

[Spite]

If Vietnamese people are such great athletes, and Americans and other westerners are so fat and useless, how come you got zero medals at the Olympic games in 2012?

 

For reference:

 

USA got 103 (46 golds)

China got 88 (38 golds)

UK got 65 (29 golds)

Russia got 81 (24 golds)

 

Hell, even Botswana got a medal.

[Sailor Jerry]

Here in the U.S., there is this thing called separation of church and state.  Now marriage in and of itself is mainly a religious concept.  If a religion always multiple marriages, so be it, it doesn't affect me.  The government on the other hand would just need to adjust the tax breaks for a group of people in multiple marriage situation.  For example 1 guy married to 3 women.  When filing, they should file as married but separate.  The guy being the singular component, could file for himself and the number wives he has.  Each wife would in turn only be able to claim themselves and the children they are the birth mother too.  Just a small example.

 

The real problem comes in due to human nature......mainly greed.  In the example above, the guy thinks....yeah, I've got it made, however, in time, the 3 wives, more than likely, will start to despise the others and do things against them to maneuver herself to be the top/#1 wife.  People hate sharing and that is where I think the real problem would lay.

[Fox Fire]

I for one am more in favor of abolishing marriage entirely and only carrying over some of it's legal aspects to people with children.

[Mike Haggar]

I for one am more in favor of abolishing marriage entirely and only carrying over some of it's legal aspects to people with children.

Pretty much this, with the clarification that marriage should still be allowed, just do away with the legal baggage. Religious authorities should still be allowed to hold ceremonies and may even keep their own records of marriages. If a religion won't recognize your marriage, pick another religion.

 

However, governments will not use marriage to dole out benefits or penalties, nor will they enforce obligations that aren't spelled out in a prenup. If an adult chooses to be completely dependent on someone else for their living expenses, it's at their own risk. Children have rights to parental income independent of marriage, and these won't go away just because one parent won't support another.

[Rozalia]

I agree with Mike Haggar and Fox Fire on the legal/financial aspects that would have to be changed. 

 

Polygamy is quite widespread globally, but nearly always in one man to many wives situations. I tend to view that as quite regressive. I'm not sure how much actual demand there is for polygamy in the developed world. I think people experiment with it sometimes and I've met people who practiced open relationships or multiple relationships, but I find the idea of sharing my girlfriend with another person quite off putting and my girlfriend would undoubtedly have the same feelings on the matter.

 

Well that would be due to the traditional "position of power" being in man's hands and women being oppressed. Many places with Polygamy put down the reason as a man who can support many wives is doing a favour to his wives by having more then one... however a women, heck a rich woman having more than one husband is wrong because... well woman.

Some places have had examples of polyandry regardless, India I believe. Logically if it's legal polyandry would exist among the rich and in communities where there are a shortage of women. Checking up on the matter there are many who say that even without religion they find it "disgusting" and such and while fair enough, at the end of the day it's a society thing. There is nothing intelligent or natural in a monogamous marriage (not saying it's stupid and unnatural just to be clear), it's simply the morals that were set down from religion which even the non-religious are effected by.

 

I was thinking about what the dynamic would be and reading some articles (was searching what Feminist thoughts were on the matter) and based of that I thought of an interesting dynamic. Polygamy far from being oppressive to women is actually very much a positive, if she is a free woman anyway. So with Polygamy the poorer men are the ones who are worse off as many women will then shack up with the better off men through Polygamy. 

So what happens to many of them? Well I was thinking if the better off women would necessarily would go and become wife #X to someone and thinking on it while some obviously might I think they might instead take those leftover men and make use of Polyandry.

 

Some time back I had read some articles on it from Muslim woman as apparently these days Polygamy is on the up among successful Muslim women and it is apparently a very good thing and it makes life better off for women and also gives them more free time as they don't have to be full time wives. The man having several shares his time out among his wives so when it isn't their "turn" they're pretty free to do as they like. Being married to several people and living in different homes is not something that would seem right to me, but I suppose it has it's advantages. 

[Franz Von Dietrich]

im a conservative communist and fascists are support of racism and capitalism i am against

 

can you read?

Fascism doesn't support capitalism.

Fascist economics based upon a mixed economy and syndicalism.

 

Unlike us, you Stalinist use state capitalism to make revenue xD.

[Moon Man]

I just cant see polygamy of any kind working well in the longrun. Sure when you are young and dumb it may seem like fun, but you cant effectively cuddle with two people at once. There will be resentment towards eachother, in polyandry, the guys will end up getting pissed off at each-other, eventually becoming a competition and not really love. Sure they could be bisexual, but men are very rarely bisexual, they tend to lean toward one extreme or the other. Polygamy would have the same problem, with the women having infighting into who is the better wife, and who the husband loves best. Women tend to be quite jealous, and this type of relationship would likely end quickly in any western country. While polygamy was used in ancient times and in the middle east primarily for population growth reasons, these days we already have too many people on this planet. Also it could get complicated with raising a family, and the divorces that would inevitably occur would be a nightmare, especially with child custody. Humans do not really seem capable of sharing affection equally with one another, so I think that this would not work out too well. If you dont want to love one and only one person, just dont get married.

[Big Brother]

I just cant see polygamy of any kind working well in the longrun. Sure when you are young and dumb it may seem like fun, but you cant effectively cuddle with two people at once. There will be resentment towards eachother, in polyandry, the guys will end up getting pissed off at each-other, eventually becoming a competition and not really love. Sure they could be bisexual, but men are very rarely bisexual, they tend to lean toward one extreme or the other. Polygamy would have the same problem, with the women having infighting into who is the better wife, and who the husband loves best. Women tend to be quite jealous, and this type of relationship would likely end quickly in any western country. While polygamy was used in ancient times and in the middle east primarily for population growth reasons, these days we already have too many people on this planet. Also it could get complicated with raising a family, and the divorces that would inevitably occur would be a nightmare, especially with child custody. Humans do not really seem capable of sharing affection equally with one another, so I think that this would not work out too well. If you dont want to love one and only one person, just dont get married.

 

I don't agree with this. I don't really care whether or not it's legal but it seems to me you're making a lot of judgments about men and women, particularly men and women who practice polygamy/polyandry. How can you possibly know whether or not they'll be jealous? Have you spoken to anyone or do you actually know anyone in this type of relationship? I think we can safely say that not all human beings are selfish and incapable of sharing (because human beings are unique), even when it comes to sharing relationships and human beings.

 

Obviously polygamy/polyandry has supporters, which means that it does work out for some people. And since it can work out for some people, I reserve judgment. Let people live their lives however they want, they only get one chance at it.

 

 

If Vietnamese people are such great athletes, and Americans and other westerners are so fat and useless, how come you got zero medals at the Olympic games in 2012?

 

For reference:

 

USA got 103 (46 golds)

China got 88 (38 golds)

UK got 65 (29 golds)

Russia got 81 (24 golds)

 

Hell, even Botswana got a medal.

 

To be fair, the health and accomplishments of athletes is hardly representative of the general population. The United States does have one of the highest obesity rates in the world.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Big Brother

[Rozalia]

To bump this a bit I'd like to ask a question in regards to spitting in the face of this oppressive law. 

 

Now one method of getting around it is one that goes on quite a bit today, mostly in regards to Muslims which is that their second/third/so on marriages are "spiritual" and so perfectly fine.

 

However can you get around it by simply getting married in a Muslim country? Obviously due to Islamic law this only matters in regard to Polygamy as they are against Polyandry. However say a man in Europe has two women (all are legal citizens) he wants to marry... could he take a holiday with both women to a Muslim country, get married there which would be perfectly fine if they are one that allows Polygamy, and then return to Europe? 

 

Considering it was done perfectly legally I don't see how the state can punish someone for it, though perhaps they won't recognise the second marriage but of course that ain't an annulment. 

[Abu Haddad]

In accordance with Islamic Law a man may only have more than one wife if he is able to give them both equal attention and equal finance. If that is possible he can only have more than one if he is able to support them financially.

[Rozalia]

In accordance with Islamic Law a man may only have more than one wife if he is able to give them both equal attention and equal finance. If that is possible he can only have more than one if he is able to support them financially.

 

Not really relevant to what I was saying (as it's to be expected) but if you really want that clarified, yes lets say he can support both of them financially easily and the guy is rich to boot. 

Edited January 30, 2016 by Rozalia

[Abu Haddad]

The man should treat each wife equally affection wise and money wise.

[Crust]

I know quite a lot of polyamorous people who have been in fairly long-committing relationships, myself included, so to say that it's just experimental is just assumptions. 

 

Anyway, why the option to marry? Well, you could argue for/against tax brakes, for/against the state recognizing any type of romantic relationship, for/against separating the state and religion. The most obvious argument to me why people who want to marry more than one person at a time should get to is because of the rights that come along with it. If you're not married to your partner you don't get to visit them in the hospital, if you have children you don't get custody over them if you divorce or if your partner(s) unexpectedly die etc. That's a big reason for why homosexuals even fought for the right to get married.

[aaaaddd22]

The point of marriage in my view (disregarding money and power) is to implement a mother figure and a father figure into a child's life. With multiple people creating multiple conflicts of interest I would find many relationships to be ruined.

I guess infertile people don't have a point in marriage. 

 

 

Why do people conflate marriage and having children? You can have children and raise them well without being married, you can have a marriage without children that'll be just as happy.

Edited January 30, 2016 by ischelle

[Crust]

I guess inferite people don't have a point in marriage. 

 

 

Why do people conflate marriage and having children? You can have children and raise them well without being married, you can have a marriage without children that'll be just as happy.

 

I guess it's easier to argue against any type of relationship that seems "unnatural" if one uses the "marriage = childrearing"-argument

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

Polygamy is a sick, sick practice and should stay banned.

[Rozalia]

The man should treat each wife equally affection wise and money wise.

 

Isn't something about "charms" involved? Look, I know all that do not worry, I'm asking a question based on the law where those aspects you're talking about aren't really relevant. 

 

I know quite a lot of polyamorous people who have been in fairly long-committing relationships, myself included, so to say that it's just experimental is just assumptions. 

 

Anyway, why the option to marry? Well, you could argue for/against tax brakes, for/against the state recognizing any type of romantic relationship, for/against separating the state and religion. The most obvious argument to me why people who want to marry more than one person at a time should get to is because of the rights that come along with it. If you're not married to your partner you don't get to visit them in the hospital, if you have children you don't get custody over them if you divorce or if your partner(s) unexpectedly die etc. That's a big reason for why homosexuals even fought for the right to get married.

 

Having tax breaks involved just turns the argument into one where people against say the system will be gamed or that it's incompatible completely with the system and such. 

 

I'd say it's a matter of recognising the relationship as you say. Who is the government to block a marriage between consenting adults? Whats the big crime exactly? It just comes down to it being religion at the end of the day and the thought of religion dictating law is as always, sickening.

 

Polygamy is a sick, sick practice and should stay banned.

 

People said that about Intermarriage, they lost. People said that about Homosexuality, they lost. You're smart enough to know that ultimately it being legal is inevitable so why keep fighting the future and keep people oppressed?