Polygamy - the right to put down women

[Nessa 23]

And my God!!! I could not even imagine having more than one Wife!!!!!

I could never imagine having more than 1 husband. I'd have the house floor full of socks and shoes, one is more than enough to babysit. On the other hand, if we had more than 1 house like on Big Love and I could convince them to clean after their own mess or have a maid, then why not

That's right. I never thought of that... Two women to clean up after me!! Hmmmmm.

ánd the best part, you'll never be denied sex, cuz every time one of them are not in the mood you have another

[Steve Y Jessica 1]

And my God!!! I could not even imagine having more than one Wife!!!!!

I could never imagine having more than 1 husband. I'd have the house floor full of socks and shoes, one is more than enough to babysit. On the other hand, if we had more than 1 house like on Big Love and I could convince them to clean after their own mess or have a maid, then why not

That's right. I never thought of that... Two women to clean up after me!! Hmmmmm.

ánd the best part, you'll never be denied sex, cuz every time one of them are not in the mood you have another

I may have to re-think my position on this. In fact there is the possibility of many positions. If one will not do one position, maybe the other one will.

[Amby 490]

I have a second husband that I use as a prostitute. Works well

[Kathryn41 3,205]

I agree - polygamy is in no way similar to gay marriage. Gay marriages are two individuals who love each other on a one to one basis and who wish to commit their lives together in a sanctioned union that is recognized by society. Polygamy is an issue of ownership - who has the power. If it were truly an issue of choice then polyandry, polygamy and all sorts of intimate sexual relationships would be allowed with the sole caveat being the relationship is entered of free choice by every single individual involved, and all options would be available within the same society at the same time.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I agree - polygamy is in no way similar to gay marriage. Gay marriages are two individuals who love each other on a one to one basis and who wish to commit their lives together in a sanctioned union that is recognized by society. Polygamy is an issue of ownership - who has the power. If it were truly an issue of choice then polyandry, polygamy and all sorts of intimate sexual relationships would be allowed with the sole caveat being the relationship is entered of free choice by every single individual involved, and all options would be available within the same society at the same time.

Polygamists don't say that it's a matter of ownership, it's outsiders who say that. They say it's about love and commitment and blah blah, all usual warm and fuzzy #######.

Why not take them at their word? Why assume polygamy today is exactly how it was in medieval days?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Simplistic and untrue. The question regarding gay marriage is is there a legal difference between a same sex couple and a man/woman couple? The consenting adult thing is a bit of a red herring.

Also as was suggested elsewhere the legal ramifications of permitting multiple marriages are "challenging" to say the least, as it would trample over various pieces of equal rights (and human rights) legislation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree - polygamy is in no way similar to gay marriage. Gay marriages are two individuals who love each other on a one to one basis and who wish to commit their lives together in a sanctioned union that is recognized by society. Polygamy is an issue of ownership - who has the power. If it were truly an issue of choice then polyandry, polygamy and all sorts of intimate sexual relationships would be allowed with the sole caveat being the relationship is entered of free choice by every single individual involved, and all options would be available within the same society at the same time.

Polygamists don't say that it's a matter of ownership, it's outsiders who say that. They say it's about love and commitment and blah blah, all usual warm and fuzzy #######.

Why not take them at their word? Why assume polygamy today is exactly how it was in medieval days?

Because it is, more or less. Its about ownership and patriarchal dominance. I don't think there are any examples (certainly not in the regard to Mormonism or Islam) where this isn't the case.

[Amby 490]

I think if that's what they want to do then let them do it. If they're happy sharing and being like a prostite then who cares. Does it really directly effect or influence your life?

Edited July 9, 2008 by Amby

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I agree - polygamy is in no way similar to gay marriage. Gay marriages are two individuals who love each other on a one to one basis and who wish to commit their lives together in a sanctioned union that is recognized by society. Polygamy is an issue of ownership - who has the power. If it were truly an issue of choice then polyandry, polygamy and all sorts of intimate sexual relationships would be allowed with the sole caveat being the relationship is entered of free choice by every single individual involved, and all options would be available within the same society at the same time.

Polygamists don't say that it's a matter of ownership, it's outsiders who say that. They say it's about love and commitment and blah blah, all usual warm and fuzzy #######.

Why not take them at their word? Why assume polygamy today is exactly how it was in medieval days?

Because it is, more or less. Its about ownership and patriarchal dominance. I don't think there are any examples (certainly not in the regard to Mormonism or Islam) where this isn't the case.

Do the actual Mormons and Muslims agree with your characterization?

Or are you casting judgment as an outsider?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree - polygamy is in no way similar to gay marriage. Gay marriages are two individuals who love each other on a one to one basis and who wish to commit their lives together in a sanctioned union that is recognized by society. Polygamy is an issue of ownership - who has the power. If it were truly an issue of choice then polyandry, polygamy and all sorts of intimate sexual relationships would be allowed with the sole caveat being the relationship is entered of free choice by every single individual involved, and all options would be available within the same society at the same time.

Polygamists don't say that it's a matter of ownership, it's outsiders who say that. They say it's about love and commitment and blah blah, all usual warm and fuzzy #######.

Why not take them at their word? Why assume polygamy today is exactly how it was in medieval days?

Because it is, more or less. Its about ownership and patriarchal dominance. I don't think there are any examples (certainly not in the regard to Mormonism or Islam) where this isn't the case.

Do the actual Mormons and Muslims agree with your characterization?

Or are you casting judgment as an outsider?

I think you look at the structure of the family unit in those situations - you'll find that its only men who have the multiple wives, never the other way around. It is this way for the simple reason that the men have seniority - and this is based on patriarchal ideologies set down in their respective religious texts.

BTW - you should watch some of the interviews with the women from that mormon commune after the govt took their children into care. Some revealing insights into their ideology. In short - I don't think I'm wrong in what I'm saying.

[doodlebugg 10]

I agree - polygamy is in no way similar to gay marriage. Gay marriages are two individuals who love each other on a one to one basis and who wish to commit their lives together in a sanctioned union that is recognized by society. Polygamy is an issue of ownership - who has the power. If it were truly an issue of choice then polyandry, polygamy and all sorts of intimate sexual relationships would be allowed with the sole caveat being the relationship is entered of free choice by every single individual involved, and all options would be available within the same society at the same time.

Polygamists don't say that it's a matter of ownership, it's outsiders who say that. They say it's about love and commitment and blah blah, all usual warm and fuzzy #######.

Why not take them at their word? Why assume polygamy today is exactly how it was in medieval days?

Because it is, more or less. Its about ownership and patriarchal dominance. I don't think there are any examples (certainly not in the regard to Mormonism or Islam) where this isn't the case.

Do the actual Mormons and Muslims agree with your characterization?

Or are you casting judgment as an outsider?

I think you look at the structure of the family unit in those situations - you'll find that its only men who have the multiple wives, never the other way around. It is this way for the simple reason that the men have seniority - and this is based on patriarchal ideologies set down in their respective religious texts.

BTW - you should watch some of the interviews with the women from that mormon commune after the govt took their children into care. Some revealing insights into their ideology. In short - I don't think I'm wrong in what I'm saying.

Well it'd be kinda difficult to know who's the daddy of the children if it were the other way around. Ownership has nothing to do with polygamy in Islam. It is allowed but only if the husband can provide for each wife EQUALLY, i.e. one wife has a nice expensive house, the second wife gets the same, one wife gets taken out to dinner 2 x/week the other gets the same, one wife gets x-amount of attention, caring and love, the other gets the same. Since this is all but impossible, it's not really allowed to happen. Many misinterpret the rules to suit their own needs and desires.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree - polygamy is in no way similar to gay marriage. Gay marriages are two individuals who love each other on a one to one basis and who wish to commit their lives together in a sanctioned union that is recognized by society. Polygamy is an issue of ownership - who has the power. If it were truly an issue of choice then polyandry, polygamy and all sorts of intimate sexual relationships would be allowed with the sole caveat being the relationship is entered of free choice by every single individual involved, and all options would be available within the same society at the same time.

Polygamists don't say that it's a matter of ownership, it's outsiders who say that. They say it's about love and commitment and blah blah, all usual warm and fuzzy #######.

Why not take them at their word? Why assume polygamy today is exactly how it was in medieval days?

Because it is, more or less. Its about ownership and patriarchal dominance. I don't think there are any examples (certainly not in the regard to Mormonism or Islam) where this isn't the case.

Do the actual Mormons and Muslims agree with your characterization?

Or are you casting judgment as an outsider?

I think you look at the structure of the family unit in those situations - you'll find that its only men who have the multiple wives, never the other way around. It is this way for the simple reason that the men have seniority - and this is based on patriarchal ideologies set down in their respective religious texts.

BTW - you should watch some of the interviews with the women from that mormon commune after the govt took their children into care. Some revealing insights into their ideology. In short - I don't think I'm wrong in what I'm saying.

Well it'd be kinda difficult to know who's the daddy of the children if it were the other way around. Ownership has nothing to do with polygamy in Islam. It is allowed but only if the husband can provide for each wife EQUALLY, i.e. one wife has a nice expensive house, the second wife gets the same, one wife gets taken out to dinner 2 x/week the other gets the same, one wife gets x-amount of attention, caring and love, the other gets the same. Since this is all but impossible, it's not really allowed to happen. Many misinterpret the rules to suit their own needs and desires.

Perhaps that's the case nowadays - but I would suggest that the Islamic version of polygamy was established on a basis of ownership (and this is how it was practiced in most, if not all of the major islamic civilizations throughout the middle ages through to at least the early 20th century). That this form of polygamy still exists - can't be divorced from that, even if attitudes towards it have softened in subsequent years. Given that problems regarding womens equality still exist (to varying degrees) in muslim countries in the middle east and elsewhere - I don't think we can separate polygamy from the fact that the prevailing ideology is one where men have generally more rights and greater social standing than women. Granted I'm filtering this through a western perspective - but still...

Speaking of western perspectives - legitimising polygamy in the US presents numerous legal challenges as I've said. What's to stop a group of women (say a feminist action group who don't agree with polygamy) from filing a class action law suit to the effect that they should be entitled to have multiple husbands? Its pretty ludicrous - but given that women in this country have equal rights to men on pretty much anything... What exactly would be the argument against this?

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

How can a society that's moving to give a man the right to marry another man then refuse a man the right to marry two women?

Give way on gay marriage, you must give way on polygamy. In both cases it's about consenting adults, right?

i've been waiting for someone to figure that out.

we can hear from the loud left all about same sex marriage is a right, but polygamy is out of bounds. oppose same sex marriage and be called narrow minded, yet oppose polygamy and that is quite ok!

double standards are so wonderful

[Peikko 1,575]

Bogus and wrong as has already been pointed out Charles

The question regarding gay marriage is is there a legal difference between a same sex couple and a man/woman couple? The consenting adult thing is a bit of a red herring.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What's so special about the number 2?