The Debate

[David T]

I go a little bit back and forth on polygyny. It seems to me there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. I tend, however, to come down on the opposing side -- at least for now -- because of what might be the social consequences of it.

It seems to lead to rich old men monopolizing the supply of women, leaving many younger, less well established men without partners. In turn that seems to have a number of undesirable social consequences.

I would be very concerned that more research be done on that before I would enthusiastically support polygyny.

 

[SalixIncendium]

How about multuple cheating partners in multiple relationships? I think they call it polyamorous.

...it doesn't make sense to me that either gender should have more than one committed partner at any given time.

 

[Curious George]

It would. Our laws aren't set up for that. The West has never allowed plural marriage, going back to Greece and Rome.

You say that but I disagree. In most instances we have laws that would serve as suitable workarounds already. The most change would need to occur in estate law when a decedent died intestate. And we can fix that by leaving the wife's share the same and splitting it evenly between the multiple wives.

What else do you think would need to be changed?

 

[David T]

I would imagine most atheists will be against polygyny, just on the grounds that it was condoned (2 Samuel 12:8) and in some cases commanded (Deuteronomy 25:5) by God.

Logic would dictAte that. But my guess most are closeted southern baptists loving to cherry pick. Just a guess. Sort of like being hetrosexual in denial. Lol.

 

[Curious George]

Logic would dictAte that. But my guess most are closeted southern baptists loving to cherry pick. Just a guess. Sort of like being hetrosexual in denial. Lol.

Lol, how would logic dictate that?

 

[David T]

This has nothing to do with Islam.

Cant we always make everything about islam? Is there some rule damn it!!! Lol ok ok rival is on topic. Party pooper.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You say that but I disagree. In most instances we have laws that would serve as suitable workarounds already. The most change would need to occur in estate law when a decedent died intestate. And we can fix that by leaving the wife's share the same and splitting it evenly between the multiple wives.

What else do you think would need to be changed?

What about inheritance? Whose kids get what? Spousal support? Custody?

 

[David T]

Lol, how would logic dictate that?

Its in the bible pure ancient man made myth. Are you now suddenly a myth supporter cuz it fits for you?

 

[Rival]

What about inheritance? Whose kids get what? Spousal support? Custody?

And what about all the in-laws? It would be so complicated.

 

[Jollybear]

It would. Our laws aren't set up for that. The West has never allowed plural marriage, going back to Greece and Rome.

What about simplify the law?

 

[Curious George]

What about inheritance? Whose kids get what? Spousal support? Custody?

We already have laws that deal qith inheritance for children of families with second spouses and step parents. It is not really a problem. We also have laws that handle child support for divorced parents that are remarried. Custody is also already handled looking at caregivers. These are not really that problematic. Like i said, we already have workarounds from the various family types that already exist.

 

[shmogie]

So, we have two topics that have been debated to death: abortion and same-sex marriage. As these are beaten horses at this point, I've decided to start a thread on a debate that crops up somewhat, but not particularly often.

Welcome to the polygyny debate. Polygyny is defined as a man having more than one wife.

Do you agree that polygyny should be legal? Why? Why not?

It should be legal in the civil sense of marriage. Why not ?

Marriage has been completely redefined, so, if the term can be twisted to mean the bizarre, why not allow equality across the board for any and all bizarre combinations.

I say, make marrying a tortoise or robot legal, equality under the law for all, wasn't that the mantra for same sex marriages ?

All means all, let'em do what they want. Have a hundred wives, go for it, just make damn sure you and they aren't on welfare

 

[Curious George]

Its in the bible pure ancient man made myth. Are you now suddenly a myth supporter cuz it fits for you?

No. But i dont object to things on the simple fact that they are in the bible. For instance, I do not object to laws against murder.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What about simplify the law?

I don't support changing the law in the first place.

 

[Jollybear]

I think polygamy should be allowed, NOT BECAUSE ID PRACTICE IT, but because of freedom. As long as all parties mutually consent, go for it.

 

[Jollybear]

I don't support changing the law in the first place.

Why?

 

[David T]

ok mime it mr hermit!!!

 

[Curious George]

And what about all the in-laws? It would be so complicated.

What about them? What legal problems do you see arising from in-laws?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We already have laws that deal qith inheritance for children of families with second spouses and step parents. It is not really a problem. We also have laws that handle child support for divorced parents that are remarried. Custody is also already handled looking at caregivers. These are not really that problematic. Like i said, we already have workarounds from the various family types that already exist.

Laws dealing with past spouses aren't the same as laws dealing with current spouses.

 

[David T]

No. But i dont object to things on the simple fact that they are in the bible. For instance, I do not object to laws against murder.

Its a myth book. Old bad science is it not?