What's new
By:

So what's wrong with polygamy (polyamory)?

Millsapa said:
I see jealousy as one of the main reasons it would be hard lifestyle. I know I could keep at least 2 menz happy, but would they kill each other? what if I screamed the wrong name?

If I was a "sister wife" it would be nice to have the company/help but the others might resent my awesomeness. The husband would have to let me choose the wives or at least get my okay.
Click to expand...

I had a contribution to this discussion but I deleted it after I got ignored for about a day. My theses was that there's plenty wrong with people in general, working that up as an argument why governments as well shouldn't be in the business of laying down the law.

Sapa, you'd be what I call a polygamy princess on your terms. Some women can run men pretty well, but it would make life unbearable for those other women on your terms.

Maybe a few people could have marriages of various non-traditional styles and achieve some generally elevated results where most or even all would be happy about it long-term. But in my opinion most of us just have too many issues and we'd just be making a mess of our own and others' lives. A lot of us achieve this sad result even following traditional patterns. . . . And if we give governments the power to regulate us in such personal arrangements it's a cinch the government will make us all miserable.
 
DutchJazzer said:
anyways kinsey does not cover transsexuals :S.

so what is a guy who likes shemales? is he6? or 3? or whatever. always wondered about that.
whats the transexual?

the kinsey scale kinda sucks. but thanks for the read

maybe he saw the future. ooh well the more gays and lesbian the less the population of the world will grow.
Click to expand...

While I won't bother to pontificate on the Kinsey transsexual scale paradox, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the last part of your sentence. In order for homosexuals to somehow cause some sort of decline in population growth, one must say that the rate of homosexuals in present time is growing at some sort of greater rate than the heterosexual population, and barring that a significant majority of the homosexuals in the past were out there having children while closeted (as a closeted homosexual in the past makes zero children as opposed to an open homosexual in the present), and that homosexuals won't just have surrogate children (as a couple with four children is putthing just as many people on earth as a mother who doesn't raise her 4 biological children but has them for homosexual couples).
 
babe said:
I had a contribution to this discussion but I deleted it after I got ignored for about a day. My theses was that there's plenty wrong with people in general, working that up as an argument why governments as well shouldn't be in the business of laying down the law when it comes to social issues that don't significantly affect the society as a whole, as is the case with gay marriage. But when it does affect society (as would having multiple spouses and a litter of kids--likely burdening welfare, education, and other systems), then by all means, government has an appropriate role.
Click to expand...
Fixed.
 
People have litters of kids in and out of plural marriages and in and out of marriages in general. Whats the difference? There is no legitimate reason it should be illegal.
 
Here's a question...

If polygamy was legalized, what would the LDS church's stance on polygamy be?
 
The-Joker said:
If polygamy was legalized, what would the LDS church's stance on polygamy be?
Click to expand...

Good question. I researched that out of curiosity a few years back. The church does not currently allow polygamy in other countries where polygamy is permitted -- so I'm forced to conclude that the church would NOT allow polygamy in the U.S. either. (Unless a revelation to the prophet reinstituted that practice, of course.)
 
InGameStrategy said:
Fixed.
Click to expand...

This is actually a predictable response some intelligent folks focused on GLBT issues would favor. In a set of values where the offspring/kids are either negatives or neutrals and the focus is on the needs/wishes of the principals, it does make sense that a government serving such folks should not financially support the production of the next generation. But for government employees/career policians to ignore their own futures and take such a position is just asking too much. . . . It's like asking politicians on the take from corporate lobbyists to just nationalize the assets of their supporters. . . .

The difference between folks who don't believe/dont want to believe in an interested/involved Supreme Being who is directing/trying to assist in developing the human family, and those who ultimately hope for such a Benefactor, is that the former are actually generally taking a short-sighted or personally-centered attitude while the latter are generally taking some kind of view meant for long-term "good" for human progress. And sometimes will act accordingly, and do stuff like care for the kids. . .

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the LDS leadership has waffled generally from what some could fault for being young men with grandiose private ambitions and a sort of political recklessness in the early history, to what some could fault for being old men with grandiose financial ambitions and a sort of careful-to-not-rock-the-boat concern at the present. I could hope for some kind of doctinal consistency and try to make a case that God should direct polygamy if it is done, but that really is a theological issue, not a civil issue, of human liberty. Even the early LDS leaders generally believed it should be a theological and theologically-controlled "choice" not a civil "right". Or in other words, they didn't want unreligious folks trying to do it without the religious belief. . . even though they argued for their "right" under religious freedom. . . . .

Until the Roman Catholic Church became a micromanager of humans a little over a thousand years ago and for the first time created the "moral" that polygamy is intolerable, it was theologically and civilly unregulated, and some folks undertook that family model, generally men who could support their wives. A lot of cultures not actually overrun by "Christianity" continued to have governments that did not undertake to regulate such private affairs, along with not undertaking to regulate other private "family" arrangements.
 
Holy crap! Millsapa is PearlWatson! I was wondering if PearlWatson was the old school Pearl, as I had initially assumed.

Well, this explains a lot.
 
PearlWatson said:
Weird place to post this revelation. LOL
Click to expand...

Well...

I initially assumed you were ThePearl. Then at some point I decided "ThePearl doesn't post insults and party line BS, this PearlWatson character must be someone else" but I still sort of assumed it was ThePearl. Then you got all antagonistic towards me in the Orrin Hatch thread and thinking it was meticulous, intellectual, cold, logical, ThePearl it actually cut a little. Then I was looking through my old threads for something (can't remember anymore) and saw that in the quotes was Millsapa and I had been wondering where Millsapa had gone (wondered if Trout had bullied you out of here, lol) and then saw PearlWatson was Millsapa and felt silly for posting that I didn't approve of the way Trout treated you to you but not knowing it was you.
 
Gameface said:
Well...

I initially assumed you were ThePearl. Then at some point I decided "ThePearl doesn't post insults and party line BS, this PearlWatson character must be someone else" but I still sort of assumed it was ThePearl. Then you got all antagonistic towards me in the Orrin Hatch thread and thinking it was meticulous, intellectual, cold, logical, ThePearl it actually cut a little. Then I was looking through my old threads for something (can't remember anymore) and saw that in the quotes was Millsapa and I had been wondering where Millsapa had gone (wondered if Trout had bullied you out of here, lol) and then saw PearlWatson was Millsapa and felt silly for posting that I didn't approve of the way Trout treated you to you but not knowing it was you.
Click to expand...


It makes sense since I'm revealing that you have multiple...usernames
 
In theory, polygamy sounds pretty cool to many men . . . that is until they see what most polygamist women look like. Also imagine living with that many women cycling together and you'd know exactly what extended weekend each month should be reserved for a guys only weekend of golf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top