Polygamy should be legalized
goo...@rock.com
Monogamy: One spouse - So if you're not married, -- [you're not
technically] -- monogamous.
Polyandry: More than one husband.
Monandry: One husband.
Polygyny: More than one wife.
Monogyny: One wife.
Bigamy: the criminal offense of marrying one person while still
legally married to another.
Trigamy: Having 3 spouses at one time (17th-19th Century England)*
From the modern legal perspective, Trigamy has been viewed as two
counts of Bigamy.
Polygamy should be legalized and we should be allowed to choose as
many spouses as we please. We should be allowed to form bigger
families than just two people and children.
Men should be allowed to have two or three wives if they want. Or
five or six or seven.
Women should be allowed to have two or three husbands if they want.
Or five or six or seven.
Who in the hell would only have ONE best friend.
Who in the hell would only have one person in their family who loved
them.
Polygamy is good for polyamory and free love.
Life *is* about loving relationships.
This solves the question of gay marriage also.
So you can have brother-husbands and sister-wives (when you marry your
spouse's spouse; a non-sexual friend/loved one of the same sex).
With Polygamy you should have to get your other spouse's(') consent
before you marry a subsequent spouse. If you don't get their consent
then it's Bigamy.
The question is how much of your wealth should be split when you
divorce. When you marry one person, you split it all and keep 50%.
When you marry two people, you split it three ways or keep 50% and
split 50% two ways. I'm with keeping 50% for myself I think. Also
you could be married to different numbers of people than your spouses,
if your spouses weren't married to each other, but you should only be
entitled to the same percentage of their wealth that they are entitled
to of yours.
If your spouse wants to marry someone, you can say "no" and they can
say let me marry another or divorce me, and you can say divorce me, or
"okay you can marry. "Or you can say that they can only marry the
other if you can marry the other also. Money may play a large role
here.
Like if your spouse is very rich, you might not want them marrying
another because there goes some of their wealth that you were entitled
to. Unless the person who they are going to marry is also very rich,
and you can marry them also.
If your spouses new spouse to be is as rich or richer than your
spouse, then you could place the condition on your spouses marriage,
that your spouse(s) can only marry the new spouse if you can marry the
new spouse also.
There are Mormons living in suburban Utah who are polygamous anyway,
and they should be allowed to have that legally recognized - marriage
is just for money. But if some girl is staying home and taking care of
your children she should be entitled to some of your money legally.
Thus legalized Polygamy is a necessity for people who cohabit in
groups as husbands and wives. Then everyone earns an more equal
percentage of the worker's earnings. As it is today, if a wife lives
as a second spouse of a married couple, and later divorces, she is
legally entitled to none of her husband's money. This is unfair.
No one should get married until age 18 unless they or their partner is
pregnant and it has been ascertained by a competent third party such
as a judge that they are making the choice of marriage of their own
free will and not being forced or unduly pressured into it. But this
only stands for marriage recognized by the state. Trully marriage
exists only the hearts and minds of the married people.
All marriage legally is, is a binding of financial fortunes. If
everyone makes the same amount of money then legal marriage doesn't
matter.
Polygamy is good for polyamory and free love. Free love is not all
inclusive, just less exclusive.
Life *is* about loving relationships.
Polygamy is good because there will be less divorce. This matters
when there's children. Instead of getting divorced you can get
another spouse, and wait until your kids are 18 and out of the house
and gone away to college. This is often better for the children.
It's good because the children have several mothers and several
fathers and more support from adults. Families are richer and
stronger.
Okay hopefully we'll have marriage freedom in the near future.
----------------------------------------------------------------
*There was an old fellow of Lyme
Who lived with three wives at one time.
When asked, 'Why the third?'
He replied, 'One’s absurd,
and bigamy, sir, is a crime.'
Lord Calvert
that would presume that government had the power to grant rights. They
don't. The right is already extant in accordance with the 9th
Amendment. Polygamy can only be made illegal. The laws that make
consensual polygamy illegal is what are illegal. The Supreme Court
ruled on a similar case back in 1967 when, in a unanimous decision,
they upheld that big-government cannot restrict consensual marriage on
the basis of race (Loving v. Virginia). There is no valid legislative
purpose to retain big-government restrictions on consensual marriage
in any other arena.
Let's get big-government out of the marriage business and put those
decisions back in the hands of the people involved, where they
rightfully belong.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography
Leo Marx
Yes, yes, many wives for the moneyed elite.
The rest of you working class bums work until you die. You will get your
reward in heaven.
Polygamy can only be practiced by the rich and powerful. The common man
can barley afford to keep one.
JAM
Wexford
And polyandry?
Uncle Vic
Then there's the psychological reasoning. How many monthly episodes can
one man endure?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
David V.
> Polygamy: More than one spouse.
As long as they are consenting adults, I don't give a rats ass
what they do.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
Meteorite Debris
away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
<devil's advocate>
Not all men are born equal to the task of finding mates. So marriage has
been socialised to ensure some form of equality. With polygamy a few men
would end up with all the women and most of the rest would go without in
what is a zero-sum game. Even with monogamy it is estimated by Brian
Gilmartin that about 1.7% of American males never mate and remain life
long virgins (the source feed stock of the Revelation 144,000 :-) ).
Other estimates vary as high as 4-5%. A society with many unmatched
males becomes a very dangerous and very unstable society. Polygamy would
only work if the lucky few men castrated the unlucky many to keep them
docile and compliant.
</devil's advocate>
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Therion Ware
If polygamous / polyandrous marriage happens I think the opposite
would be mostly the case in as much as some form of group marriage
forms a larger and more stable economic unit than the usual variety.
Better yet if tax law was appropriately amended.
Therion Ware
But doesn't that limit the case to simple polygamy? What if it's a
wider case where polygamous / polyandrous unions allows "group
marriages" where every member of the group is married to every other
member of the group.
Actually, if/when this comes about, I think it'll be known as the
"contract lawyers preservation act".
B1ackwater
If 'gay' marriage can be justified then polygamous, polylandrous
and group marriages can also be justified.
Actually, the State ought to endorse pretty much ANY kind of
"marriage" ... because married people are LESS TROUBLE, less
expensive and, of course, easier to MANAGE. There are no end
of statistics to prove it.
I'm amazed the State doesn't REQUIRE everybody to be married-off
at puberty. No divorces until all parties are 21 years old either.
The delinquency rate would plummet, gangs would dry up and blow
away, STD rates would fall drastically and the burdens of the
'single moms' would largely disappear as well. Good for the
youth, good for 'society' ..... :-)
Lord Calvert
> I agree.
>
> If 'gay' marriage can be justified then polygamous, polylandrous
> and group marriages can also be justified.
>
> Actually, the State ought to endorse pretty much ANY kind of
> "marriage" ... because married people are LESS TROUBLE, less
> expensive and, of course, easier to MANAGE. There are no end
> of statistics to prove it.
I disagree. The state does not have the legal authority to "endorse"
any sort of marriage. That presumes that the state has the power to
grant rights which in the US it does not. There is a significant and
identifiable difference between "endorsing" and "failure to
criminalize" and it is exceptionally important that we do not confuse
one for the other. This was the unjustified panic that was going
around after the Loving decision in 1967. People who wanted to use the
power of big-government to regulate marriage fraudulently claimed that
SCOTUS was endorsing miscegenation because the concept of marriage
that is not regulated by big-government is alien to them. SCOTUS was
not endorsing miscegenation despite what the fundy-bots wanted people
to believe. SCOTUS just limited the power of government to criminalize
it. That is a very important difference.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography
"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless
the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no
place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known
without trying to make their views the only alternatives." - Sen.
Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)
Lord Calvert
> I'm amazed the State doesn't REQUIRE everybody to be married-off
> at puberty. No divorces until all parties are 21 years old either.
> The delinquency rate would plummet, gangs would dry up and blow
> away, STD rates would fall drastically and the burdens of the
> 'single moms' would largely disappear as well. Good for the
> youth, good for 'society' ..... :-)
This has been tried recently by a former US presidential candidate.
Arkansas, under the leadership of Mike Huckabee, had one of the
highest divorce rates in the US. Huckabee declared a "marital
emergency" and started endorsing "contract marriages" which were
harder to get out of, similar to what is done in the PRC. The results?
Three years after Huckabee's "emergency" and the assumption of a
bigger role for government in marriage, Arkansas' already high divorce
rate actually increased.
The lesson is clear...the more big-government gets involved in
consensual marriage, the worse it is for everyone concerned.
Ben Goren
Okay. I give up.
Are you really this much of a blithering fucking idiot, or are you
just pretending to be one?
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Darwin123
> Who in the hell would only have ONE best friend.
>
Believers in English grammar?