• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The issue of polygamy

neutrino_cannon

Master Poster
neutrino_cannon
Joined
Dec 13, 2002
Messages
2,574
I was wondering, as I often do, about the logistical issues involved in maintaining more than one wife. From what little research I have done on the topic (if the stirps_cannon is continued into the next centuries, it will not likely be by me) polygamy falls out of favor when women are given the choice of monogamy. Furthermore the economics of polygamy (which is, after all, often just a status symbol) make it unrealistic in many places where it was once the norm.

From a purely ethical (or hormonal, to all you hardcore cynics out there) standpoint, the subjects fascinates me. Assuming that there isn't any sort of denigration going on, is there anything inherantly wrong with polygamy?
 
neutrino_cannon said:
Assuming that there isn't any sort of denigration going on, is there anything inherantly wrong with polygamy?
Click to expand...

Well, that assumptions kind of strips out the possible negative aspects of polygamy.

I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, but I think the social constructs that feature polygamy tend to have the kind of negative aspects (ownership of women, etc...) going on. If even subtley.
 
Why is it people almost always bring up polygamy but are referring almost singularly to polygyny? Why don't most people acknowledge other forms of polyamorous relationships? What about polyandry?

Frankly, polygyny relationships I've been aware of have almost entirely been bad things. Usually, the man is over-dominant, lazy, and very sleazy; in the most prominant polygamous relationship I can think of, the male in the family doesn't work, lets his legal wife support him, and goes through a successive series of 'second wife' figures to bear him children - until they grow old and tiresome, at which point he ditches them for younger girls.

Most polygamous relationships are very similar to this pattern: an overbearingly hostile patriarch who regularly denigrates women, and very submissive women with almost no self-esteem and certainly little self-respect. Children in these relationships are considered property of the man, and are generally treated very poorly. Jealousy reigns supreme in such a home, and the poor kids are subjected to every form of indoctrination in woman-hating thinking.

Ugh.

Sadly, it could be so much better than this - I just thing polygyny attracts the wrong sorts of men.
 
1inChrist said:
MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE.
Click to expand...
good one, I've never heard that before :rolleyes:

I judge from your statement that you have no idea what the words polygamy or monogamy mean.
This doesn't surprise me since you obviously don't know how to properly use the phrase "caught on TV"
Nor are you able to do anything more than quote the bible.
As opposed to showing an actually understanding of it
 
1inChrist said:
MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE.
Click to expand...

What about King Solomon? King David? Seems the Bible is pretty clear - polygamy is OK according to the Word.

Besides - what the heck does a common homo-hating catchphrase have to do with polygamy?
 
1inChrist said:
I have a t-shirt that says ''God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.''
Click to expand...

And I have a T-Shirt that says, "It's YOUR hell; YOU go to it."

The point would be...?

AH-HA! Maybe 1-mm-Jeebuz here is getting his scriptures from T-shirts, bumper stickers, and Church lawn signs! Well - that would at least be consistant....

Troll.
 
1inChrist said:
I have a t-shirt that says ''God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.''
Click to expand...
perhaps you have a dictionary too
You can use to look up the meanings of polygamy and monogamy,
and then get back to us with how your little T-shirt slogan relates to the subject at all
 
Being that the example I posited was totally theoretical, I'm going to respond in a theoretical world where the pointless and off topic third response to this thread never actually happened.

zaayrdragon, you are correct. Most historical precedent for polygyny I am aware of would hardly be classified as enlightened or proactive. There are only a few historical examples of polyandry.

As I said, polygyny requires so many resources outside of a third world context it's usually a status symbol.

Outside of it's historical roots however, I see no reason that any sort of polygamy would have inherant problems. As much as that's saying "well, if you get rid of all the problems, there aren't any more problems!" I honestly think there is precedent, sans the legal status of marriage of course. While Mr. Hefner may not be the ideal mate, his relationships are certainly not coercive, violent or without benefit to the other parties involved. They do strike me as a status symbol, however.

Am I wrong in saying that such touch-and-go relationships are such precedent?

Edit: Appologies to the honorable Mr. Hefner for not capitalizing his name the first time round.
 
I stated some time back I'd not aknowlege 1inChrist, though I find it too golden to pass up this one liner:


1inChrist... you fail the Turing test.
 
Well, certainly, polygyny is as much a status symbol as anything else. Simple practicality: the male has to be able to afford to feed and shelter two (or more) women and their children. Now, while the women are not ALWAYS going to be pregnant and unable to work, it seems inevitable that, at some point (careful planning aside) both (all?) women MAY be pregnant at the same time.

In many cases I've seen, the male is the one who works anyway,with the women sharing duties as housewives; or, an older wife may also work outside the home, and the younger wife be assigned housechore duties. Rarely, if ever, is there true equality within the home.

Polyandry, on the other hand, would tend to be a much more practical relationship for the woman - having two (or more) men to care for her during her pregnancy certainly seems more financially reasonable. However, we have to take human nature into consideration - and men are jealous, petty beasts. Most men are unwilling to help raise and support children of other men, and certainly aren't willing to share their woman. (Too much neanderthal still left in the male, I think)

Polyquad relationships (two men, two women) also appear, at first, to be a decent and financially reasonable relationship option. Unfortunately, once again, we're dealing with human nature; and it's very unlikely that the relationship is going to be equal all the way around. One or two of the four would undoubtably be the more popular, fun, whatever; jealousy would ensue.

While I don't fundamentally object to poly relationships, in actual practice such relationships never seem to work out as planned. But, then again, neither do simple relationships, either.
 
But homosexuality is a Sin. You cannot be a Christian and a homosexual, period. I don't know where you people get the idea that one can be Christian and homosexual when it's NOT possible.
 
I'm curious, what examples are you familiar with?

Perhaps there are possible arrangements where multiple partners could work, thus alleviating the financial part of it. I could certainly see the advantages of raising children in an environment with more adults, but that would also raise a lot of complications.

A polygamous relationship might be less that ideal for raising children, in that case. A one-man multiple wife setup is certainly a poor system from a genetic standpoint. You end up cutting diversity from other males while making sure that everyone is descended from an elite core of fathers.
 
???

1inPecker, do you even read these posts? Are we discussing homosexuality? NO.

Jeebuz Chrisp, this troll is annoying!!!

Besides - prove it. Prove that you can't be a Gay Christian. After all - Jesus seems to have been gay!
 
1inChrist said:
But homosexuality is a Sin. You cannot be a Christian and a homosexual, period. I don't know where you people get the idea that one can be Christian and homosexual when it's NOT possible.
Click to expand...
And what does this have to do with this thread? Aren't you a little bent out of shape over this issue, ducky? I mean, you mince both your words and your... (ahem). Or do you just fear a bum rap?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom