• A reminder that Forum Moderator applications are currently still open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Polygamy: moral or immoral?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dark Espeon

Mage des Dark Arts
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
Since the "Another brick out of the wall!" thread kinda began discussing polygamy, I started this one so we can discuss it and not being off topic. (After all, that thread was about the approval of same-sex marriage in Spain, not about polygamy). This article was what started the polygamy discussion; Juroujin/Mozz posted it.

So, how do you feel about polygamy? Do you think it's immoral? Or is it not?

As the free-spirited kitty that I am, I have no problem whatsoever with polygamy. If that's somebody else's thing, by all means they should go for it.

Oh, of course, that doesn't mean polygamy is okay in my standards as person. As far as I'm concerned, I only need one person to be fulfilled. But, that is ME. If somebody needs more than one, it is fine with me. I am not against it.

Now, somebody back at other forums I belonged to asked if it would be okay if a woman had two men/husbands, and another person pointed that is impossible. Well, I will say this: women can be incredibly seductive and persuasive. Ye never know. She could have both men drooling over her without them noticing each other. XD. Though, it probably has more chances of working if the two men are bisexual (just like the two ladies who married the Dutch man in the above article were).

And why must we assume that man with two women can work but woman with two men can't? Haven't ye ever seen men as passive (in personality) as women? Because I certainly have seen many cases where the woman is actually the dominant partner of the relationship :p. It's like the uke x seme thing in shippings, ya know? One partner is always the aggressive and the other is always the submissive/passive. What I wonder is how that would work out with more than two people. Then again, as I already said, I am a one-man man, so I shall never know. XD.
 
If ALL partners are fine with the idea of a three-way marriage, I have no problem with it. I don't think I would get in one, but that's no justification for forcing others not to get in them.
 
It can be moral but something that shouldn't be promoted by a government.
 
"Not promoting" and "Banning" are two entirely different concepts.
 
I don't think that women who have multiple men are really less common than men who have multiple women. I don't even know why this discussion is about "polygamy," I mean no one really talks about "polygamy" except weird religious extremists, most people are just a part of the general polyamory community, which includes men with multiple women, as well as women with multiple men, as well as group relationships with multiple people of each sex involved.

Also I don't know that most polyamorous people would like you automatically categorizing them as being "submissive" just because there's a greater number of people of thier gender in the relationship. I don't see what domninance and submissiveness has to do with this.
 
Last edited:
Damian Silverblade said:
"Not promoting" and "Banning" are two entirely different concepts.
Click to expand...
How about if you want to have more than one wife/husband, you have to pay a 400,000US "Extra Fuck Fee"?
 
Juroujin said:
How about if you want to have more than one wife/husband, you have to pay a 400,000US "Extra Fuck Fee"?
Click to expand...

Sadly that sort of makes sense because I don't know that the economic consequences of allowing people to marry more than one person would be very good :(
 
Juroujin said:
How about if you want to have more than one wife/husband, you have to pay a 400,000US "Extra Fuck Fee"?
Click to expand...

"not promoting" and "Actively discouraging" are ALSO two things.
 
ChaosRocket said:
Sadly that sort of makes sense because I don't know that the economic consequences of allowing people to marry more than one person would be very good :(
Click to expand...

While I agree with Damian on the point he's making, there certainly is a point on the potential economic consequences here. It'd all depend on what kind of tax benifits families are supposed to get. It might be best if people in polyamorous relationships get smaller ones, to put them on a more equal footing with "regular" families.

Then again, why should any families get tax breaks necessarily? I know of at least one same-sex (on paper) couple in Europe, who married for the tax benifits, even though they're both straight, and have no interest in each other that way whatsoever.
 
Posted by ChaosRocket: I don't think that women who have multiple men are really less common than men who have multiple women. I don't even know why this discussion is about "polygamy," I mean no one really talks about "polygamy" except weird religious extremists, most people are just a part of the general polyamory community, which includes men with multiple women, as well as women with multiple men, as well as group relationships with multiple people of each sex involved.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean. As far as I'm concerned, most people are legally monogamous. And this discussion is about polygamy because of the three-way marriage of the article in my first post -I found it interesting and felt like discussing polygamy.

Also I don't know that most polyamorous people would like you automatically categorizing them as being "submissive" just because there's a greater number of people of thier gender in the relationship.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about. Re-read my post. I didn't saying anything like that o_O.

I don't see what domninance and submissiveness has to do with this.
Click to expand...

*sighs* A woman can't be married to two dominant men -they'd kill each other. And vice versa. Do you see now? Or still can't?

Ye have not stated your point. Are you against it or are you for it? Why? That is the point of the thread after all...
 
Archaic said:
Then again, why should any families get tax breaks necessarily?
Click to expand...

Yeah, my former libertarian self wants to say that the government should stay out of marriage altogether and that no one should get financial benefits from being married.

Dark Espeon said:
*sighs* A woman can't be married to two dominant men -they'd kill each other. And vice versa. Do you see now? Or still can't?

Ye have not stated your point. Are you against it or are you for it? Why? That is the point of the thread after all...
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't make sense. Dominant does not automatically equal possesive.

I'm for it, I don't think it's fair to say some people can get married and others can't.
 
It's not a question of morals. It comes down to money. Let's say a man has five wives. He dies. His widows then clog the courts with battles over who gets what because he forgot to write a will. This is why polygamy is considered bad.
 
Bull. Polygamy is considered bad mainly due to the positions people take against it due to the idea offending their idea of morality. They don't go deep enough on the issue to even consider the economic considerations of it.

And frankly, if there's no will, then unless your law is screwed up (and I realise that, being America, it probably is quite screwed up there for you) it should be a straight equal shares division between spouses and children.
 
I'm against it, mainly because of religions that promote it, in which the women are sort of trapped into getting married along with several other women. Those women are not in a happy relationship, and it isn't entirely their fault.
Archaic said:
And frankly, if there's no will, then unless your law is screwed up (and I realise that, being America, it probably is quite screwed up there for you) it should be a straight equal shares division between spouses and children.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it often doesn't work out that way.
 
Roses Ablaze said:
I'm against it, mainly because of religions that promote it, in which the women are sort of trapped into getting married along with several other women. Those women are not in a happy relationship, and it isn't entirely their fault.
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say that we're all against these forms of abusive relationships. However, when it's not abusive, when everyone involved wants to do it...what right do we have to stop them?
 
Polygamy would lead to human society becoming like prides of lions, where some men (rich and powerful) have many women, and most other men get none. I don't see how any guy who would want to legalize polygamy, unless he is confident that he is a dominant male.
For my personal sake, I do not support polygamy. It has nothing to do with morality; just self-interest.
 
[quote[Polygamy would lead to human society becoming like prides of lions, where some men (rich and powerful) have many women, and most other men get none. I don't see how any guy who would want to legalize polygamy, unless he is confident that he is a dominant male.[/quote]

Um, it's already like that. Except they don't get married. In fact, it's in favor of the rich and powerful not to wed those woman, since they don't have to worry about many divorces sucking out their posessions.
 
Tsing Shi Tao said:
Polygamy would lead to human society becoming like prides of lions, where some men (rich and powerful) have many women, and most other men get none. I don't see how any guy who would want to legalize polygamy, unless he is confident that he is a dominant male.
For my personal sake, I do not support polygamy. It has nothing to do with morality; just self-interest.
Click to expand...

Nobody will want to marry you anyways on account of you being a misogynist with low self esteem.

I say low self esteem because it seems you believe no one would want to be with you if they could instead have someone with money. Obviously you don't think you have anything to offer.

And misogynist obviously if you think that all women only care about money, and if rich guys could marry more than one, all the women would just join the group for the money.
 
ChaosRocket said:
Nobody will want to marry you anyways on account of you being a misogynist with low self esteem.

I say low self esteem because it seems you believe no one would want to be with you if they could instead have someone with money. Obviously you don't think you have anything to offer.

And misogynist obviously if you think that all women only care about money, and if rich guys could marry more than one, all the women would just join the group for the money.
Click to expand...
"My reccomendation is to be really physically attractive so that people will still want to have sex with you, no matter how socially inept you are. That's all you really need because everyone will just betray you anyways. ALL people are shallow jerks."

What can I say? I have little reason to disagree with you about the "shallow" part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom