Polygamy

[Berry]

No that example was based on a relationship between two parties.

My thing is in polygamy what's the limit? He/she (usually he) has _ amount of wives/husbands and believes he has a connection with all of them? Where does it end?? So he can decide to bring a new wife every few months, maybe days? He wants a wife for ever day of the week it seems. Don't forget a wife to make special brownies, then there's the wife that will do what the others won't. Then you got the wife to clean the gutters.. it's just silly to me. If I thought more inward versus fulfilling everyone totally then this might make more sense.

I feel as if these people think they are at the local ice cream store and they want to have each flavor! If I had a husband for every "husband like" need I'd need a school bus. We all can't get what we want in one person, and I'm okay with nothing that.

I don't know about the finances of these polygamous relationships, but if the guy were flat broke, would these relationships still be strong? Like I said before I do see the "positive" aspects of the polygamous lifestyle, you get someone to watch your children, and a clean your house when you're out, but what else is a positive that I am missing. Sharing body fluids between five or more people?? Sweet!

I may be wrong but it just seems like sex is the biggest factor, and if that's the case, if one were to stay single you can do everything, and don't have to take care of thirty children.

Problem is right now society is facing a problem. Sex is not the biggest factor. The biggest factor for many is "Who takes care of the home and children while mommy and daddy are out earning a living"?

Sometimes the parent earning $15 an hour is getting $5 taken out in taxes and paying $9 to the day care center -- To walk away with a total pay of $1 an hour. Not a heartening thing to do.

A lot of grand parents are getting involved in this, but in most cases it is unsatisfying for everyone involved. Maintaining separate households. Grandparents giving up their retirement years to do a job they thought they were finished with. Adult children who do not agree with the way Gramma and Grampa raise the kids.

A third partner, of any sexual relationship or not sexual relationship would help. This person would, could, do all those "Joan Cleaver" things that someone HAS to do sooner or later.

A fourth who is also working and the "family" could live pretty well.

 

[Berry]

IF polygamy were allowed in the USA, would that include polyandry also? Would there be a limit to how many spouses could be included? What about multiple men married to multiple women? What about homosexual multiple spouses? All men or all women. How many?

This gets complicated.

It is complex but it can be simplified.

Our government spends billions of dollars and way too many resources regulating marriage. Deciding what constitutes a marriage, who can marry, what rules shall govern the marriage --

And then it spends several times that regulating divorce. An insane amount of time making, unmaking, and changing laws, then police time, court time, and in many places the primary job of the district attorney is spent dealing with child support and alimony.

Stop the nonsense.

When people get married they should draw up prenuptial agreements and marital contracts outlining what will happen in the event of a divorce. Responsibilities, obligations, and penalties, can all be outlined.

Then the government would simply enforce the contract the same as it would any other contract.

The sex of the partners would no longer be a matter of concern. The number of partners would no longer be of concern. The dominant / submissive relationships would no longer be a concern.

Just the contracts as signed and witnessed.

 

[KStiletto]

Problem is right now society is facing a problem. Sex is not the biggest factor. The biggest factor for many is "Who takes care of the home and children while mommy and daddy are out earning a living"?

Sometimes the parent earning $15 an hour is getting $5 taken out in taxes and paying $9 to the day care center -- To walk away with a total pay of $1 an hour. Not a heartening thing to do.

A lot of grand parents are getting involved in this, but in most cases it is unsatisfying for everyone involved. Maintaining separate households. Grandparents giving up their retirement years to do a job they thought they were finished with. Adult children who do not agree with the way Gramma and Grampa raise the kids.

A third partner, of any sexual relationship or not sexual relationship would help. This person would, could, do all those "Joan Cleaver" things that someone HAS to do sooner or later.

A fourth who is also working and the "family" could live pretty well.

So really and truly it's about schtupping the nanny, the maid, and the cook? I find it funny when the guys say "I have a connection to..." Yea okay. Lol.

Berry I get what you're saying about raising the kids, but it's called sacrificing. Having a free sex nanny just doesn't seem to be that interesting, but hey, I'm sure they find something interesting about all of that.

So what if one of the wives said " You know what? I don't want to watch your children when you go away?" Does she get booted for another woman willing. It just seems like all these extra wives are expendable.

 

[KStiletto]

Then the government would simply enforce the contract

So at some point the government comes into play?

 

[Aleser]

Having a free sex nanny just doesn't seem to be that interesting, but hey, I'm sure they find something interesting about all of that.

You seem to dislike the degradation of women yet apparently are unable to comprehend how -incredibly degrading- what you just said was.

A first/second/third/tenth wife who stays at home is not a "free sex nanny"- they are a MOTHER, even if they are not the child's biological mother.

 

[KStiletto]

You seem to dislike the degradation of women yet apparently are unable to comprehend how -incredibly degrading- what you just said was.

A first/second/third/tenth wife who stays at home is not a "free sex nanny"- they are a MOTHER, even if they are not the child's biological mother.

That's your opinion. *Shrugs* It is what it is.

 

[Reba]

Simple solution: any consenting adults should be able to enter, modify, or withdraw from a marriage contract with any other consenting adults at any time.

Female, male, other, gay, straight, bi, mono, poly: consenting adults should be able to enter into contracts with consenting adults.

By withdraw do you mean divorce?

Any limit to the number of people within a marriage at the same time?

It seems like something lawyers would like; it will keep them busy.

 

[Reba]

Problem is right now society is facing a problem. Sex is not the biggest factor. The biggest factor for many is "Who takes care of the home and children while mommy and daddy are out earning a living"?

Sometimes the parent earning $15 an hour is getting $5 taken out in taxes and paying $9 to the day care center -- To walk away with a total pay of $1 an hour. Not a heartening thing to do.

A lot of grand parents are getting involved in this, but in most cases it is unsatisfying for everyone involved. Maintaining separate households. Grandparents giving up their retirement years to do a job they thought they were finished with. Adult children who do not agree with the way Gramma and Grampa raise the kids.

A third partner, of any sexual relationship or not sexual relationship would help. This person would, could, do all those "Joan Cleaver" things that someone HAS to do sooner or later.

A fourth who is also working and the "family" could live pretty well.

What if no one in the group of four wants to watch the kids and bake the cookies? Or, what if all the women want to stay at home?

 

[Reba]

It is complex but it can be simplified.

Our government spends billions of dollars and way too many resources regulating marriage. Deciding what constitutes a marriage, who can marry, what rules shall govern the marriage --

And then it spends several times that regulating divorce. An insane amount of time making, unmaking, and changing laws, then police time, court time, and in many places the primary job of the district attorney is spent dealing with child support and alimony.

Stop the nonsense.

Why even bother with government sanctioned marriage at all, then? How about no legally binding marriage, no divorces, and let religious people have their own religious ceremonies?

 

[Reba]

You seem to dislike the degradation of women yet apparently are unable to comprehend how -incredibly degrading- what you just said was.

A first/second/third/tenth wife who stays at home is not a "free sex nanny"- they are a MOTHER, even if they are not the child's biological mother.

Not necessarily. This is the real world we live in.

It didn't work out that way for Hagar.

 

[Aleser]

That's your opinion. *Shrugs* It is what it is.

Saying that women who stay at home to care for their children are "free sex nannies" IS degrading. It implies that their only function in the relationship, or in life, is to be fucked and raise children.

That IS degrading, and unless someone has told you that you can call them a "free sex nanny", you have absolutely no right to do so.

 

[Aleser]

Why even bother with government sanctioned marriage at all, then? How about no legally binding marriage, no divorces, and let religious people have their own religious ceremonies?

Because marriage, the contract, not marriage-the-religious-delusion has countless legal benefits.

 

[Aleser]

What if no one in the group of four wants to watch the kids and bake the cookies? Or, what if all the women want to stay at home?

That's something to be discussed before the relationship begins or other people are added to it, just like any other relationship. There are poly families with only 1 person working, and there are childless poly families, and there are poly families in which all the parents work and grandparents, nannies, or daycare are employed.

Just like mono families, it depends on the people. There is not some guide to polygamy out there that demands that wife #1 has brown hair and goes to work and wife #2 is 5'6 and stays home with the kids. People are grown ups and negotiate their own relationships as is appropriate for their own circumstances.

 

[Reba]

Because marriage, the contract, not marriage-the-religious-delusion has countless legal benefits.

Get rid of the legal benefits. Single people have always complained that benefits for married people only are unfair. Leave only parent-child obligations and benefits intact.

 

[Reba]

Side note, speaking of benefits.

Right now, if a retired man dies, his widow gets a percentage of his Social Security benefits, and sometimes other retirement pensions as a survivor.

Suppose polygamy in the USA were legal. If a polygamous man died, how would his survivor benefits be allocated? Everything to the senior widow and nothing for the others? One amount divided up equally to each widow? Full benefits to each widow?

 

[Aleser]

Side note, speaking of benefits.

Right now, if a retired man dies, his widow gets a percentage of his Social Security benefits, and sometimes other retirement pensions as a survivor.

Suppose polygamy in the USA were legal. If a polygamous man died, how would his survivor benefits be allocated? Everything to the senior widow and nothing for the others? One amount divided up equally to each widow? Full benefits to each widow?

You keep citing potential "complications" to polygamy in a not-so-covert attempt to make it sound like a big old circus.

Much like one allocates their financial resources in any other circumstances, they could will it. Otherwise, even split.

Hey, look! problem solved.

 

[Reba]

That's something to be discussed before the relationship begins or other people are added to it, just like any other relationship. There are poly families with only 1 person working, and there are childless poly families, and there are poly families in which all the parents work and grandparents, nannies, or daycare are employed.

If you're going to use grandparents, nannies or daycare anyway, then polygamy isn't necessary for that.

Just like mono families, it depends on the people. There is not some guide to polygamy out there that demands that wife #1 has brown hair and goes to work and wife #2 is 5'6 and stays home with the kids. People are grown ups and negotiate their own relationships as is appropriate for their own circumstances.

The way Berry described it, it seemed that roles were assigned.

Of course, even if they were, people change, and a few years down the road could change their minds about their roles.

That is, in American society. Obviously that's now how it works in other polygamous societies.

 

[Reba]

You keep citing potential "complications" to polygamy in a not-so-covert attempt to make it sound like a big old circus.

Well?

Much like one allocates their financial resources in any other circumstances, they could will it. Otherwise, even split.

I don't think you can will most survivor benefit plans. Even if you could, there's only so much money in the pot.

Suppose the three survivors get his $1,200 per month. That's only $400 per month each. Even if they stay together and pool their resources, that's only $1,200 per month to be shared by three adults.

 

[Barbaro]

Later Day Saints (Mormans) do not include the clause "till death do us part" because they believe the relationship continues. I'm sure they are not the only ones.

Ok, I have bunches of LDS relatives. My half-brothers are direct descendant of LDS pioneers. And I am used to hearing all kind of polygamy stories all my life, and the LDS doctrines, including eternal marriage (the sealing). Blah Blah Blah. If LDS members marry civilly, then they do not have eternal marriage. They must get sealed in the temple as long as they are worthy. It is called the sealing. Actually, entering the temple is more difficult than you think. It requires two interviews to enter, but if a member is not "ready", then one cannot enter the temple. Depends on circumstances.

Let me repeat again: If both LDS members marry civilly, they must wait a year to enter the temple in order to get the sealing. Why? They could file for a divorce several months later.

If LDS member marry non-member civilly, then they cannot get sealed in the temple. IF a non-member joins in the LDS church, of course they must wait a year to enter the temple.

The Bible says in Matthew 22:

"23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. 27 And last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Perhaps you should explain a story clearly behind that about Sadducees and a woman who was married to seven brothers. Many here may not understand what it means.

"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures"

so, what is the scripture that the Sadduces erried by not knowing?

 

[Berry]

So really and truly it's about schtupping the nanny, the maid, and the cook? I find it funny when the guys say "I have a connection to..." Yea okay. Lol.

Berry I get what you're saying about raising the kids, but it's called sacrificing. Having a free sex nanny just doesn't seem to be that interesting, but hey, I'm sure they find something interesting about all of that.

So what if one of the wives said " You know what? I don't want to watch your children when you go away?" Does she get booted for another woman willing. It just seems like all these extra wives are expendable.

You assume the "nanny" is a female and that a male is head of the household.

You assume that if two of them are females neither is a lesbian or bi when in fact they both may be.

You assume they are all having sex.

When in fact it could just as easily be three or more men or three or more women.

Think outside the box (pun intended).