Polygamy

KStiletto said:
So at some point the government comes into play?
Click to expand...

In civilized societies when people can't reach an equitable agreement among themselves the government comes into play.
 
Reba said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is one of the problems with monogamous relationships today. People go into them making assumptions about each other rather than discussing ahead of time what might or might not be expected from each other.

Once in the marriage they fight about what they should have discussed prior to the wedding.

You are right. This would happen in a multiple marriage as well.
 
Berry said:
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).
Click to expand...

If you go to most of my posts I did mention both male and female partners. I specifically wanted to speak about what I presume is the majority of polygamous unions, one male, more than one females. Trust me I think outside the box, and I'm open minded to a point.

Thanks for the different opinions you all. Have a good one.
 
Reba said:
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?
Click to expand...

From my viewpoint this is an excellent idea.
 
KStiletto said:
If you go to most of my posts I did mention both male and female partners. I specifically wanted to speak about what I presume is the majority of polygamous unions, one male, more than one females. Trust me I think outside the box, and I'm open minded to a point.

Thanks for the different opinions you all. Have a good one.
Click to expand...

I think most men will claim they can successfully satisfy more than one woman as a lover.

While this ability is a nice fantasy, and I admit I would like to be one of the men who could live up to that, there are very few men who are actually capable of doing so.

Fact is every successful multiple union I have come across has at least one GLBT member.
 
Steinhauer said:
That is true of Judeo/Christian traditional marriage ceremonies. But in Muslim culture, polygamy is a way of life.

Let's not forget that marriage has always been a religious ceremony ..... now the government is butting in ... it is considered a "contract".

They need to butt out. Government has no business in regulating religious ceremonies.
Click to expand...

No, not always. From the very beginning, the first couple on the earth was being wedded by the Almighty One and after the original sin, there was no Almighty One around on earth to legally wed the every couple after them. So that's why there are pastors, reverends, priests, etc. of all kind of MAN-MADE religions were set up ceremonies to legally wed the couples ever since to today.

I do agree with your last sentence about governments that need to be butting out from the spouses just because of taxes and contracts stuff...
 
A friend of mine told me,

marriage is made in Heaven

Divorce is made in Hell.
 
Berry said:
I've seen a couple.

What is really weird -- Some of those last the longest.


Or maybe it is just true that misery loves company.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that could explain some marriages that I've seen first hand. :hmm:
 
Berry said:
A friend of mine told me,

marriage is made in Heaven

Divorce is made in Hell.
Click to expand...

Daredevel7 said:
Some people would say that it's the other way around..

ooooo :shock:
Click to expand...

deafskeptic said:
:lol: I guess that could be true of some marriages!
Click to expand...

Berry said:
I've seen a couple.

What is really weird -- Some of those last the longest.


Or maybe it is just true that misery loves company.
Click to expand...

deafskeptic said:
Well, I guess that could explain some marriages that I've seen first hand. :hmm:
Click to expand...

Me too. I guess it has something to do with this premise:

It's better to go with the beast that you know (toxic relationship). Then, the beast that you don't (ending said toxic marriage/relationship and going out into the unknown). :hmm:

I've seen this in action more times than I wanna admit.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Me too. I guess it has something to do with this premise:

It's better to go with the beast that you know (toxic relationship). Then, the beast that you don't (ending said toxic marriage/relationship and going out into the unknown). :hmm:

I've seen this in action more times than I wanna admit.
Click to expand...

Only applies to those who think they HAVE to have a relationship. I was happily single for almost 30 years before I got married the first time. I was single for 5 years before I got married the second time.

Both women have two things in common. Both happy people. Both comfortable with their own company as single adults.

I believe getting married because either or both parties feel they HAVE to be in a relationship is a recipe for disaster.

You are better off alone than in a bad relationship.
 
Berry said:
Only applies to those who think they HAVE to have a relationship. I was happily single for almost 30 years before I got married the first time. I was single for 5 years before I got married the second time.

Both women have two things in common. Both happy people. Both comfortable with their own company as single adults.

I believe getting married because either or both parties feel they HAVE to be in a relationship is a recipe for disaster.

You are better off alone than in a bad relationship.
Click to expand...

Completely agree!
 
Berry said:
Only applies to those who think they HAVE to have a relationship. I was happily single for almost 30 years before I got married the first time. I was single for 5 years before I got married the second time.

Both women have two things in common. Both happy people. Both comfortable with their own company as single adults.

I believe getting married because either or both parties feel they HAVE to be in a relationship is a recipe for disaster.

You are better off alone than in a bad relationship.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, and that seem to be such a difficult concept for those with very low self esteem or a poor sense of identity to grasp. Another person does not complete you.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Me too. I guess it has something to do with this premise:

It's better to go with the beast that you know (toxic relationship). Then, the beast that you don't (ending said toxic marriage/relationship and going out into the unknown). :hmm:

I've seen this in action more times than I wanna admit.
Click to expand...

Sadly, you've described me to a 'T'. :(
 
Berry said:
Only applies to those who think they HAVE to have a relationship. I was happily single for almost 30 years before I got married the first time. I was single for 5 years before I got married the second time.

Both women have two things in common. Both happy people. Both comfortable with their own company as single adults.

I believe getting married because either or both parties feel they HAVE to be in a relationship is a recipe for disaster.

You are better off alone than in a bad relationship.
Click to expand...

But could this be applied to ANY type of relationship or just those involving marriage/courtship? I don't think I HAVE to be married, although I do wish the right person would come along, but it's doubtful given my current situation.
 
Dixie said:
But could this be applied to ANY type of relationship or just those involving marriage/courtship? I don't think I HAVE to be married, although I do wish the right person would come along, but it's doubtful given my current situation.
Click to expand...

I would say definitely ANY relationship.

People gravitate toward specific types of relationships that either fulfill their inner needs or express their inner conflicts.

You do not need a Jillio or a Freud to help you figure out what your inner needs and conflicts are. Just take a close look at your friendships. Do they all follow the same pattern? What traits do your friends, past and present, have in common? Are these friendships healthy? Rewarding? Why? How? If not, why? How?

Examining your friendships will tell you more about yourself than it will about your friends.
 
Berry said:
I would say definitely ANY relationship.

People gravitate toward specific types of relationships that either fulfill their inner needs or express their inner conflicts.

You do not need a Jillio or a Freud to help you figure out what your inner needs and conflicts are. Just take a close look at your friendships. Do they all follow the same pattern? What traits do your friends, past and present, have in common? Are these friendships healthy? Rewarding? Why? How? If not, why? How?

Examining your friendships will tell you more about yourself than it will about your friends.
Click to expand...

Well said. If one will only take an honest look at the patterns, one will develop insight.
 
Back
Top