It's an individual choice..animals do it..but there are animals that pair for life just as humans do.. To each its own..there could be love in a polygamist family though.. But, leave religion/cults out of human affairs! Ahhhhhh but there is nothing in this world though or beyond (if there is a beyond?) that can be compared to *Absolute Love*:) One day I will find that girl that is capable of absolute love:) many or most people aren't capable of absolute love:(
He gets a handful of wives, the wives should each get a handful of hubbies. Two way st. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Can't say "There aren't enough good men." Because in that case, I suppose there also aren't enough "good women". Something off about the whole thing.
After it was "officially" stopped, the Romney's illegally immigrated to a Mexican polygamous hideout to keep polygamy. Romney's dad was the 1st Mexican-American candidate for POTUS
Romney is a high Mormon bishop, a descendant of 1 of the original Joe Smith apostles(he STILL had cousins in Mexico)
One gramps who married his 12th wife got shot dead by the husband of of the last woman he had a "celestial" marriage with. If you had high rank, you could take a woman already married to another.
Joe Smith of Mormonism had more than one wife. Okay at the sametime it was with Pocahontas? Oh god... shoot that mason. Smith was a mason. Do people know what masons do? Watch DA VINCI CODE... close enough.
I understand. I thought this was only in Mormonism but its not. If I remember correctly in history, certain RULERs/LEADERs did this. I cant remember the area but Im not like this.
@petfal... sorry, but what the hell r u talking about??? i was responding to the lady who said we must be jealous of polygs... and sorry, but polygamy DOES threaten a relationship. it is impossible for a husband and wife to have true intamacy (not talking about sex here) with a 3rd, 4th, 5th person involved.
Hmmm... I believe we are made to love, and it is innate for both you and your husband to love not only each other, but also others (I'm not saying that you actually do). That doesn't threaten your relationship in any way (the concept of monogamy does (in combination with this reality)). Jealous of you? Not jealous, I'm envious! What you have is wonderful. What I have is also wonderful, but that doesn't mean I would say no to what you have, in addition.
But I don't want you to loose it. Jealousy, as I define it, is when you want to take something away from someone, so you can have it for yourself, whereas envy is when you want it, and want the other to have it, too, and either want to share, or have your own copy of it.
@MrMarksguitar1000 We should thank these ignorant LDS bitches for giving us a rare gift...genuine moral superiority. It's quite a gift [taking a deep breath in through the nostrils, exhaling with satisfaction, a singular oneness with one's being and nature tingling over the skin].
They won't over populate the world.What will happen is their breeding lots of babies will counter the dumb-ass Americans who say stop breeding.You are sadly mistaken If you think chinese,indians and muslims will stop breeding because an American tell them to.
Breed out hate and let the stupid Americans extinct themselves.
AIDS will not exist. Cancer will not exist. Cigarette companies will be thrown out of business so nobody gets lung cancer, and we will get rid of drugs forever. This war in the middle east will be the last war ever on earth. We will all eat from the tree of life and taxes will be 10% of income for everybody.
This will come back into style. Now that we are in the War of Armageddon, it's only a matter of time before we get back to the Garden of Eden/The Promised Land. Where men are happy with their wives and the wives are content with the men having other wives. America will be reformatted into a theocracy and love will be institutionalized. Children will be taught from the beginning that we are all meant to be straight. Everybody will own a farm. We will all donate to the poor until poverty is gone.
Yay for craziness! I don't believe we will move backwards, I believe we will move forth! Not back to polygyny, but towards polyGAMY, where also women can have several spouses... and the gender of your spouses is irrelevant! <3 Children will learn that some believe that we are meant to be straight, some believe other things, and that they got to make up their own opinion, but hopefully not a homophobic one, as this causes more pain than it prevents.
Muslims are allowed to marry up to 4 wives to have as many children has possible it is their religious duty.Bombs are the secondary weapon and sperm warfare is the primary weapon .They are using their future babies to immigrate to the U.S. to try and complete their mission of "World domination". It is the stealth jihad.
Polygamist who can raise healthy,smart children with good morals and do it without tax payers assistance is doing America a great service. And it is none of your business.
But... polygamists, yes, but this is polyGYNY, where females are not allowed to have several spouses. That won't probably help with the good morals? :D
I can't believe that men came up with a cult and use God as a reason to have sex with many woman. I can't believe these woman are sooo dumb. it's so sad to see children being brainwashed that this is the right way to live. It's like a man sat around and thought, how can I get to screw as many woman as I want and it won't matter if i get caught? I know! I'll say that God wants me to. STUPID FUCKING PEOPLE
I don't think the sex is the main reason. These women might be very wise in many areas. Yes, it is sad to see the brainwashing, but it is also sad to see the brainwashing in our own outside society, brainwashing children with monogamy. Monogamy is better than polygyny, but polygamy is better than both of those combined! Free love and marriage! <3 What is sad about this, polygyny, is that the women don't get to have several spouses.
I would find it sad in some way but of course wonderful in another, but it's just so watered out the love when you need to spend it with 3 people. It will not be as much time with each one and it will be more like raising kids that come and go. I find it not as peaceful and in most cases just for the mans desire, probably to have sex with 3 different. But also if you find one more you love it's hard to live without that one, but what if the girl feel more love? It seems to only benefit man.
@mazerrackham001 Yes, but that is what I mean, intense doesn't necessarily mean good, it can just be to much also. And maybe you are right, but I would like to see a girl bringing home a man to that 3 wife relationship, the man would never approve to that.
@M3sslah In my case, as is often the case for those who are able to handle polyamory or polygamy, it is indeed a good thing. It's definitely not for everyone. It can be overwhelming, for sure. To be fair, though, so can monogamous relationships. There's no silver bullet for relationships.
That's an interesting theory you have, since my second wife has a second husband and I'm the second husband of my third wife. Also a close friend of mine is dating a married woman. Seems to work for them.
@mazerrackham001 I probably could handle many wifes but I would not handle more guys, I am way to much alfamale for that, I don't really see it as the mans natural environement to share wifes and girls with other "males". Not out of jealousy only more out of the fact that she is not satisfied with me as a man and it make me powerless and I am not. And I for once rather live alone than being some sort of second best to someone or live together with so many that no one really get any quality.
@M3sslah With that kind of attitude and way of thinking about yourself, I tend to agree that you shouldn't get involved in such a relationship, should the opportunity present itself. It is important to be able to not only take the emotions of others into account and provide for them, but to control your own emotions. I could consume myself with jealousy towards the men I share my second and third wives with, but we try to consider each other, as well as the women, to minimize such emotions.
@M3sslah Instead of being jealous of them, or giving into my insecurities, I trust that my wives love me and I know that I won't be neglected by my wives any more than I would neglect them and the other men in our extended family are very good friends of mine. I shoot and work on firearms with one, and nerd out to Star Trek with the other. Strong communication and a genuine desire from everyone to ensure the happiness of everyone else has made this family work. It couldn't function otherwise.
Awwww... well, some people might not be certain enough about themselves, or for any reason not emotionally ready for a polyamorous lifestyle, and that is ok. Then we have monogamy, but it is also nothing wrong in saying YOU want it one-sided, as long as you are open about it, so a potential wife of yours knows what it is going to. I don't like it, myself, but it is ok, unlike when you have a system where men have the right and women don't. THAT's bad!
I really love women, and I often believe they are more mature and coool than men, and more deserving of multiple partners, but also more apt to be multiple partners, but this is just a weak tendency. Lot's of coool men, too, but aside from emotional matureness, there is also ideology and dogma. These crazy religious people have some rules saying only men can have many women, not the other way around, and we have monogamy, saying no one can have any others. Both are bad, but mono is fair
@Petfal I think big problem why women seem so accepting of this is because their sex is on the inside and ours is on the outside. There is more to question for a man, and it's created by the talk around being a good man, being a good man in bed. A girl is usually more secure in that way, at least that is my experience, how many girls think they are bad in bed? It's very rare, they take for granted what they have between their legs is the same as all other girls.
Interesting thought. I always thought of internal reproduction organs as something that made it all the more vulnerable, but when it is being hidden, there is also few reasons to feel insecure about anything about it.
That's the problem. Too much religious dogma! Then it is not good. And don't forget to mention men can have multiple husbands and women can have multiple wives, too! :D
NEED to!? You don't NEED to spend it with anyone. If you are more to cooperate about practical things, you can get more quality time, and if one of your partners have to do something, you can have quality time with some of the others in the meantime :D
Polygyny, as here, where the women can't have several partners, seems "backwards" and silly, but if there are equal rights, then it's coool, and to everyone's benefit.
I understand, but is there a reason? I see some aspects of this that are negative, and I see some that are positive. Personally, I am a polygamist, and I think people should have the right to love and marry whomever they want, no matter their gender or numbers, but polygyny I don't like.
@Smileprettyyousicfuc the reason why i think its disgusting is not cuz whom they choose to marry or how many just the abuse alone that ive seen and read about with the children and the wives that are in this religon. and it makes me sick to the stomach on how brainwashed these women are im not saying all pologmist but some
Abuse is not coool, I agree on that. I do believe most of these crazy, conservative, religious people do not abuse it, though, but it is certainly kind of brainwashing, letting them grow up, believing that it is right that males can have multiple female partners, but not vise versa, like we brainwash ourselves with the negative side for both genders, but at least we're fair and equal. Some abuse in our culture, but I guess the rate is higher in crazy cults :D
So if the culture is to blame, and something is part of this culture, then that thing is also to blame? It is certainly not uncommon in islamic cultures to wash your hands before you enter into mosqes and greet your neighbours and be polite, or have a financial system, and maybe even drink some sort of milk or water. Are these things also to blame, since drinking water doesn't prohibit "this" or slavery?
WOW!! She looks really...."happy"... She seems a bit "uneasy" when it comes to talking about sharing her husband with somebody else.... Poor woman :-(
"People are innately jealous" True but that's why you should have a say so in what woman would share your husband. The more you like the woman, the less jealous you will be.
To me it makes sense that envy is a natural feeling, wanting what someone else got, along with them, while jealousy, wanting what someone else got, and that they lose it (kind of payback, since they had something you felt entitled to) is an unnatural feeling that emerge when you suppress your envy. Me,I have never been jealous, really. I have several girlfriends (I do not deny them other boyfriens/husbands, like polygynists would have done). I really love them, and I am never jealous.
I do not agree to this at ALLLLL. but these women cant be called stupid, ignorant, or dumb. they know what they're doing. Not every polygamist family is in a cult like FLDS.
See what I mean? Jihadists, the lot of them. They would deprive people of their rights because they think their god wants them to establish a caliphate. They may call their gods by different names and describe their theocracies with different titles, but they are identical in that they want to subvert the human rights of all. Fortunately, my wives and I live in a state that recognizes Castle Doctrine, just in case zealots like this guy decide to use violence instead of talk.
The only right here is God, and no matter how people would try to paint it, slide it, or sugar cover it, the creator of the heavens and the earth is God over all, and he’ll have his word with all of those who say is ok. YOU GUYS KEEP BEING REASANBLE OR HOW EVER YOU MIGHT PUT, OR OPEN MINDED, GOD CARES FOR THESE PEOPLE. The Road to hell has been painted in very pretty colors.
This suggests that there is nothing godly or spiritual about the practice of polygamy, it only hurts and brings great pain to those caught up in its practice. But sadly there are women who would take this as a normal and just happy practice. Satan is very good in blindly people from Gods purpose in every aspect of people’s lives. They’ll try to get, find, debate, and even fight for that excuse, the right as some will put it.
Noah and his family. Cain’s lineage, from which polygamy first began, was destroyed in the flood! Noah and earth of his three sons had only one wife each. If polygamy were a requirement for the righteousness and many polygamous groups teach, then why was Noah’s family monogamous? And more to the point, if polygamy was instead a significant part of the evil that prompted God to condemn and flood the earth, then what does God think of polygamy today?
The words “Wickedness” and “Corrupt” are used in the bible to describe societies, All mankind had become haplessly corrupt, and one aspect of that corruption was POLYGAMY; a corruption of God’s initial design in the Garden of Eden, and one of the reasons God flooded the earth in Noah’s day. Evidence indicates that this is most probably when harems first became a part of society. God subsequently flooded the earth to destroy all the evil, saving only the righteous (monogamous
and no matter how people would try to paint it, slide it, or sugar cover it, the creator of the heavens and the earth is God over all, and he’ll have his word with all of those who say is ok. Polygamy did exist, but was not God's plan, purpose, or preferred arrangment. Polygamy was inno way, shape or form EVER commanded by God; at best it was endured patiently by Him, in the same way he showed patience with other sins. Polygamy resulted in a great deal of unnecessary grief. N still is today
Oh, in fact it is I who will have a word with this creator of yours. If it exists, and if it is like your horror visions. I hope you are wrong (lest we be fucked), but I feel that would almost be too easy on this god. It deserves to meet me at judgement day, to be held responsible for all the conservativity.
If polygamy causes grief, you are doing it wrong (for instance maybe polygyny), and in fact it is the way, or something not related to it, that actually causes the grief.
@PetfalI know the meaning of polygyny dude. Polygamy causes grief. But I know men like you would give a good comforting way to keep you wives in submission to you demands, Oh you'll get to meet him. :)
Polygyny means "plural wives", and is a subtype of polygamy (plural marriage), that denies women their right/privilege to have several spouses. I hate polygyny. I, as a mostly heterophile male, love women, and it's not just the sex, it's also the food preparation... well, not really, I couldn't care about the food, I just worship women, on every level, and wouldn't mind living in a polyandry, where only women could have several spouses. They deserve it more. I hate that submission
This suggests that there is nothing godly or spiritual about the practice of polygamy, it only hurts and brings great pain to those caught up in its practice. But sadly there are women who would take this as a normal and just happy practice. Satan is very good in blindly people from Gods purpose in every aspect of people’s lives. They’ll try to get, find, debate, and even fight for that excuse, the right as some will put it. The only right here is God.
Your interpretation suggests that, and if you can't find any rational arguments against it, it is hard not to just dismiss what you say. I'm an agnostic myself, but I don't deny there is a god, and I don't deny that this god thing is the only right. There are other rights, of course, but these might be included in the big mesh right that is this god. But it is not a valid argument in any way, and I think this god right might go in favor of love and goodness, to be honest.
@Petfal The love and goodness you discribe is your interpretation and what your flesh tells you. And if you knew God, and by the way is capital G. You would see in his word the meaning of love, but you can only think love as to have sex with lots of girls, the definition of polygamy is itself an OXYMORON, rings the bell?
"God" with capital G, then it is a name of the specific god in the Bible. The general term "god" refers to all gods, also the god in the Bible. I am fully aware of how I use these terms, and I think it has been correct use all the time. Please tell me if you think I have made any typos.
My flesh never tells me anything.
Why always with this talk of sex? Who are you calling a MORON!?
@Petfal I'm in california and is 2:49 am here, let those girls go and keep one, sounds out of this world right? You think for a moment why someone is telling you this, you don't know me, God knows you and has seen your wickedness and He is telling to repent.
Cain’s lineage, from which polygamy first began, was destroyed in the flood! Noah and earth of his three sons had only one wife each. If polygamy were a requirement for the righteousness and many polygamous groups teach, then why was Noah’s family monogamous? And more to the point, if polygamy was instead a significant part of the evil that prompted God to condemn and flood the earth, then what does God think of polygamy today?
Polygamy should never be a requirement. In fact, some places, ceulibacy is a requirement, and a lesser requirement is monogamy for some leader positions. I don't agree with that, but I can see some positive aspects of turning away from love like this. It doesn't mean that love is in opposition with righteousness. IF God thinks killing polygynists is more important than life and love, than it is an evil god, and the only alternative for righteous people is to go to hell.
@Petfal God knows how to act in the best interest of all parties involved. God knows that humans will not obedient to his perfect will for their lives, but He always gives hope to those who repent after being disobedient, he isn't approvind disobedience in doint tthis.
IF there is a god in this meaning of the word. You seem fairly convinced, and that is not a given. You have to be open for both alternatives, or your arguments will only be valid half the time :D
If it exists, I see no reason for it not to be coool, good and loving and all that, so I agree with you, best interest. Thus monogamy or polygyny must be "sins" :D
@Petfal You mean coool as an God says yes to your wickedness? or coool as an i get to do what I want and yo can't tell me nothing God? or is it because you made women i get to have more? or is it because I don't see you i get to have lots of sex with lots of girls? Monogamy was God's plans since the begining. Barefoot? try to get some sandals or heat protection 1 trillion, because if you don't repent of using God as a God for your convinience. You'll end up there.
I mean coool as in doing what is best for humanity, for the universe. Polyamory was Gods plan, and it is slowly coming together, after generations of power hungry priests and leaders have abused its words.
No, barefoot it is. That is showing respect, and it is coool, and are you suggesting hellfire? Then sandals won't help, and it shouldn't. If God is evil, I can't be threatened to do the wrong thing, and I would be a martyr for a good cause, at least.
@Petfal God is God, and be careful, his love, his also Justice. and I wouldn't want to be in your shoes, or your wives shoes when you stand before his throne.
The words “Wickedness” and “Corrupt” are used in the bible to describe societies, All mankind had become haplessly corrupt, and one aspect of that corruption was POLYGAMY; a corruption of God’s initial design in the Garden of Eden, and one of the reasons God flooded the earth in Noah’s day. Evidence indicates that this is most probably when harems first became a part of society. God subsequently flooded the earth to destroy all the evil, saving only the righteous (monogamous) Noah and his family
Never mind what some random adjectives were used about in the Bible. Probably some societies were "wickedness" and "corrupt". Some had POLYGAMY? Do you perhaps mean POLYGYNY? If polygyny, I totally agree with you/the Bible's description as "corrupt", but flooding and killing seems a bit over the top, don't you agree?
@Petfal You can't agree with the bible and it word, it would go totally against your practice, and you know that, the bible clearly discribes polygamy, flooding and killing seems a bit over the top? you don't know the God of the bible. Probably you should dude, if he did that back then, what do you think God thinks of polygamy today?
I never said I agree with the Bible. I do what is right, and if the Bible happen to agree, so much the better. I don't know the god of the Bible!? Oh, I do. I think God still likes polygamy, but hates polygyny.
These women have it better than over 90% of polygamist families. They at least have a beautiful home, nice clothes, etc. Oh, and 'only' 3 women...so far. If you delve further into this subject you will see that the majority of the FULDS families are MUCH worse off, living in poverty pure and simple. This completely 'whitewashes' the subject. People, don't be fooled. This is NOT representative of most FULDS families.
It's sad to see people spewing so much hatred towards a lifestyle they do not understand, accusing people they know nothing about of having no self worth and even of being insane. They are adults. If they choose of their own free will to have multiple wives/husbands/lovers then that's their choice. So what if a woman loves two men or a man loves two women, or a man/woman loves a man and a woman? They aren't inviting you to bed so don't tread on them.
Liberty, yes, I want polygamy, but this is not polygamy, this is polygyny, and liberty is not part of that. Good luck trying to explain "equal rights" to these people, saying women should be able to have several spouses, or a person should be able to have one or more spouses of the same gender. Bed? This is not primarily a thing about sex.
@Petfal Five types of polygamy come to mind, of which polygyny is one and it's perfectly acceptable if those involved have given their consent as free adults. It makes no sense to say that it is okay for a woman to have multiple husbands, a woman to have both husbands and wives, a man to have both husbands and wives, and for polygamous families to overlap, (ex. every woman having three husbands, who in turn have three wives) but then say that it's wrong for a husband to have just multiple wives.
I never say that anyone should not have any sexual romantic partners, I say you shouldn't deny anyone to have sexual romantic partners. Does that make more sense?
@Petfal I wouldn't want to get involved in a religious based marriage either, but if these women choose to do that and they are not being forced into the situation, then they have every right to proceed. And those urging them to do this are also in their right to say that God wants them to do it, even if I don't think there is a God. Free speech is not putting a bullet to their head. They're adults and they are responsible for their own actions and have to decide for themselves what to believe.
Yes, they do have a right to marry as they choose, and I support them fully in that. I just want to argue with their belief that women should not have the same rights. I don't think that is a belief that should be get into any constitution, to say the least. I want polygamy, where everyone can marry the ones they love, no matter their gender or sexual orientation. These people would be able to marry then.
@Petfal I see where we don't understand each other now. You see polygyny as one man and multiple wives who are somehow coerced into being monogamous with their husband. All it actually is, is when a man has multiple wives and that's it. There is no specific rule about dictating future relationships. If the wives have no romances outside their one husband, that's ploygyny. If they do have other relationships or spouses, they are still in a polygynist relationship with the first husband.
I see polygyny as a lot of things. In this case it is coercion into being not monogamous, but polygynous, wether or not the females accept it or not, they cannot choose to have several male spouses... or female. Most groups that have polygyny do not accept equality. But if you have a system of polygamy, where both genders have equal rights, of course there can be instances of unions with only one male and several females. Also the conservative, unequal polygynists can do what...
...they want here. Polygyny really means "plural women", and could technically refer to a woman having several wives, fifty women having each other, equally, or hundred men sharing two wives, for that matter. It can be important to distinguish between what is the actual instance and what "belief" a person/group/society has. It seems you only care about the actual instance, so that if a person happens to be single, it is neither monogamous nor polygamous. That is not incorrect...
...but it is also not incorrect to say that this person is monogamous if it believes that one should only have one sexual romantic partner. You could call this a monogamist/polygamist/-gynist. Gosh, I think I could write a book about this, haha, but I might leave it at that for now :D
@Petfal If a polygynist man imposes monogamy on his wives against their will, it isn't polygyny that's the problem. It's that the man clearly doesn't have the maturity or proper control of his emotions to handle any kind of poly relationship. If he wanted to have multiple wives who were monogamous with him, he should have made that clear before he married anyone and shouldn't have pursued women who didn't share his desires.
Some people live by a "moral" (I feel it is a mockery of the word) standard where men are allowed to have several female spouses, but women can only have one male spouse. In this it doesn't matter if the man is emotionally ready to "share" its wives with other men, or if the women do not agree with the system, they have to abide by it, and they even have to believe in it. It is always good to be open and honest, and make things clear as soon as possible, but it is not always...
...possible to stop pursuing someone you love. My ex-girlfriend was horribly monogamous when we met, and it took two years before it had this "eureka"-experience, and just became polyamorous, and we had many good years. Love overcame, and I still believe it was right of us to have that relationship, even if we disagreed from the start.
@Petfal I, for example, have three wives. My second and third wives have another husband apiece. These other men are friends of mine, but I'm not married to them. My first wife, though, is married only to me, because that's what she wants to do, even though marrying her friends, in both cases, was actually her idea. In any event, this makes me a polygynist. See the five classes of polygamy I mentioned before. Polygyny, polyandry, man with husbands, woman with wives (gay or bi) and overlapping.
Yes, you are a polygynist, but by no means are you not a polygamist. Of course, all polygynists are, but you are clearly not a monoandrist, which I think is a better word for traditional polygyny, when there can only be one man. There is a monoandrous element in your relationship with your wives, but then there's also a polyandrous (possibly monogynous?) element in your second and third wives' relation to their hubbies, you included. This requires...
@Petfal I understand and share your aversion for polygamous relationships that use culture or religion to dictate the terms of the relationship instead of those involved, but I don't think it should be illegal unless coercion is used. I have the right to tell women that the only way to heaven is to be my slave and share me with other women. I'd be making up the claim and I'd be an ass hole, but I have the right to say it and if any women choose to accept those terms, that is their right.
Yeah, that's true. Everyone has the right to be an asshole, but I don't think that means we should sit idly by and just let them. We ought to let everyone know there are alternatives to assholing around, and that no one needs to accept that.
@Petfal What should be guarded against is when people are forced into marriages, singular or plural, against their will. So long as everyone involved is consenting, it doesn’t matter if the marriage is for love, money, immigration, or to please a god. I don’t want a marriage based on religious fanaticism so I’m not going to have one, but I will never support the persecution of those who do want that. I will, however, always oppose those who coerce people into marriage against their will.
Yes, coercion should be plainly illegal, and I think most places it is, even though it can be hard to enforce. But said assholeness should also be fought, but not juridically, with persecution, but with discussion, campaigns and stuff. A moral fight! :D To me, I think marriage is a thing for love, but legally, it really makes no sense to put love as a requisite. If all involved parties want to marry, that should be enough.
@Petfal If you want to say, "hey you shouldn't do that because I disagree with your religion" then more power to you. People like you and me, Chinaculican, and the religious polygamists of the world should have moral debates. I'm right there with you, as long as you're not in favor of making it illegal or of the government treating people in such relationships any differently than they would treat you or me. I believe in the market place of ideas but not in the use of force to impose an opinion.
No, I wouldn't say I disagree with anyone's religion, just the conservativity in their interpretation of it.
Moral debates! <3
I believe laws are not a good way to fight this, people need to understand and make the right decision themselves. I don't even think it would be possible to make polygyny illegal while still legalizing polygamy. That might be one of several reasons why I like my own suggestion of not just legalizing polygamy like that, but make it as the exception...
...from the rule, just as we can get married here when we are 18, but if some law person thinks it is a good reason, you can marry down to the age of 16, as an exception. This might also be a very good start, since it just don't really legalize it. Baby steps! :D
@Petfal Just get the government out of marriage. Why on Earth should the state dictate, in any way, who its citizens love/have sex with/dedicate their lives to? The only reason we currently have marriage licenses in the US is because of laws enacted in the early part of the 20th Century to prevent interracial marriages. These laws are left over from the Eugenics and White Supremacy movements. Our founders would abhor the idea that Americans have to ask the government for permission to wed anyone
Getting the government out of marriage is an absurd thing, I think. When you marry, you either do it juridically, that is asking the government to validate your relationship in a formal way, or you marry non-juridically, where the government don't care about it, because from juridical viewpoint, it is just make believe, anyway. The government isn't IN on marriage, they just give an offer of validating it and securing the rights. That said, it is no reason for it not to...
@Petfal The purpose of government is to protect the liberty of the citizens. The government dictating who a can and cannot marry (and imposing discriminatory taxation, or even throwing me in prison if I ignore them) is a direct and total attack upon the liberty of those citizens. The laws exist because of a despicable and racist movement and the principle of social engineering that inspired and continues to be used to justify these laws is as morally abhorrent today as it was a century ago.
...acknowledge gay marriage or polygam, so that every consenting adult could marry any other consenting adult. I think marriage is kind of nice and romantic. As I say, sex belongs in the marriage. The marriage is the home of the sex, but you do not always stay at home, you go out whenever you want, but it is nice to have a place where you belong.
@Petfal There is absolutely no reason to get the government to "validate" a marriage. It is a system of social engineering where the government tells the citizens what kind of relationships are "good" and which are "bad" and then uses taxation to coerce people into doing what the state wants them to do. If you remain single, you're punished with a singles tax. If you dare wed someone the government says it's illegal to marry, they don't "validate" it and still charge you the singles tax.
Well, yes, it's unfortunate there are tax unbenefits for single people. I don't know a lot of the financial mumbo jumbo, but is it a punishment to for being single or a reward for being married? :D
@Petfal The government calls it a reward for being married, but you can't reward someone by hurting them less. You can only punish people by hurting them more. It is a moral absurdity that the government punishes you for being single, removes the punishment for having a government approved marriage, and then expects you to thank them for a "gift". That would be like the president thanking the people for not assassinating him in his final speech before the end of his term in office.
Some governments try to help people, and taxes is the price we pay for that service. If you are going to travel, the ticket costs money. The price is not a punishment, and if you are a student it is a little cheaper, often, but the others aren't being punished more.
@Petfal Discriminatory taxes, purposefully designed to manipulate the private lives of citizens towards a government approved lifestyle is inherently punitive. To try to argue otherwise is either naive or disingenuous. To then back that tax up with threats of imprisonment if you persist in a non-government approved lifestyle is plain evidence of that.
Of course! I do not want to keep it like it is. I want to fix marriage... or maybe fix government, into understanding how great polyamory is, and that homophilia is not a sin, so they can approve of those "lifestyles" enough to give us the human rights of marrying whomever we want to.
@Petfal I don't care what my representatives in government think of my lifestyle, so long as they leave me alone. I don't want their blessings and I sure as hell don't want their manipulative and coercive dissuasions. I'm not sure why you care so much for some county clerk or legal code to say, "your marriage is legitimate, but some other marriage we haven't thought of yet technically isn't." My marriage is between me and my wives. Government has no right to approve or disapprove of my sex life.
I care about all people, and my job on this planet is to help people free themselves from monogamy, and introduce polyamory. Government representatives are also people, but with symbolic power. If they say polyamory is ok, it will send out signals, and I sure could use that. If we are to have a county clerk or legal code, I sure as hell don't want it to say that something good is not ok and not legal.
If we have polygamy, then any one consenting adult can marry any one other consenting adult, there are no other marriages we haven't thought of that is excluded from this, and if it is, maybe we can see if it is morally ok (morals as in the philosophical discipline, not as in christian "morals", of course), and if so, just fix the law when the instance comes up. If your marriage is only between you and your wives, and does not affect anyone else in any way, then you probably...
@Petfal "fix the law when the instance comes up"?! That is ridiculous and flies in the face of the principles behind the American and French Revolutions. I hate everything about such an ass backwards, statist, and morally repugnant philosophy. When Thomas Jefferson and the Marquis de Lafayette wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, they wrote it specifically to prevent a legal system with such dependency on a potentially absolutist government.
Why do you hate that? Well, I hope you also read what came before that, when I said something about legalizing polygamy, and then they actually already have opened for every singel consenting adult marry any other consenting adult, which is a good principle that will hold. You just said something about some other marriage type we hadn't heard of, and I acted accordingly.
@Petfal “Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.”
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, by Thomas Jefferson and the Marquis de Lafayette.
@Petfal This article wasn’t written to mean, well we can think of X number of rights right now, so let’s legalize them now and we can legalize more later after the government punishes the first pioneers of that right. They understood the fundamental fact that they can’t think of everything in the universe that people have a right to do and they came up with a principle that would never require the government to accept the rights of some and ignore the rights of others.
@Petfal Government doesn’t have any obligation to recognize or approve of my marriage any more than they have a right to disapprove. The only acceptable role of government in my marriage/sex life/personal relationships of any kind is to stay the fuck out of it. I don't need anyone's consent to marry anyone else, except for the person I'm marrying. NO ONE else gets to have a voice in that decision, regardless of what position that voice would take.
Well, they have an obligation to recognize almost all monogamous relationships that want to get married juridically, and as long as they are going to do that, I really don't see any reason why polyamorous relationships should be an exception here.
What is a marriage to you?
You seem very angry. I like that you are passionate :D
@Petfal Government has an obligation neither recognize nor condemn any personal relationship. Your irrational need for the government's approval of your personal associations has it's basis in serfdom, where virtual slaves had to get the permission of their lord to wed. I am not a slave or serf. I am a free citizen. As it is now, the government dictates who can marry and who cannot. Even if it "allows" every sort of union, by "recognizing" them it presumes that we need its permission. We do not.
Of course we do not need it, but when we happen to ask for it ourselves, for those of us that wants the legal rights, we should get it. I am a free citizen, too, in fact almost an anarchist. I believe in the good of mankind, and I believe for instance a democracy like our own could be not the worst of systems. I do need them, however, to say that polygamy is all right, I think that will have a beneficial effect on society. Other than that, I am not against marrying non-legally.
@Petfal My rights are not given to me by the state. They existed before my government was formed and will remain after it is gone. The primary purpose of the state is to protect those natural rights from the infringement of others. To then become the one infringing on the rights of innocent citizens makes that government tyrannical. I would rather everyone in the world condemn my relationships and leave me alone than approve of who I wed, but try to force me to get their blessing, first.
There are different sets of right. You got your natural rights, of doing whatever you want, you got human rights, you got some rights by being a citizen in your country, etc. What do you mean by "forcing" you to get their blessings"? Do you prefer hostility over friendliness?
@Petfal I have read that you want to legalize polygamy and you still don't seem to understand that it does not require legalization. No form of marriage should be expressly legal or illegal because it's none of the government's business. Property and inheritance issues should be strictly matters for civil law, and that can be done with or without marriage. To seek to legalize a thing suggests the government has a right to deny it to you and then chooses not to. The state has no such right, here.
Is that how you feel about homophile marriages, too? I see your point, and maybe one day we should abandon marriage altogether, but I like it, think it is kind of romantic, and it still got a hold on us, I do not we are ready to let it go just yet. As long as we still have it, though, I would like to abuse it, as a tool, to make people understand there is nothing wrong with consenting adults living in marriagelike relationships.
You can tell me polygamy doesn't require legalization, but what do you call it, then, when you make it so that you can marry polygamously, but don't go to jail? THAT is what I want!
Civil law, isn't that exactly what is going on when you marry juridically? I believe the government doesn't have the right to deny us marrying the ones we love, is it so horrible that I want to make them stop doing it?
@Petfal When I am polygamous and don't go to jail, that's called the police not enforcing the law. It's still a crime and the government talks in detail about how horrible I am, but they don't arrest me. That is still morally wrong in my book. There should be no marriage laws, for or against, and anyone should be able to marry anyone, without the need for a justice of the peace.
Like Rosa Parks, that wanted blacks to be able to sit in the bus where they wanted. Must have been a despicable woman, since it thinks the government should have the power to say yes or no to blacks being able to sit in a bus! :D
@Petfal You don't need a ceremony to wed, but if you really want one, but don't have any family, friends, or priests available, hire someone. Hell I'll do it if you want, for ten bucks.
When you marry juridically, you are seeking the government's permission to wed. You sign government documents swearing you aren't already married or are related and if you don't go through this process, you are levied with a discriminatory tax.
I have my vision of a ceremony: Me and the girl(s) I want to marry, naked in the forest, and all guests also naked, and they will be asked if they want to marry us (it is allowed to say no, also for us), and my best friend is going to marry us, being a representative for what I hold most holy: Noiserock!!! It's gonna be free!
I'm never gonna swear I'm not already married, but mark my words: I'm gonna marry juridically one day! :D
@Petfal You do not need your government to tell you polygamy is okay. And even if you are that spineless, you have no right to invest the government with the power to tell me whether or not my marriage is okay or not. You just said that those who want legal rights should go to the government for permission to wed and that is ridiculous. You just approved of having one set of rights for government approved marriages and denying those rights to everyone else. Despicable.
No, but the government sure needs me to tell them polygamy is ok! :D Just because I am not as angry as you don't mean I don't have a spine. If the government don't have the right to tell whether or not it is ok, it is the same as saying it is ok, it doesn't try to stop it and punishes those that succeed.
Marriage is a contract, and when you sign a contract, that contract must mean something, or else it would be no point in it. Do you think contracts are despicable?
@Petfal Government forces me to get their blessing by taxing me if I marry without the government. You know who married my first wife and I? Not a priest, not a judge, but our friend from high school, in her dad's backyard. We didn't ask for permission so now we are taxed punitively. I want neither friendliness nor hostility. I want my government to stay the hell out of my personal life.
I never suggested abandoning marriage. I'm thrice married, remember? Reread what I said.
If you are not married, and you pay a certain amount of taxes (for roads, schools, etc.), do they increase your taxes if you "pretend" you are married/marry without the government/don't marry? I like the idea of your marriage in the backyard! But I guess it is not juridical? Then you certainly break no laws, so it is not about the police not enforcing it.
I meant suggesting abandonig marriage as a civil law thing. Again I want to ask you what "marriage" means to you. ?
@Petfal Marriage means whatever the people engaging in it say it means.
If I am single, I am hit with a singles tax as soon as I am an adult. I am freed from that discriminatory tax as soon as I get a government approved marriage. That's why the tax exists: to encourage people to get government approved marriage. If I marry someone without asking the state for permission, I and my wife will be punished with continued singles taxes and will be denied contracting rights.
@Petfal Schools are paid for in property taxes. Roads are paid for by gasoline taxes. Discriminatory income taxes pay to bomb Somalia and pay off the debt.
By marrying multiple women, even without going through government channels, I am still technically violating the law. The government can choose to prosecute me at any time.
To me it's just money. I am not really familiar with your tax system abroad.
Let's say "marrying multiple persons" :D How are you violating the law if you only "pretend" to be married? Sounds like SOMETHING should be done there, even if you don't like it. I would fight for your right!
@Petfal That's how polygamy is illegal in the US. You can only marry one person legally, so the others are, as you say, "pretend". Yet the government still calls it illegal. The laws making it illegal should be abolished and nothing put in their place.
We agree something should be done, but where you want the government to pat you on your head and say how wonderful your lifestyle is, I want the government to say nothing. Don't condemn or bless me or my neighbors. Just let us live in liberty.
That's weird laws. I really don't understand the difference about this and when kids play "house". Juridically, they're both void. Is it that you live together? Is it that you have sex?
@Petfal There are a lot of stupid laws in the world. Many of them are not enforced. This is one of them.
Again, if you want a government official to understand you, take a judge out for a beer. Millions of people don't want the government in our marriages in any way and feel that way because of fundamental principles on the role of government, not some emotional fantasy desire for the governing body of a country to tell you how wonderful your personal relationships are.
@Petfal Of course it makes me angry when a person calls for the surrender of liberty to a government he blindly hopes will not abuse the power he gives it. It makes me even more angry when he offers no rational or logical reason for why the government needs to control the marriages of its citizens, and only talks about how in his fantasy, everyone would be happy for the lifestyles of everyone else and the government's blessing would be on par with the congratulatory comments of a family member.
I don't understand what you mean here, calls for the surrender of liberty? The government has the power to deny us something. I want to strip it of this, and bow down before me, and do my bidding. I never said anything about my fantasy.
@Petfal And it makes me more angry, still, when mentioning the word "sex" gets some smart ass response, suggesting that because I used the word, that is all marriage is to me. It is a ridiculous thing to suggest, even if it had been my first and only comment, but it is even more ridiculous when the suggestion was made after I had posted several comments to you expressing the opposite, over the past several days.
@Petfal I said the government should stay out of my sex life. For you to then suggest that my marriages are just about sex is not only insulting to me and my wives, but is a downright stupid thing to think if you had read my previous statements on this page. Unless a person explicitly defines their personal relationships to you, it is rude for you to suggest it's a certain way.
To be fair, you were saying it in such a way that it almost sounded like you thought sex was the main thing (explicitly defined it, if you will), which I found kind of strange given the earlier conversation. I think the government should have a certain right to protect people from getting raped. I am not accusing you of that, of course, but that is a part of a persons potential sex life. So I think it can stay out of our sex lives, but maybe not the HELL out of it :D
@Petfal Saying the state should stay out of my sex life in no way suggests that, that is all marriage is to me. That you're really making such a plainly ridiculous claim tells me you just like to argue and can't imagine the idea of admitting you were off base.
Also, it is clear to everyone that "keeping the government out of our sex lives" is dealing with the issue of consensual sex. You can play word games all day, but no serious person ever thought that we were talking about sexual assault.
@Petfal Learn your history. Blacks could already sit on the bus. If they couldn't ride, how would they boycott? There, the Federal Government overturned a state and city government infringement on the rights of a minority. Now if a Black person wants to ride at the front of the bus, they just sit the fuck down. They don't ask a judge for permission. To try to compare the government controlling who can and can't wed to the overturning of tyranny is, as usual, ridiculous.
@Petfal Contracts aren't the same as marriage. Marriages include contracts, just like cars include engines, but an engine is not a car. What the government does is make all contracts that aren't done through government approved marriages go through a lengthy bureaucracy and additional taxes to discourage non-government approved marriages. That should be abolished, along with all marriage laws. All citizens should be able to make contracts with anyone, married or not, without state interference.
@Petfal You've just admitted what you really are. I had hoped you were just misguided, but you've had a polar opposite objective to mine all along. You actually want the government to actively support and sanction one lifestyle to discourage the lifestyle of people NOT like you. You're the same kind of tyrannical statist as those who want to punish polygamists and homosexuals, but from a different bias. You don't want liberty. You want dictatorship, so long as your side is doing the dictating.
@Petfal If you said "get the government out of my marriage" I'd agree with you. I have agreed with you that any kind of marriage is okay. However, I sure as hell will never agree with you that government should approve of a lifestyle to encourage it and therefore limit the extent of another lifestyle that you aren't a part of. That's tyranny. It's social engineering. And I'll fight it until I run out of ammo.
I don't care if the government is in my marriage or not, they are welcome, as long as they behave, I care if they try to stop my relationship and my love or not. What separates a marriage and a relationship, to me, is that you also invite some authority you respect, to verify and acknowledge the marriage, whether it be a god, a government, a society to which you belong or an ideology or whatever. I acknowledge the government, and I think it is fair that is mutual.
@Petfal Well if you don't care if the government is in your marriage, and millions of other people do care and actively want them out, lets keep the government out. If you want a government official to understand your life choices and say how wonderful you are, then make friends with a cop or a judge, or a representative, because when you invite the whole government into your marriage in an official way, you are in effect inviting them into everyone's marriage.
It's an individual choice..animals do it..but there are animals that pair for life just as humans do.. To each its own..there could be love in a polygamist family though.. But, leave religion/cults out of human affairs! Ahhhhhh but there is nothing in this world though or beyond (if there is a beyond?) that can be compared to *Absolute Love*:) One day I will find that girl that is capable of absolute love:) many or most people aren't capable of absolute love:(
PrinceOfLight4 2 weeks ago
He gets a handful of wives, the wives should each get a handful of hubbies. Two way st. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Can't say "There aren't enough good men." Because in that case, I suppose there also aren't enough "good women". Something off about the whole thing.
SaveTheWheat 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
After it was "officially" stopped, the Romney's illegally immigrated to a Mexican polygamous hideout to keep polygamy. Romney's dad was the 1st Mexican-American candidate for POTUS
Romney is a high Mormon bishop, a descendant of 1 of the original Joe Smith apostles(he STILL had cousins in Mexico)
One gramps who married his 12th wife got shot dead by the husband of of the last woman he had a "celestial" marriage with. If you had high rank, you could take a woman already married to another.
dleechristy 2 weeks ago
Joe Smith of Mormonism had more than one wife. Okay at the sametime it was with Pocahontas? Oh god... shoot that mason. Smith was a mason. Do people know what masons do? Watch DA VINCI CODE... close enough.
DarkPrinceNH5570 1 month ago
@DarkPrinceNH5570 George Washington was a Mason, so what did he do? Please tell us!
edwardsson777 1 month ago
I understand. I thought this was only in Mormonism but its not. If I remember correctly in history, certain RULERs/LEADERs did this. I cant remember the area but Im not like this.
DarkPrinceNH5570 1 month ago
HAHAHAHA omfg
There was a movie about this called "NICK" or something... "NICKY" I think I cant remember.
See... these are women for you.
DarkPrinceNH5570 1 month ago
@petfal... sorry, but what the hell r u talking about??? i was responding to the lady who said we must be jealous of polygs... and sorry, but polygamy DOES threaten a relationship. it is impossible for a husband and wife to have true intamacy (not talking about sex here) with a 3rd, 4th, 5th person involved.
MrMarksguitar1000 1 month ago
no honey, i am not jealous lol. my husband only loves and wants me, and no other woman. if anything, you should be jealous of me :)
MrMarksguitar1000 2 months ago
@MrMarksguitar1000
Hmmm... I believe we are made to love, and it is innate for both you and your husband to love not only each other, but also others (I'm not saying that you actually do). That doesn't threaten your relationship in any way (the concept of monogamy does (in combination with this reality)). Jealous of you? Not jealous, I'm envious! What you have is wonderful. What I have is also wonderful, but that doesn't mean I would say no to what you have, in addition.
Petfal 2 months ago
@MrMarksguitar1000
But I don't want you to loose it. Jealousy, as I define it, is when you want to take something away from someone, so you can have it for yourself, whereas envy is when you want it, and want the other to have it, too, and either want to share, or have your own copy of it.
Petfal 2 months ago
@MrMarksguitar1000
ROFLMAO
wwwuraRetard 2 months ago
@MrMarksguitar1000 We should thank these ignorant LDS bitches for giving us a rare gift...genuine moral superiority. It's quite a gift [taking a deep breath in through the nostrils, exhaling with satisfaction, a singular oneness with one's being and nature tingling over the skin].
MinisterAilingTongue 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Bonratay
Go ahead and over populate the world you biased pious discriminate predgidous pigs I will always hate you until I know I am dead :-|
dietern8 2 months ago
@dietern8
When will you ever know you are dead? :D And why hate? Do you find happiness in your hate?
Petfal 2 months ago
@dietern8
They won't over populate the world.What will happen is their breeding lots of babies will counter the dumb-ass Americans who say stop breeding.You are sadly mistaken If you think chinese,indians and muslims will stop breeding because an American tell them to.
Breed out hate and let the stupid Americans extinct themselves.
wwwuraRetard 2 months ago
AIDS will not exist. Cancer will not exist. Cigarette companies will be thrown out of business so nobody gets lung cancer, and we will get rid of drugs forever. This war in the middle east will be the last war ever on earth. We will all eat from the tree of life and taxes will be 10% of income for everybody.
Period0fAltering 2 months ago
@Period0fAltering
Rock'n'roll!!! <3
But oh, if we could get out cigarettes and their companies, that would be such a win for humanity!
Petfal 2 months ago
This will come back into style. Now that we are in the War of Armageddon, it's only a matter of time before we get back to the Garden of Eden/The Promised Land. Where men are happy with their wives and the wives are content with the men having other wives. America will be reformatted into a theocracy and love will be institutionalized. Children will be taught from the beginning that we are all meant to be straight. Everybody will own a farm. We will all donate to the poor until poverty is gone.
Period0fAltering 2 months ago
@Period0fAltering
Yay for craziness! I don't believe we will move backwards, I believe we will move forth! Not back to polygyny, but towards polyGAMY, where also women can have several spouses... and the gender of your spouses is irrelevant! <3 Children will learn that some believe that we are meant to be straight, some believe other things, and that they got to make up their own opinion, but hopefully not a homophobic one, as this causes more pain than it prevents.
Petfal 2 months ago
Muslims are allowed to marry up to 4 wives to have as many children has possible it is their religious duty.Bombs are the secondary weapon and sperm warfare is the primary weapon .They are using their future babies to immigrate to the U.S. to try and complete their mission of "World domination". It is the stealth jihad.
Polygamist who can raise healthy,smart children with good morals and do it without tax payers assistance is doing America a great service. And it is none of your business.
wwwuraRetard 2 months ago
@wwwuraRetard
They are terrorists of love! :D
But... polygamists, yes, but this is polyGYNY, where females are not allowed to have several spouses. That won't probably help with the good morals? :D
Petfal 2 months ago
I can't believe that men came up with a cult and use God as a reason to have sex with many woman. I can't believe these woman are sooo dumb. it's so sad to see children being brainwashed that this is the right way to live. It's like a man sat around and thought, how can I get to screw as many woman as I want and it won't matter if i get caught? I know! I'll say that God wants me to. STUPID FUCKING PEOPLE
sweety4271984 2 months ago 2
@sweety4271984
I don't think the sex is the main reason. These women might be very wise in many areas. Yes, it is sad to see the brainwashing, but it is also sad to see the brainwashing in our own outside society, brainwashing children with monogamy. Monogamy is better than polygyny, but polygamy is better than both of those combined! Free love and marriage! <3 What is sad about this, polygyny, is that the women don't get to have several spouses.
Petfal 2 months ago
OH AND GAYS RUINING MARRIAGE. PFFFT
OhDangBro 2 months ago
abominatiion
trifulquita15 3 months ago
I would find it sad in some way but of course wonderful in another, but it's just so watered out the love when you need to spend it with 3 people. It will not be as much time with each one and it will be more like raising kids that come and go. I find it not as peaceful and in most cases just for the mans desire, probably to have sex with 3 different. But also if you find one more you love it's hard to live without that one, but what if the girl feel more love? It seems to only benefit man.
M3sslah 3 months ago
@M3sslah If you think it's watered down, you clearly haven't experienced it. It's a very intense experience.
Also, remember that women can have multiple husbands too, assuming they aren't tied down by some religious dogma. Liberty works both ways.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001 Yes, but that is what I mean, intense doesn't necessarily mean good, it can just be to much also. And maybe you are right, but I would like to see a girl bringing home a man to that 3 wife relationship, the man would never approve to that.
M3sslah 3 months ago
@M3sslah In my case, as is often the case for those who are able to handle polyamory or polygamy, it is indeed a good thing. It's definitely not for everyone. It can be overwhelming, for sure. To be fair, though, so can monogamous relationships. There's no silver bullet for relationships.
That's an interesting theory you have, since my second wife has a second husband and I'm the second husband of my third wife. Also a close friend of mine is dating a married woman. Seems to work for them.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001 I probably could handle many wifes but I would not handle more guys, I am way to much alfamale for that, I don't really see it as the mans natural environement to share wifes and girls with other "males". Not out of jealousy only more out of the fact that she is not satisfied with me as a man and it make me powerless and I am not. And I for once rather live alone than being some sort of second best to someone or live together with so many that no one really get any quality.
M3sslah 3 months ago
@M3sslah With that kind of attitude and way of thinking about yourself, I tend to agree that you shouldn't get involved in such a relationship, should the opportunity present itself. It is important to be able to not only take the emotions of others into account and provide for them, but to control your own emotions. I could consume myself with jealousy towards the men I share my second and third wives with, but we try to consider each other, as well as the women, to minimize such emotions.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@M3sslah Instead of being jealous of them, or giving into my insecurities, I trust that my wives love me and I know that I won't be neglected by my wives any more than I would neglect them and the other men in our extended family are very good friends of mine. I shoot and work on firearms with one, and nerd out to Star Trek with the other. Strong communication and a genuine desire from everyone to ensure the happiness of everyone else has made this family work. It couldn't function otherwise.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@M3sslah
Awwww... well, some people might not be certain enough about themselves, or for any reason not emotionally ready for a polyamorous lifestyle, and that is ok. Then we have monogamy, but it is also nothing wrong in saying YOU want it one-sided, as long as you are open about it, so a potential wife of yours knows what it is going to. I don't like it, myself, but it is ok, unlike when you have a system where men have the right and women don't. THAT's bad!
Petfal 3 months ago
@M3sslah
I really love women, and I often believe they are more mature and coool than men, and more deserving of multiple partners, but also more apt to be multiple partners, but this is just a weak tendency. Lot's of coool men, too, but aside from emotional matureness, there is also ideology and dogma. These crazy religious people have some rules saying only men can have many women, not the other way around, and we have monogamy, saying no one can have any others. Both are bad, but mono is fair
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal I think big problem why women seem so accepting of this is because their sex is on the inside and ours is on the outside. There is more to question for a man, and it's created by the talk around being a good man, being a good man in bed. A girl is usually more secure in that way, at least that is my experience, how many girls think they are bad in bed? It's very rare, they take for granted what they have between their legs is the same as all other girls.
M3sslah 3 months ago
@M3sslah
Interesting thought. I always thought of internal reproduction organs as something that made it all the more vulnerable, but when it is being hidden, there is also few reasons to feel insecure about anything about it.
Petfal 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
That's the problem. Too much religious dogma! Then it is not good. And don't forget to mention men can have multiple husbands and women can have multiple wives, too! :D
Petfal 3 months ago
@M3sslah
NEED to!? You don't NEED to spend it with anyone. If you are more to cooperate about practical things, you can get more quality time, and if one of your partners have to do something, you can have quality time with some of the others in the meantime :D
Polygyny, as here, where the women can't have several partners, seems "backwards" and silly, but if there are equal rights, then it's coool, and to everyone's benefit.
Petfal 3 months ago
Go to hell you freakin CULTISTS!
usmccoop 3 months ago
@usmccoop
What will be gained by that?
Petfal 3 months ago
this is plain right disgusting, seriously what is wrong with people
Smileprettyyousicfuc 3 months ago
@Smileprettyyousicfuc
Why do you think this is plain right disgusting?
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal i just this its wrong in general
Smileprettyyousicfuc 3 months ago
@Smileprettyyousicfuc
I understand, but is there a reason? I see some aspects of this that are negative, and I see some that are positive. Personally, I am a polygamist, and I think people should have the right to love and marry whomever they want, no matter their gender or numbers, but polygyny I don't like.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Smileprettyyousicfuc the reason why i think its disgusting is not cuz whom they choose to marry or how many just the abuse alone that ive seen and read about with the children and the wives that are in this religon. and it makes me sick to the stomach on how brainwashed these women are im not saying all pologmist but some
Smileprettyyousicfuc 3 months ago
@Smileprettyyousicfuc
Abuse is not coool, I agree on that. I do believe most of these crazy, conservative, religious people do not abuse it, though, but it is certainly kind of brainwashing, letting them grow up, believing that it is right that males can have multiple female partners, but not vise versa, like we brainwash ourselves with the negative side for both genders, but at least we're fair and equal. Some abuse in our culture, but I guess the rate is higher in crazy cults :D
Petfal 2 months ago
@colossusrising
So if the culture is to blame, and something is part of this culture, then that thing is also to blame? It is certainly not uncommon in islamic cultures to wash your hands before you enter into mosqes and greet your neighbours and be polite, or have a financial system, and maybe even drink some sort of milk or water. Are these things also to blame, since drinking water doesn't prohibit "this" or slavery?
Petfal 3 months ago
WOW!! She looks really...."happy"... She seems a bit "uneasy" when it comes to talking about sharing her husband with somebody else.... Poor woman :-(
BlongBlarble 3 months ago
"People are innately jealous" True but that's why you should have a say so in what woman would share your husband. The more you like the woman, the less jealous you will be.
HybridD91 3 months ago
@HybridD91
To me it makes sense that envy is a natural feeling, wanting what someone else got, along with them, while jealousy, wanting what someone else got, and that they lose it (kind of payback, since they had something you felt entitled to) is an unnatural feeling that emerge when you suppress your envy. Me,I have never been jealous, really. I have several girlfriends (I do not deny them other boyfriens/husbands, like polygynists would have done). I really love them, and I am never jealous.
Petfal 3 months ago
I do not agree to this at ALLLLL. but these women cant be called stupid, ignorant, or dumb. they know what they're doing. Not every polygamist family is in a cult like FLDS.
adrianlove03 3 months ago
See what I mean? Jihadists, the lot of them. They would deprive people of their rights because they think their god wants them to establish a caliphate. They may call their gods by different names and describe their theocracies with different titles, but they are identical in that they want to subvert the human rights of all. Fortunately, my wives and I live in a state that recognizes Castle Doctrine, just in case zealots like this guy decide to use violence instead of talk.
Sic semper tyrannis
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
The only right here is God, and no matter how people would try to paint it, slide it, or sugar cover it, the creator of the heavens and the earth is God over all, and he’ll have his word with all of those who say is ok. YOU GUYS KEEP BEING REASANBLE OR HOW EVER YOU MIGHT PUT, OR OPEN MINDED, GOD CARES FOR THESE PEOPLE. The Road to hell has been painted in very pretty colors.
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
This suggests that there is nothing godly or spiritual about the practice of polygamy, it only hurts and brings great pain to those caught up in its practice. But sadly there are women who would take this as a normal and just happy practice. Satan is very good in blindly people from Gods purpose in every aspect of people’s lives. They’ll try to get, find, debate, and even fight for that excuse, the right as some will put it.
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
Noah and his family. Cain’s lineage, from which polygamy first began, was destroyed in the flood! Noah and earth of his three sons had only one wife each. If polygamy were a requirement for the righteousness and many polygamous groups teach, then why was Noah’s family monogamous? And more to the point, if polygamy was instead a significant part of the evil that prompted God to condemn and flood the earth, then what does God think of polygamy today?
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
The words “Wickedness” and “Corrupt” are used in the bible to describe societies, All mankind had become haplessly corrupt, and one aspect of that corruption was POLYGAMY; a corruption of God’s initial design in the Garden of Eden, and one of the reasons God flooded the earth in Noah’s day. Evidence indicates that this is most probably when harems first became a part of society. God subsequently flooded the earth to destroy all the evil, saving only the righteous (monogamous
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
and no matter how people would try to paint it, slide it, or sugar cover it, the creator of the heavens and the earth is God over all, and he’ll have his word with all of those who say is ok. Polygamy did exist, but was not God's plan, purpose, or preferred arrangment. Polygamy was inno way, shape or form EVER commanded by God; at best it was endured patiently by Him, in the same way he showed patience with other sins. Polygamy resulted in a great deal of unnecessary grief. N still is today
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
@Chinaculiacan
Oh, in fact it is I who will have a word with this creator of yours. If it exists, and if it is like your horror visions. I hope you are wrong (lest we be fucked), but I feel that would almost be too easy on this god. It deserves to meet me at judgement day, to be held responsible for all the conservativity.
If polygamy causes grief, you are doing it wrong (for instance maybe polygyny), and in fact it is the way, or something not related to it, that actually causes the grief.
Petfal 3 months ago
@PetfalI know the meaning of polygyny dude. Polygamy causes grief. But I know men like you would give a good comforting way to keep you wives in submission to you demands, Oh you'll get to meet him. :)
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
@Chinaculiacan
Polygyny means "plural wives", and is a subtype of polygamy (plural marriage), that denies women their right/privilege to have several spouses. I hate polygyny. I, as a mostly heterophile male, love women, and it's not just the sex, it's also the food preparation... well, not really, I couldn't care about the food, I just worship women, on every level, and wouldn't mind living in a polyandry, where only women could have several spouses. They deserve it more. I hate that submission
Petfal 3 months ago
This suggests that there is nothing godly or spiritual about the practice of polygamy, it only hurts and brings great pain to those caught up in its practice. But sadly there are women who would take this as a normal and just happy practice. Satan is very good in blindly people from Gods purpose in every aspect of people’s lives. They’ll try to get, find, debate, and even fight for that excuse, the right as some will put it. The only right here is God.
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
@Chinaculiacan
Your interpretation suggests that, and if you can't find any rational arguments against it, it is hard not to just dismiss what you say. I'm an agnostic myself, but I don't deny there is a god, and I don't deny that this god thing is the only right. There are other rights, of course, but these might be included in the big mesh right that is this god. But it is not a valid argument in any way, and I think this god right might go in favor of love and goodness, to be honest.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal The love and goodness you discribe is your interpretation and what your flesh tells you. And if you knew God, and by the way is capital G. You would see in his word the meaning of love, but you can only think love as to have sex with lots of girls, the definition of polygamy is itself an OXYMORON, rings the bell?
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
@Chinaculiacan
"God" with capital G, then it is a name of the specific god in the Bible. The general term "god" refers to all gods, also the god in the Bible. I am fully aware of how I use these terms, and I think it has been correct use all the time. Please tell me if you think I have made any typos.
My flesh never tells me anything.
Why always with this talk of sex? Who are you calling a MORON!?
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal I'm in california and is 2:49 am here, let those girls go and keep one, sounds out of this world right? You think for a moment why someone is telling you this, you don't know me, God knows you and has seen your wickedness and He is telling to repent.
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
@Chinaculiacan
I love California! I would love to go there! I'm in Norway, and it's pretty great here, too!
Let which girls go? I let all girls come and go as they please. Do you know what polyamory is?
Petfal 3 months ago
Cain’s lineage, from which polygamy first began, was destroyed in the flood! Noah and earth of his three sons had only one wife each. If polygamy were a requirement for the righteousness and many polygamous groups teach, then why was Noah’s family monogamous? And more to the point, if polygamy was instead a significant part of the evil that prompted God to condemn and flood the earth, then what does God think of polygamy today?
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
@Chinaculiacan
Polygamy should never be a requirement. In fact, some places, ceulibacy is a requirement, and a lesser requirement is monogamy for some leader positions. I don't agree with that, but I can see some positive aspects of turning away from love like this. It doesn't mean that love is in opposition with righteousness. IF God thinks killing polygynists is more important than life and love, than it is an evil god, and the only alternative for righteous people is to go to hell.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal God knows how to act in the best interest of all parties involved. God knows that humans will not obedient to his perfect will for their lives, but He always gives hope to those who repent after being disobedient, he isn't approvind disobedience in doint tthis.
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
@Chinaculiacan
IF there is a god in this meaning of the word. You seem fairly convinced, and that is not a given. You have to be open for both alternatives, or your arguments will only be valid half the time :D
If it exists, I see no reason for it not to be coool, good and loving and all that, so I agree with you, best interest. Thus monogamy or polygyny must be "sins" :D
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal You mean coool as an God says yes to your wickedness? or coool as an i get to do what I want and yo can't tell me nothing God? or is it because you made women i get to have more? or is it because I don't see you i get to have lots of sex with lots of girls? Monogamy was God's plans since the begining. Barefoot? try to get some sandals or heat protection 1 trillion, because if you don't repent of using God as a God for your convinience. You'll end up there.
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
@Chinaculiacan
I mean coool as in doing what is best for humanity, for the universe. Polyamory was Gods plan, and it is slowly coming together, after generations of power hungry priests and leaders have abused its words.
No, barefoot it is. That is showing respect, and it is coool, and are you suggesting hellfire? Then sandals won't help, and it shouldn't. If God is evil, I can't be threatened to do the wrong thing, and I would be a martyr for a good cause, at least.
Petfal 3 months ago
But perhaps God is coool, and you have misinterpreted the whole thing?
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal God is God, and be careful, his love, his also Justice. and I wouldn't want to be in your shoes, or your wives shoes when you stand before his throne.
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
@Chinaculiacan
Oh, I'm gonna be barefoot then! :D
Petfal 3 months ago
The words “Wickedness” and “Corrupt” are used in the bible to describe societies, All mankind had become haplessly corrupt, and one aspect of that corruption was POLYGAMY; a corruption of God’s initial design in the Garden of Eden, and one of the reasons God flooded the earth in Noah’s day. Evidence indicates that this is most probably when harems first became a part of society. God subsequently flooded the earth to destroy all the evil, saving only the righteous (monogamous) Noah and his family
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
@Chinaculiacan
Never mind what some random adjectives were used about in the Bible. Probably some societies were "wickedness" and "corrupt". Some had POLYGAMY? Do you perhaps mean POLYGYNY? If polygyny, I totally agree with you/the Bible's description as "corrupt", but flooding and killing seems a bit over the top, don't you agree?
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal You can't agree with the bible and it word, it would go totally against your practice, and you know that, the bible clearly discribes polygamy, flooding and killing seems a bit over the top? you don't know the God of the bible. Probably you should dude, if he did that back then, what do you think God thinks of polygamy today?
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
@Chinaculiacan
I never said I agree with the Bible. I do what is right, and if the Bible happen to agree, so much the better. I don't know the god of the Bible!? Oh, I do. I think God still likes polygamy, but hates polygyny.
Petfal 3 months ago
These women have it better than over 90% of polygamist families. They at least have a beautiful home, nice clothes, etc. Oh, and 'only' 3 women...so far. If you delve further into this subject you will see that the majority of the FULDS families are MUCH worse off, living in poverty pure and simple. This completely 'whitewashes' the subject. People, don't be fooled. This is NOT representative of most FULDS families.
2hotinaz 3 months ago
It's sad to see people spewing so much hatred towards a lifestyle they do not understand, accusing people they know nothing about of having no self worth and even of being insane. They are adults. If they choose of their own free will to have multiple wives/husbands/lovers then that's their choice. So what if a woman loves two men or a man loves two women, or a man/woman loves a man and a woman? They aren't inviting you to bed so don't tread on them.
Give me liberty or give me death.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Liberty, yes, I want polygamy, but this is not polygamy, this is polygyny, and liberty is not part of that. Good luck trying to explain "equal rights" to these people, saying women should be able to have several spouses, or a person should be able to have one or more spouses of the same gender. Bed? This is not primarily a thing about sex.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal Five types of polygamy come to mind, of which polygyny is one and it's perfectly acceptable if those involved have given their consent as free adults. It makes no sense to say that it is okay for a woman to have multiple husbands, a woman to have both husbands and wives, a man to have both husbands and wives, and for polygamous families to overlap, (ex. every woman having three husbands, who in turn have three wives) but then say that it's wrong for a husband to have just multiple wives.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
I never say that anyone should not have any sexual romantic partners, I say you shouldn't deny anyone to have sexual romantic partners. Does that make more sense?
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal Wow! makes sense for a one that thinks only with the little head.
Chinaculiacan 3 months ago
@Petfal I wouldn't want to get involved in a religious based marriage either, but if these women choose to do that and they are not being forced into the situation, then they have every right to proceed. And those urging them to do this are also in their right to say that God wants them to do it, even if I don't think there is a God. Free speech is not putting a bullet to their head. They're adults and they are responsible for their own actions and have to decide for themselves what to believe.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Yes, they do have a right to marry as they choose, and I support them fully in that. I just want to argue with their belief that women should not have the same rights. I don't think that is a belief that should be get into any constitution, to say the least. I want polygamy, where everyone can marry the ones they love, no matter their gender or sexual orientation. These people would be able to marry then.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal I see where we don't understand each other now. You see polygyny as one man and multiple wives who are somehow coerced into being monogamous with their husband. All it actually is, is when a man has multiple wives and that's it. There is no specific rule about dictating future relationships. If the wives have no romances outside their one husband, that's ploygyny. If they do have other relationships or spouses, they are still in a polygynist relationship with the first husband.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
I see polygyny as a lot of things. In this case it is coercion into being not monogamous, but polygynous, wether or not the females accept it or not, they cannot choose to have several male spouses... or female. Most groups that have polygyny do not accept equality. But if you have a system of polygamy, where both genders have equal rights, of course there can be instances of unions with only one male and several females. Also the conservative, unequal polygynists can do what...
Petfal 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
...they want here. Polygyny really means "plural women", and could technically refer to a woman having several wives, fifty women having each other, equally, or hundred men sharing two wives, for that matter. It can be important to distinguish between what is the actual instance and what "belief" a person/group/society has. It seems you only care about the actual instance, so that if a person happens to be single, it is neither monogamous nor polygamous. That is not incorrect...
Petfal 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
...but it is also not incorrect to say that this person is monogamous if it believes that one should only have one sexual romantic partner. You could call this a monogamist/polygamist/-gynist. Gosh, I think I could write a book about this, haha, but I might leave it at that for now :D
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal If a polygynist man imposes monogamy on his wives against their will, it isn't polygyny that's the problem. It's that the man clearly doesn't have the maturity or proper control of his emotions to handle any kind of poly relationship. If he wanted to have multiple wives who were monogamous with him, he should have made that clear before he married anyone and shouldn't have pursued women who didn't share his desires.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Some people live by a "moral" (I feel it is a mockery of the word) standard where men are allowed to have several female spouses, but women can only have one male spouse. In this it doesn't matter if the man is emotionally ready to "share" its wives with other men, or if the women do not agree with the system, they have to abide by it, and they even have to believe in it. It is always good to be open and honest, and make things clear as soon as possible, but it is not always...
Petfal 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
...possible to stop pursuing someone you love. My ex-girlfriend was horribly monogamous when we met, and it took two years before it had this "eureka"-experience, and just became polyamorous, and we had many good years. Love overcame, and I still believe it was right of us to have that relationship, even if we disagreed from the start.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal I, for example, have three wives. My second and third wives have another husband apiece. These other men are friends of mine, but I'm not married to them. My first wife, though, is married only to me, because that's what she wants to do, even though marrying her friends, in both cases, was actually her idea. In any event, this makes me a polygynist. See the five classes of polygamy I mentioned before. Polygyny, polyandry, man with husbands, woman with wives (gay or bi) and overlapping.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
WOW!!! Really? That is nice!
Yes, you are a polygynist, but by no means are you not a polygamist. Of course, all polygynists are, but you are clearly not a monoandrist, which I think is a better word for traditional polygyny, when there can only be one man. There is a monoandrous element in your relationship with your wives, but then there's also a polyandrous (possibly monogynous?) element in your second and third wives' relation to their hubbies, you included. This requires...
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal I understand and share your aversion for polygamous relationships that use culture or religion to dictate the terms of the relationship instead of those involved, but I don't think it should be illegal unless coercion is used. I have the right to tell women that the only way to heaven is to be my slave and share me with other women. I'd be making up the claim and I'd be an ass hole, but I have the right to say it and if any women choose to accept those terms, that is their right.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Yeah, that's true. Everyone has the right to be an asshole, but I don't think that means we should sit idly by and just let them. We ought to let everyone know there are alternatives to assholing around, and that no one needs to accept that.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal What should be guarded against is when people are forced into marriages, singular or plural, against their will. So long as everyone involved is consenting, it doesn’t matter if the marriage is for love, money, immigration, or to please a god. I don’t want a marriage based on religious fanaticism so I’m not going to have one, but I will never support the persecution of those who do want that. I will, however, always oppose those who coerce people into marriage against their will.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Yes, coercion should be plainly illegal, and I think most places it is, even though it can be hard to enforce. But said assholeness should also be fought, but not juridically, with persecution, but with discussion, campaigns and stuff. A moral fight! :D To me, I think marriage is a thing for love, but legally, it really makes no sense to put love as a requisite. If all involved parties want to marry, that should be enough.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal If you want to say, "hey you shouldn't do that because I disagree with your religion" then more power to you. People like you and me, Chinaculican, and the religious polygamists of the world should have moral debates. I'm right there with you, as long as you're not in favor of making it illegal or of the government treating people in such relationships any differently than they would treat you or me. I believe in the market place of ideas but not in the use of force to impose an opinion.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
No, I wouldn't say I disagree with anyone's religion, just the conservativity in their interpretation of it.
Moral debates! <3
I believe laws are not a good way to fight this, people need to understand and make the right decision themselves. I don't even think it would be possible to make polygyny illegal while still legalizing polygamy. That might be one of several reasons why I like my own suggestion of not just legalizing polygamy like that, but make it as the exception...
Petfal 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
...from the rule, just as we can get married here when we are 18, but if some law person thinks it is a good reason, you can marry down to the age of 16, as an exception. This might also be a very good start, since it just don't really legalize it. Baby steps! :D
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal Just get the government out of marriage. Why on Earth should the state dictate, in any way, who its citizens love/have sex with/dedicate their lives to? The only reason we currently have marriage licenses in the US is because of laws enacted in the early part of the 20th Century to prevent interracial marriages. These laws are left over from the Eugenics and White Supremacy movements. Our founders would abhor the idea that Americans have to ask the government for permission to wed anyone
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Getting the government out of marriage is an absurd thing, I think. When you marry, you either do it juridically, that is asking the government to validate your relationship in a formal way, or you marry non-juridically, where the government don't care about it, because from juridical viewpoint, it is just make believe, anyway. The government isn't IN on marriage, they just give an offer of validating it and securing the rights. That said, it is no reason for it not to...
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal The purpose of government is to protect the liberty of the citizens. The government dictating who a can and cannot marry (and imposing discriminatory taxation, or even throwing me in prison if I ignore them) is a direct and total attack upon the liberty of those citizens. The laws exist because of a despicable and racist movement and the principle of social engineering that inspired and continues to be used to justify these laws is as morally abhorrent today as it was a century ago.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
...acknowledge gay marriage or polygam, so that every consenting adult could marry any other consenting adult. I think marriage is kind of nice and romantic. As I say, sex belongs in the marriage. The marriage is the home of the sex, but you do not always stay at home, you go out whenever you want, but it is nice to have a place where you belong.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal There is absolutely no reason to get the government to "validate" a marriage. It is a system of social engineering where the government tells the citizens what kind of relationships are "good" and which are "bad" and then uses taxation to coerce people into doing what the state wants them to do. If you remain single, you're punished with a singles tax. If you dare wed someone the government says it's illegal to marry, they don't "validate" it and still charge you the singles tax.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Well, yes, it's unfortunate there are tax unbenefits for single people. I don't know a lot of the financial mumbo jumbo, but is it a punishment to for being single or a reward for being married? :D
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal The government calls it a reward for being married, but you can't reward someone by hurting them less. You can only punish people by hurting them more. It is a moral absurdity that the government punishes you for being single, removes the punishment for having a government approved marriage, and then expects you to thank them for a "gift". That would be like the president thanking the people for not assassinating him in his final speech before the end of his term in office.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Some governments try to help people, and taxes is the price we pay for that service. If you are going to travel, the ticket costs money. The price is not a punishment, and if you are a student it is a little cheaper, often, but the others aren't being punished more.
It's nice not to assassinate presidents!
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal Discriminatory taxes, purposefully designed to manipulate the private lives of citizens towards a government approved lifestyle is inherently punitive. To try to argue otherwise is either naive or disingenuous. To then back that tax up with threats of imprisonment if you persist in a non-government approved lifestyle is plain evidence of that.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Of course! I do not want to keep it like it is. I want to fix marriage... or maybe fix government, into understanding how great polyamory is, and that homophilia is not a sin, so they can approve of those "lifestyles" enough to give us the human rights of marrying whomever we want to.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal I don't care what my representatives in government think of my lifestyle, so long as they leave me alone. I don't want their blessings and I sure as hell don't want their manipulative and coercive dissuasions. I'm not sure why you care so much for some county clerk or legal code to say, "your marriage is legitimate, but some other marriage we haven't thought of yet technically isn't." My marriage is between me and my wives. Government has no right to approve or disapprove of my sex life.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
I care about all people, and my job on this planet is to help people free themselves from monogamy, and introduce polyamory. Government representatives are also people, but with symbolic power. If they say polyamory is ok, it will send out signals, and I sure could use that. If we are to have a county clerk or legal code, I sure as hell don't want it to say that something good is not ok and not legal.
Petfal 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
If we have polygamy, then any one consenting adult can marry any one other consenting adult, there are no other marriages we haven't thought of that is excluded from this, and if it is, maybe we can see if it is morally ok (morals as in the philosophical discipline, not as in christian "morals", of course), and if so, just fix the law when the instance comes up. If your marriage is only between you and your wives, and does not affect anyone else in any way, then you probably...
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal "fix the law when the instance comes up"?! That is ridiculous and flies in the face of the principles behind the American and French Revolutions. I hate everything about such an ass backwards, statist, and morally repugnant philosophy. When Thomas Jefferson and the Marquis de Lafayette wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, they wrote it specifically to prevent a legal system with such dependency on a potentially absolutist government.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Why do you hate that? Well, I hope you also read what came before that, when I said something about legalizing polygamy, and then they actually already have opened for every singel consenting adult marry any other consenting adult, which is a good principle that will hold. You just said something about some other marriage type we hadn't heard of, and I acted accordingly.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal “Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.”
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, by Thomas Jefferson and the Marquis de Lafayette.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@Petfal This article wasn’t written to mean, well we can think of X number of rights right now, so let’s legalize them now and we can legalize more later after the government punishes the first pioneers of that right. They understood the fundamental fact that they can’t think of everything in the universe that people have a right to do and they came up with a principle that would never require the government to accept the rights of some and ignore the rights of others.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
That is a good principle! But I do not always see it being practiced.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal Government doesn’t have any obligation to recognize or approve of my marriage any more than they have a right to disapprove. The only acceptable role of government in my marriage/sex life/personal relationships of any kind is to stay the fuck out of it. I don't need anyone's consent to marry anyone else, except for the person I'm marrying. NO ONE else gets to have a voice in that decision, regardless of what position that voice would take.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Well, they have an obligation to recognize almost all monogamous relationships that want to get married juridically, and as long as they are going to do that, I really don't see any reason why polyamorous relationships should be an exception here.
What is a marriage to you?
You seem very angry. I like that you are passionate :D
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal Government has an obligation neither recognize nor condemn any personal relationship. Your irrational need for the government's approval of your personal associations has it's basis in serfdom, where virtual slaves had to get the permission of their lord to wed. I am not a slave or serf. I am a free citizen. As it is now, the government dictates who can marry and who cannot. Even if it "allows" every sort of union, by "recognizing" them it presumes that we need its permission. We do not.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Of course we do not need it, but when we happen to ask for it ourselves, for those of us that wants the legal rights, we should get it. I am a free citizen, too, in fact almost an anarchist. I believe in the good of mankind, and I believe for instance a democracy like our own could be not the worst of systems. I do need them, however, to say that polygamy is all right, I think that will have a beneficial effect on society. Other than that, I am not against marrying non-legally.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal My rights are not given to me by the state. They existed before my government was formed and will remain after it is gone. The primary purpose of the state is to protect those natural rights from the infringement of others. To then become the one infringing on the rights of innocent citizens makes that government tyrannical. I would rather everyone in the world condemn my relationships and leave me alone than approve of who I wed, but try to force me to get their blessing, first.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
There are different sets of right. You got your natural rights, of doing whatever you want, you got human rights, you got some rights by being a citizen in your country, etc. What do you mean by "forcing" you to get their blessings"? Do you prefer hostility over friendliness?
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal I have read that you want to legalize polygamy and you still don't seem to understand that it does not require legalization. No form of marriage should be expressly legal or illegal because it's none of the government's business. Property and inheritance issues should be strictly matters for civil law, and that can be done with or without marriage. To seek to legalize a thing suggests the government has a right to deny it to you and then chooses not to. The state has no such right, here.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Is that how you feel about homophile marriages, too? I see your point, and maybe one day we should abandon marriage altogether, but I like it, think it is kind of romantic, and it still got a hold on us, I do not we are ready to let it go just yet. As long as we still have it, though, I would like to abuse it, as a tool, to make people understand there is nothing wrong with consenting adults living in marriagelike relationships.
If someone marries polygamously, they go to jail.
Petfal 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
You can tell me polygamy doesn't require legalization, but what do you call it, then, when you make it so that you can marry polygamously, but don't go to jail? THAT is what I want!
Civil law, isn't that exactly what is going on when you marry juridically? I believe the government doesn't have the right to deny us marrying the ones we love, is it so horrible that I want to make them stop doing it?
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal When I am polygamous and don't go to jail, that's called the police not enforcing the law. It's still a crime and the government talks in detail about how horrible I am, but they don't arrest me. That is still morally wrong in my book. There should be no marriage laws, for or against, and anyone should be able to marry anyone, without the need for a justice of the peace.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Like Rosa Parks, that wanted blacks to be able to sit in the bus where they wanted. Must have been a despicable woman, since it thinks the government should have the power to say yes or no to blacks being able to sit in a bus! :D
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal You don't need a ceremony to wed, but if you really want one, but don't have any family, friends, or priests available, hire someone. Hell I'll do it if you want, for ten bucks.
When you marry juridically, you are seeking the government's permission to wed. You sign government documents swearing you aren't already married or are related and if you don't go through this process, you are levied with a discriminatory tax.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
I have my vision of a ceremony: Me and the girl(s) I want to marry, naked in the forest, and all guests also naked, and they will be asked if they want to marry us (it is allowed to say no, also for us), and my best friend is going to marry us, being a representative for what I hold most holy: Noiserock!!! It's gonna be free!
I'm never gonna swear I'm not already married, but mark my words: I'm gonna marry juridically one day! :D
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal You do not need your government to tell you polygamy is okay. And even if you are that spineless, you have no right to invest the government with the power to tell me whether or not my marriage is okay or not. You just said that those who want legal rights should go to the government for permission to wed and that is ridiculous. You just approved of having one set of rights for government approved marriages and denying those rights to everyone else. Despicable.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
No, but the government sure needs me to tell them polygamy is ok! :D Just because I am not as angry as you don't mean I don't have a spine. If the government don't have the right to tell whether or not it is ok, it is the same as saying it is ok, it doesn't try to stop it and punishes those that succeed.
Marriage is a contract, and when you sign a contract, that contract must mean something, or else it would be no point in it. Do you think contracts are despicable?
Petfal 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
EVERYbody has the right to marry! Not yet, but in theory!
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal Government forces me to get their blessing by taxing me if I marry without the government. You know who married my first wife and I? Not a priest, not a judge, but our friend from high school, in her dad's backyard. We didn't ask for permission so now we are taxed punitively. I want neither friendliness nor hostility. I want my government to stay the hell out of my personal life.
I never suggested abandoning marriage. I'm thrice married, remember? Reread what I said.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
If you are not married, and you pay a certain amount of taxes (for roads, schools, etc.), do they increase your taxes if you "pretend" you are married/marry without the government/don't marry? I like the idea of your marriage in the backyard! But I guess it is not juridical? Then you certainly break no laws, so it is not about the police not enforcing it.
I meant suggesting abandonig marriage as a civil law thing. Again I want to ask you what "marriage" means to you. ?
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal Marriage means whatever the people engaging in it say it means.
If I am single, I am hit with a singles tax as soon as I am an adult. I am freed from that discriminatory tax as soon as I get a government approved marriage. That's why the tax exists: to encourage people to get government approved marriage. If I marry someone without asking the state for permission, I and my wife will be punished with continued singles taxes and will be denied contracting rights.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@Petfal Schools are paid for in property taxes. Roads are paid for by gasoline taxes. Discriminatory income taxes pay to bomb Somalia and pay off the debt.
By marrying multiple women, even without going through government channels, I am still technically violating the law. The government can choose to prosecute me at any time.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
To me it's just money. I am not really familiar with your tax system abroad.
Let's say "marrying multiple persons" :D How are you violating the law if you only "pretend" to be married? Sounds like SOMETHING should be done there, even if you don't like it. I would fight for your right!
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal That's how polygamy is illegal in the US. You can only marry one person legally, so the others are, as you say, "pretend". Yet the government still calls it illegal. The laws making it illegal should be abolished and nothing put in their place.
We agree something should be done, but where you want the government to pat you on your head and say how wonderful your lifestyle is, I want the government to say nothing. Don't condemn or bless me or my neighbors. Just let us live in liberty.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
That's weird laws. I really don't understand the difference about this and when kids play "house". Juridically, they're both void. Is it that you live together? Is it that you have sex?
I want the government to understand, that's all.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal There are a lot of stupid laws in the world. Many of them are not enforced. This is one of them.
Again, if you want a government official to understand you, take a judge out for a beer. Millions of people don't want the government in our marriages in any way and feel that way because of fundamental principles on the role of government, not some emotional fantasy desire for the governing body of a country to tell you how wonderful your personal relationships are.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@Petfal Of course it makes me angry when a person calls for the surrender of liberty to a government he blindly hopes will not abuse the power he gives it. It makes me even more angry when he offers no rational or logical reason for why the government needs to control the marriages of its citizens, and only talks about how in his fantasy, everyone would be happy for the lifestyles of everyone else and the government's blessing would be on par with the congratulatory comments of a family member.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
I don't understand what you mean here, calls for the surrender of liberty? The government has the power to deny us something. I want to strip it of this, and bow down before me, and do my bidding. I never said anything about my fantasy.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal And it makes me more angry, still, when mentioning the word "sex" gets some smart ass response, suggesting that because I used the word, that is all marriage is to me. It is a ridiculous thing to suggest, even if it had been my first and only comment, but it is even more ridiculous when the suggestion was made after I had posted several comments to you expressing the opposite, over the past several days.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
It is not the word "sex", it is how you said it, the context.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal I said the government should stay out of my sex life. For you to then suggest that my marriages are just about sex is not only insulting to me and my wives, but is a downright stupid thing to think if you had read my previous statements on this page. Unless a person explicitly defines their personal relationships to you, it is rude for you to suggest it's a certain way.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
To be fair, you were saying it in such a way that it almost sounded like you thought sex was the main thing (explicitly defined it, if you will), which I found kind of strange given the earlier conversation. I think the government should have a certain right to protect people from getting raped. I am not accusing you of that, of course, but that is a part of a persons potential sex life. So I think it can stay out of our sex lives, but maybe not the HELL out of it :D
Petfal 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
RUDE!?!?!? I hold nothing back when I feel like I'm among friends, and I do like you. We seem to agree on almost everything.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal Saying the state should stay out of my sex life in no way suggests that, that is all marriage is to me. That you're really making such a plainly ridiculous claim tells me you just like to argue and can't imagine the idea of admitting you were off base.
Also, it is clear to everyone that "keeping the government out of our sex lives" is dealing with the issue of consensual sex. You can play word games all day, but no serious person ever thought that we were talking about sexual assault.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mazerrackham001
And making a fuzz about it tells me you do not have any sense of humour.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal We both have repeatedly said we were specifically talking about consensual sex.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@Petfal Learn your history. Blacks could already sit on the bus. If they couldn't ride, how would they boycott? There, the Federal Government overturned a state and city government infringement on the rights of a minority. Now if a Black person wants to ride at the front of the bus, they just sit the fuck down. They don't ask a judge for permission. To try to compare the government controlling who can and can't wed to the overturning of tyranny is, as usual, ridiculous.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@Petfal Contracts aren't the same as marriage. Marriages include contracts, just like cars include engines, but an engine is not a car. What the government does is make all contracts that aren't done through government approved marriages go through a lengthy bureaucracy and additional taxes to discourage non-government approved marriages. That should be abolished, along with all marriage laws. All citizens should be able to make contracts with anyone, married or not, without state interference.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@Petfal You've just admitted what you really are. I had hoped you were just misguided, but you've had a polar opposite objective to mine all along. You actually want the government to actively support and sanction one lifestyle to discourage the lifestyle of people NOT like you. You're the same kind of tyrannical statist as those who want to punish polygamists and homosexuals, but from a different bias. You don't want liberty. You want dictatorship, so long as your side is doing the dictating.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
I guess that whatever I say, you think it is wrong... I don't really follow you on everything, to be honest...
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal If you said "get the government out of my marriage" I'd agree with you. I have agreed with you that any kind of marriage is okay. However, I sure as hell will never agree with you that government should approve of a lifestyle to encourage it and therefore limit the extent of another lifestyle that you aren't a part of. That's tyranny. It's social engineering. And I'll fight it until I run out of ammo.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
I don't care if the government is in my marriage or not, they are welcome, as long as they behave, I care if they try to stop my relationship and my love or not. What separates a marriage and a relationship, to me, is that you also invite some authority you respect, to verify and acknowledge the marriage, whether it be a god, a government, a society to which you belong or an ideology or whatever. I acknowledge the government, and I think it is fair that is mutual.
Petfal 3 months ago
@Petfal Well if you don't care if the government is in your marriage, and millions of other people do care and actively want them out, lets keep the government out. If you want a government official to understand your life choices and say how wonderful you are, then make friends with a cop or a judge, or a representative, because when you invite the whole government into your marriage in an official way, you are in effect inviting them into everyone's marriage.
mazerrackham001 3 months ago
@mazerrackham001
Oh, I'm gonna make friends with all the cops and judges and representatives! :D
Petfal 3 months ago