The Forum > Article Comments > Redefine marriage, encourage polygamy > Comments
Redefine marriage, encourage polygamy : Comments
By Ben-Peter Terpstra, published 25/2/2011If marriage means whatever you want, then whatever you want is what you can have.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
-
- All
Posted by Clownfish, Friday, 25 February 2011 7:10:30 AM
| |
Clownfish – thanks for the laugh and not addressing the serious sociological and historical questions.
It’s not about gays. It’s about children. It’s also about unintended consequences. I’m sorry your apparent male adults-only libertarian theology forbids you from engaging in serious debates. BPT (Author) Posted by BPT, Friday, 25 February 2011 8:23:42 AM
| |
I am not a Christian, in fact I have no affiliation with any religion. I find myself in complete agreement with Ben-Peter Terpstra. We are now in the idiotic situation of being expected to tolerate, without complaint, continuous assaults on our most sacred (yes I did say sacred) traditions and values by those who insist that we revere the traditions and values of others and avoid offending members of minorities at all costs. Christians are expected to take it on the chin when they are routinely and gratuitously offended by those who will run to the lawyers when they think they have been offended. Clownfish's inane comment is the sort I've come to expect from such people. My greatest concern is for the welfare of children. I have seen the continued gross abuse and neglect of Aboriginal kids close up because the politically correct put rights to culture, land and language before the right to safety, a decent education and to life itself. I grew up without a father. My wife was expected to go to her husband as his second wife at the age of thirteen. My marriage is the single most important element in my life. Monogamous, hetero-sexual marriage is the best institution we have available for the raising of our kids. Attacks on it threaten the very fabric of our society and the future welfare of all of our kids. Gays and lesbians deserve a fair go. Society should be able to give them one without threatening that which is most precious to us.
Posted by daprhys, Friday, 25 February 2011 8:43:03 AM
| |
Y'know this could get really interesting.
Archie marries Brenda, Charlotte and Desdemona. Desdemona, who is bisexual, then marries Eunice. Eunice, who is also bisexual, then marries Archie completing the circle. Meanwhile Brenda branches out by marrying Freddie who is already married to Gladys and Harry. Harry, feeling a bit miffed at having to share Freddie with another woman, marries Ivan who is already married to Jaqueline, Karl and Leonora. Back at the ranch Brenda decides she’d like some more action and marries Desdemona. Poor Charlotte is feeling left out of this so she divorces Archie and becomes a nun. In another part of town Abdul marries Fatima and Aisha. Aisha marries Rivkah who has just migrated from Israel to Australia with her husband, Moshe, and three kids. Abdul objects on the grounds that Muslims women are not allowed to have more than one spouse and certainly may not marry Jewish women. Can Abdul stop Aisha marrying Rivkah? Is that grounds for divorce? Advise your children to become lawyers specialising in family law. The scope is unlimited. Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 25 February 2011 9:29:13 AM
| |
There is no longer any reason why the Commonwealth [ which took over regulation of marriage and divorce from the States in 1959 / 1961 ] or the States should regulate marriage or divorce . Leave it to the citizens to enter into any relationship they desire , so long as it is betweeen consenting adults . The governments need not register such relationships . There is already legislation which provides for custody and maintenance of children , so retain it . There is no longer any stigma attached to ex - nuptial births and discrimination against same - sex partners in superannuation and similar entitlements has been removed . Persons who desire a Church wedding can still have one but the governments will not give the marriage any recognition . Legislation will remain necessary to regulate division of property when a non - registered relationship is dissolved . Criminal sanctions on incest exist , regardless of registered marriage . Whether to retain these should be debated .
Posted by jaylex, Friday, 25 February 2011 9:45:10 AM
| |
Interesting.
>>Canadian multiculturalists are pushing polygamy<< I had a look at the illustration provided by the author, and found that the reference point was a bunch of Christians who had "formed a community" for themselves, called "Bountiful". "While the Attorneys-General of B.C. and Canada are arguing that the law [against polygamy] should be upheld, a court-appointed amicus curiae says the law is unconstitutional because it violates religious freedom." There you go. Religion is once again the problem. If it didn't have such an artificially high profile in these matters, the law would simply be upheld, no argument. But because there is a faction that insists that "freedom of religion" means "freedom to do it my way", we all have to stop what we are doing and make a judgment call. What a waste of time and energy all round, eh? I'm trying to imagine a bunch of atheists banding together to insist on polygamy as their "religious freedom". Nope. Came up empty on that one. Posted by Pericles, Friday, 25 February 2011 10:02:33 AM
| |
“Criminal sanctions on incest exist , regardless of registered marriage . Whether to retain these should be debated .”
So jaylex “sex” between a father and child should be debated? What’s there to debate? “Leave it to the citizens to enter into any relationship they desire , so long as it is betweeen consenting adults .” That’s the adults-only and male-first position on relationships. But the fact is we’re already dealing with the mess created by so-called progressives. Next I’ll be told that two men can produce breast milk for baby. Please. Denying children rights to biological needs is Orwellian (and costly in the medical sense). The fact is that the polygamy trap has endangered countless children and women, and is often an instrument of extreme male religious power against wives. Show me a polygamous nation and I’ll show you extreme sexism. Posted by BPT, Friday, 25 February 2011 10:03:08 AM
| |
We are safe from this perversion. Ms Gillard would not go back on her word. Surely!
Posted by runner, Friday, 25 February 2011 10:55:12 AM
| |
Polygamy is in motion now, A female had 4 kids from 4 fathers, hows that.
Posted by 579, Friday, 25 February 2011 11:27:54 AM
| |
For those who can be bothered here is more about Bountiful BC:
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110221/bc_polygamists_110221/20110221?hub=BritishColumbiaHome Some quotes: >>But members of ... the Mormon church aren't the only ones watching for the outcome of the landmark court case challenging Canada's polygamy law. Leaders in the country's Muslim community say the decision will have wide implications.>> >>Aly Hindi, an outspoken imam at Salaheddin Islamic Centre in Scarborough, Ont., said there are more than 200 polygamous Muslim marriages in the Greater Toronto Area alone...>> >>Advocates say polygamy is justified in the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad himself is often cited as an example of being able to marry more than one woman....>> >>But Muslims are divided on the interpretation of that passage....>> Oh what fun. A confession: In a deep and fundamental way I really don't give a ... what living arrangements consenting adults make. I am, however, disturbed at how very young the women in Bountiful were when they entered into polygamous relationships Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 25 February 2011 11:34:27 AM
| |
Pericles: There’s a difference between fringe cults and mainstream religions, as the post makes clear.
What’s more I think if you researched a little more, you’d find that some prominent atheist lawyers and thinkers have supported polygamy (so don’t praise them just yet). Of course, lumping all religions together allows people to ignore the differences between, say, Saudi Arabia and the United States. We all know that’s a stretch. The fact is mainstream churches have led the way in trying to protect women from polygamy and we need to give them credit where credit is due Posted by BPT, Friday, 25 February 2011 12:25:14 PM
| |
The usual Western Christian puritanical double-minded sexual script is full of essentially sex and body negative presumptions, and essentially contains NO Wisdom at all re sexuality.
Sex or even bodily pleasure equals SIN. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with polygamy, it all depends on the cultural and historical context in which it has appeared. Perhaps in times past it arose as a necessary means for the survival of whatever group it was practiced. It was very much an integral part of certain epochs of both ancient Jewish and Islamic cultures (the book of Psalms is testimony to this in the case of Judaism). Cultures which were associated with a sex-positive disposition in which sexual pleasure was properly glorified and sexual control was rationally understood. Such societies made no taboos against Wisdom, Happiness, sex, childbirth, and those "laws" that pertained to sex were designed to create reasonably predictable social structures, rather than prevent truly human sexual expansiveness. Evidence of this is that polygamy, as well as sex-positive monogamy, was commonly accepted as a positive social possibility by both Jews and Moslems, whereas as Christians in their confused double-mindedness have always tended to prefer either sex-suppressive celibacy or a kind of compulsory monogamy that is ultimately a form of anti-sexual and anti-happiness austerity. Forced un-happiness was and is the cultural norm. It takes a very mature and sensitive man, with lots of balls to be able to "manage" and serve in a fully human sense more than one woman. Indeed very men are capable of loving and serving the fully human aspects of even one woman, and even 2-3 children. Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 25 February 2011 1:07:31 PM
| |
They do say that bigamy is the only crime which comes with its own punishment. And of course I include bigandry in that too.
But jaylex is right, of course. What business in all the flaming hells does the government -- and much less the Church -- have to take any interest at all in whether I cohabit and/or have regular sex with one woman, ten women, four men, or two goats and a sheep, as long as they are all consenting adults and we don't frighten the horses? Once we pry the cold dead hands of the religious right off the reins of power, all reference to anyone's personal predilections should be struck from the legal codex forever, and replaced with a single query: "Is it hurting anyone? How do you know? Can you prove it?" Posted by Jon J, Friday, 25 February 2011 1:23:25 PM
| |
"The usual Western Christian puritanical double-minded sexual script is full of essentially sex and body negative presumptions, and essentially contains NO Wisdom at all re sexuality."
And you live in the West because? In any case, I’d encourage you to study art history. Christianity and sex are good friends. The “sex-positive” activist talk is code for adults-only libertarianism or male-first libertarianism. So Christians have boundaries, deal with it. They didn’t sacrifice their children to the sun gods in G-strings. I’m okay with that. And by the way, what happened to all those mythical rainbow sex-positive cultures? You’re welcome to live in Saudi Arabia though. I’m not stopping you. (There are even sex-positive cannibal cultures for the peckish.) Posted by BPT, Friday, 25 February 2011 1:26:37 PM
| |
The great social problem of the present time is not the fragmentation of the family, which is only a symptom of the ruling zeitgeist - namely the zeitgeist created by 24/7 TV, and wall to wall advertising.
The great social problem is the fragmentation of all forms of community and the destruction of the intimate and Spiritual culture of community, in favour of the domination of humanity by the abstract and dehumanizing Power of the State (both via government, and corporations which now rule the world), and all the media of popular indoctrination, the primary, now all powerful vector of which is TV, especially commercial TV. When did you ever find commercial TV, or Fox "news", inviting or encouraging any one to exercise informed discriminative intelligence about ANYTHING? The usual man conceives himself in isolation and dramatizes his life in those terms. What is the image of the "good" life? Having your own self-enclosed castle, your own husband or wife, your own kids, your own everything. Everybody having his "own" same thing. His own car, his own house, his own TV set. And dreadfully fearful that they may lose it all. Everybody "living" the "good"-life in their little boxes of ticky tacky - ALL THE SAME. As a result, we do not make use of what we gained after thousands of years of struggling at the vital survival level. Which is the possibility of consciously creating a truly human culture in which we do not have to always live on an emergency basis relative to the life-processes anymore. A culture in which we can freely share the life-force, the collective responsibility of life, so that we can survive and prosper without great negative dramas. By doing that we can make our energy available for greater activities, the creative process altogether. We do not have to be over-whelmed by all of the NOW culturally mandated salt of the earth horse manure all the time. Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 25 February 2011 1:30:52 PM
| |
There is no need to legalise polygamous marriage.
A man or a woman can have several “partners” and have children from each, and no one is married to anyone else. It now requires two or more incomes to run a family, and polygamous arrangements with many children would likely require taxpayer funding to adequately support the children. What is most concerning, is the feminist system of de facto relationships, and about 30% of children are currently being born outside of marriage in this country (about 50% in the UK), and most of these children will not have a father in a few years, and most will eventually be living on some type of welfare payment, and many will be living in poverty with little chance in life. There is little to fear of gay marriage or polygamous marriage. There is much more to fear with the feminist system of de facto relationships that is now widespread. Posted by vanna, Friday, 25 February 2011 1:33:42 PM
| |
Ben, your arguments, or more accurately rants, are as subtle as a sledge hammer. You have not said one intelligent thing in the various postings that you have made over the years.
All of your rants would be given a F triple minus in any decent journalism school. Or University philosophy or sociology department. Whether at a secular university, or a Christian university, especially those run by the Jesuits which have always demanded rigorous philosophical argument and scholarship. Nor would any of your rants be published in any newspaper,including lowest common denominator tabloids. Nor would, or could, they be published in any self-respecting PRINT magazine or journal. By contrast many or most of the essays published on OLO would be acceptable to the above. Indeed a good number are published elsewhere. Pornography is of course a world-wide problem and a source of the degradation of women and children altogether. It is no accident that the USA is one of the biggest sources of pornography (maybe THE biggest). Both the pornography which abuses women and children, and the pornography of violence which saturates and now patterns every aspect of USA "culture". Brought to one and all courtesy of the NRA and the military-industrial complex, or rather the merchants of death (for which you are obviously very fond). It is course the sixtieth anniversary of Eisenhower's famous warning re the military-industrial-complex. As it turns out it was a most prophetic warning, which of course was ignored. This wall to wall pornography of sex and death is an INEVITABLE manifestation of the sex and body negative puritanical double-mindedness that now saturates all of USA "culture" - that supposedly most "religious" of countries, or so the hype and lies tell us. Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 25 February 2011 2:35:49 PM
| |
This is the most spectacular example of the slippery slope fallacy we've seen on OLO in some time.
Marriage is a social construct. It reflects society's norms and values. Our society's norms have changed so most of us no longer think discrimination against gay people is acceptable. Allelujah for that. Posted by Rhian, Friday, 25 February 2011 3:15:42 PM
| |
Women with de facto relationships, have played into the hands of males.
Posted by 579, Friday, 25 February 2011 3:18:21 PM
| |
*Redefine marriage and you'll encourage polygamist agendas.*
Well, for one thing I have no problem with people wanting to live in polygamous marriages. It isn't any of my business. It isn't any of Jim Wallace's business either - the same Jim Wallace who says church schools should expel homosexual students, BTW. It isn't any of the author's business either. If it involves underage girls, then it's already criminal offense, so that's taken care of. And as far as the "cults" are concerned they generally have their own notions of marriage, conduct the ceremonies themselves, and if the bride is underage they can't register the marriage anyway, and nothing is going to change any of that until an insider complains about it. After watching a couple of seasons of Big Love I've decided polygamy wouldn't suit me. But I can imagine human beings with very generous natures who could make it work. I don't see why its opponents, who can only see the dark side of it, should be getting themselves frothed up about it - nobody's going to make you do it, Ben. And if you're worried about bad things happening to women and children, have a look at the domestic violence and sexual abuse stats in heterosexual monogamous relationships. They are real, happening as we speak, and not somewhere in a threatening polygamous future. Posted by briar rose, Friday, 25 February 2011 4:02:41 PM
| |
There are a number of assertions made here which warrent some questioning.
- "boys raised by single mothers are filling up our jails, and dominating street gangs." - is that a fact, if so some credible research please. It's also worth noting that more active parents does not necessarily have the same side effects as having a single active parent. - "I wonder too how many gang male members from polygamous backgrounds have grown up with many mothers and one father, meaning that they've received less dad-and-son time investments too." Again there are a whole bunch of factors at play including cultural values which are likely to cause a disconnect from the broader community. Is there any evidence that children raised in polygamous backgrounds are represented in gangs than children from the same cultural background but with two parents? - "the Australian Christian Lobby is right to stand up for what was and is the best time-honored environment for raising children" Is there any evidence to support the claim that it's the best? I'm not aware of societies where plural marriages have been common where there is not also a strong religious element to that society. Trying to judge how women are treated in plural marriages whilst ignoring the other issues associated with those societies is less than convincing. I suspect that many of the concerns about plural marriage really are a reflection of other issues which have often been part of the mix. Some solid evidence that all other things being equal plural marriages does more harm to non-consenting participants than conventional marriage is needed to give the argument weight. I've not seen any sign of that so far. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Friday, 25 February 2011 4:11:15 PM
| |
De facto is convenience, Marriage is a commitment, Polligamy is for muslims. Shacking up is an excuse. Try it before you bye it. Easy come easy go. whatever floats your boat.
Posted by 579, Friday, 25 February 2011 4:37:34 PM
| |
Briar rose,
"domestic violence and sexual abuse stats in heterosexual monogamous relationships" What type of heterosexual monogamous relationships are you referring to? Or, what is the most likely type of heterosexual monogamous relationship that domestic violence and sexual abuse would occur? Also, if there is a family type that often results in the taxpayer having to fund that family type, then would this becomes the taxpayer's business. Posted by vanna, Friday, 25 February 2011 5:03:28 PM
| |
BPT
I think you're flogging a dead horse here. For good or ill lifestyles have changed. Many babies are born without the parents being married at all. For such babies a polygamous relationship for their mothers might actually be an improvement! Many people are serial polygamists - they're only married to one partner at a time! I'm afraid our lives do not conform to what has long been the Judaeo-Christian model. Nor do they conform to the Muslim or Mormon model. Probably they never conformed to these models ever but we were less open about it. Do I think children do best when they are brought up by two parents who love them. Yes I do. And there's a lot of evidence to support that. But can I impose that model on someone else's life? Attempts to regulate people's sex lives have always failed. It is what it is BPT. It may not be perfect. It may be sub-optimal for the children. But you probably cannot change it. Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 25 February 2011 5:13:13 PM
| |
stevenlmeyer,
"the Judaeo-Christian model" Have a read of marriage in different cultures. http://family.jrank.org/pages/1118/Marriage-Ceremonies.html Feminist de facto relationships, gay marriages and polygamous marriages are the aberration and not the norm. But I have noticed it has become very trendy to attempt to associate heterosexual marriage with a Judaeo-Christianity, and also to attempt to associate heterosexual marriage with abuse and domestic violence. Posted by vanna, Friday, 25 February 2011 6:35:05 PM
| |
Actually 'the state' should probably butt out of marriage completely.
As for incestuous relationships, yes they are being debated: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html Quote: "The upper house of the Swiss parliament has drafted a law decriminalising sex between consenting family members which must now be considered by the government." So, if the definition of marriage is changed, so that it includes relationships that are biologically incapable of producing offspring without a third party, regardless of the fecundity (ah, I like that word), what about, in the name of inclusiveness, society agreeing to gay marriage between brothers and between sisters, of the same sex, that is. No children could be involved. Numbers would be small, sure, but why exclude people from marriage who love each other just because they have the same parents? It is then only a short hop to incestuous marriages between people who agree to be medically altered so not as to be able to have offspring. All in the name of love, of course. Posted by Dougthebear, Friday, 25 February 2011 10:38:11 PM
| |
Seems like a simple problem to me.
Obviously, any bloke who wanted more than one wife, is a nut case. We should lock them up in something like the old mental institution, as they are definitely a danger to themselves, & probably the general population as well. Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 26 February 2011 12:48:01 AM
| |
Polygamy is also a way to quickly increase the numbers in these religious cults by having many more women than men in the society and thus greatly boosting the baby production. Sort of the opposite of the Chinese not wanting girl babies and actually quietly killing a lot of them when they were born so as to reduce the unsustainable population in China last century.
With the moslems it may well be a way to avoid intregrating into western society too, by bringing in lots of moslem women to reproduce and using religion as an excuse to practice discrimination against women of their adopted country. You know, the old racial discrimination under the guise of religion. These kind of cultural and religious customs usually have their beginnings in some king of payoff for the humans involved. Posted by CHERFUL, Saturday, 26 February 2011 1:23:09 AM
| |
HASBEEN
What about women who want more than one husband and would like to have children to different fathers so as to enhance their offspring’s genetic variety and strengths. Any objections to that? After all there is daycare today and woman have fulltime jobs so the cost of the children could be shared between the relevant mothers and fathers. Pity Antiseptic wasn't here to address that question as well. Stir him up a bit. Posted by CHERFUL, Saturday, 26 February 2011 1:49:27 AM
| |
Statistics should show that 1/3 of world's population live in a society where monogamy is the only legal form of marriage.
I have 2 life partners or (spouses if you like) - if I am not "marrying" under age girls or coveting my neighbour's wife. his house or field, or his male or female slave, or his ox, donkey,(perish the thought!) or anything that belongs to my neighbour. As long as I don't cheat the welfare system or tax department and my kids are safe and in an environment that doesn't affect their physical or emotional welfare, then why should anyone take offence? Posted by Tastiger, Saturday, 26 February 2011 8:02:50 AM
| |
To everyone who harrumphed about my quote from 'Ghostbusters': I've long since discovered that the best weapon used against the prurient purveyors of puritanism is ridicule. The one thing these self-righteous prigs can't stand is being made fun of.
Frankly, this article doesn't deserve a more serious response. Posted by Clownfish, Saturday, 26 February 2011 12:20:58 PM
| |
The Australian government currently recognises overseas polygamous marriages.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s6.html FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 6 Polygamous marriages For the purpose of proceedings under this Act, a union in the nature of a marriage which is, or has at any time been, polygamous, being a union entered into in a place outside Australia, shall be deemed to be a marriage. Posted by MikeyBear, Saturday, 26 February 2011 1:42:11 PM
| |
'What about women who want more than one husband and would like to have children to different fathers so as to enhance their offspring’s genetic variety and strengths. Any objections to that? ''
Depends whether you expect the taxpayer to continue to fund the prisons. Posted by runner, Saturday, 26 February 2011 2:41:30 PM
| |
Hasbeen,
I would agree that a man would have to be completely bonkers to have more than one wife, especially living in our feminist society. I can imagine the consequences. A wife (or in androgynous feminist terms “partner”) reads a women’s magazine and decides she wants her divorce. Everything has to be sold, so that she can get what is his, and also get what is hers. She then takes “her” children and he pays child support. Then another wife (or if they can’t make up their minds who they are they can call themselves “partner”) reads the women’s magazine and decides she wants her divorce. Everything has to be sold again, so that she can get what is his, and also get what is hers. She then takes “her” children and he pays child support. This continues with one wife or feminist “partner” after another, until eventually he cries out in total despair and anguish “Allah, release me from this heathen feminist hell.” Posted by vanna, Saturday, 26 February 2011 2:57:07 PM
| |
It's good that the posted this on OLO as it was devoid of facts. Ben wants Taniban stay religious Government enforcing his religous views on the rest of us. His faith in his imaginary friend must be thin.
Posted by cornonacob, Saturday, 26 February 2011 3:24:26 PM
| |
The sentiment in the title of this piece captures my thoughts exactly.
The argument put forward by homosexual and left wing lobbyists is that we need EQUALITY: That people should be able to have themselves a loving, lifelong union and that this should not be dependent on you being a male and a female. It is apparently DISCRIMINATORY to hold that marriage should be between a male and a woman. Does anyone disagree with my assessment? If I haven't been fair, let me know how. But it seems that the people advocating change to the marriage laws always appeal on the basis of 1. Equality and 2. Taking away discrimination. Here's the problem I see: You could use equality and discrimination equally well as reasons to allow Polygamy. This is no slippery slop fallacy; it's a fact. The same arguments used for gay marriage, broadly, can be used for polygamous marriage. This is an important point to make because it shows with considerable force that the debate should NOT be about emotion driven appeals against discrimination. Rather, we need to consider what the purpose of marriage is (if any) and go from there. I would argue that the traditional purpose of marriage- that is, a safe haven for the raising of children- necessitates a male and female and that society and families will be better off if this idea is promoted in our marriage laws. If that makes me a bigoted discriminator then so be it. But keep in mind that polygamists would also be justified in calling you a bigoted discriminator if you want to discriminate against them by denying them lifelong, loving unions with the two or three wives that they cherish. Posted by Trav, Saturday, 26 February 2011 4:33:09 PM
| |
No, Trav, the argument is that it's none of your damned business; nor mine, nor the Churches', nor the state.
If no-one is being coerced, or their rights otherwise violated, if all parties are legally adults, then, like it or not, it ain't nothin' to do with you. Posted by Clownfish, Saturday, 26 February 2011 11:01:02 PM
| |
Clownfish,
The excuse of “its none of your business” was heard about abortion, and eventually the taxpayer has to pay, and eventually the country imported large numbers of immigrants to maintain the population. The excuse of “its none of your business” was heard about de facto relationships, and eventually the taxpayer has to pay, and eventually the country had large numbers of single parent families and large numbers of disadvantaged children. If the excuse “its none of your business” is now said about polygamous marriage, eventually the taxpayer will most likely have to pay, with associated social problems that the public has to cope with. BTW. How will child support and property settlements be determined for polygamous marriage. How will she take her cut, and will the other wives have to pay child support, or will it just be the father (if the woman knows who the father is). Posted by vanna, Sunday, 27 February 2011 6:49:24 AM
| |
Quote -
"BTW. How will child support and property settlements be determined for polygamous marriage. How will she take her cut, and will the other wives have to pay child support, or will it just be the father (if the woman knows who the father is)." This is already accounted for in the Family Law Act - also covered under the intestate persons regulations in several states if someone dies without a will (Google "intestate multiple partners") This whole argument may use the word Polygamy - because that very word strikes fear because of the well publicised actions of a few fundamentalist religions. Rarely in this argument do you see references to other forms of multiple relationships such as polyandry (where a woman has more than one husband.) If anyone is interested there more discussion on the legalities of multiple relationships @ http://polyoz.net.au/forums/community-forums/28-livin-in-the-land-of-oz/389-legal-matters Posted by Tastiger, Sunday, 27 February 2011 7:56:06 AM
| |
So, vanna, the taxpayer doesn't pay for children of traditional marriages? There is no such thing as the Baby Bonus, or child support?
What you really seem to be saying is that the state should apply a morality clause to benefits everyone is otherwise entitled to. Posted by Clownfish, Sunday, 27 February 2011 8:26:59 AM
| |
If marriage is none of my business and none of yours either, then let's recognise polygamy and incest while we're at it.
Besides Clownfish, who gets to decide what a right is? And who gets to decide what is anyone else's business? All you're doing is trying to make yourself the arbiter of such things whilst accusing others of doing the same Posted by Trav, Sunday, 27 February 2011 8:49:01 AM
| |
Tastige
Polyandry is quite widespread, and it is costing society dearly, in the form of welfare payments. and in the number of disadvantaged children. Under feminist law, the woman moves from one man to the next, but always taking the last man's children and his money. I currently work with a woman who has children from 2 previous men and is currently with a third man. Not surprisingly, she owned a house with the last man, but now she rents, and lives from one week to the next with very little money, and she can't afford any time off work for any reason. The system of feminist polyandry eats away at finances, and the more men she is with, the less money she eventually ends up with, and the more likely the children involved will end up having to be supported by the taxpayer. Anyone in favour of polygamy should first study the system of feminist polyandry to see what a total mess that system is in. Posted by vanna, Sunday, 27 February 2011 9:21:44 AM
| |
Trav, how on earth do you move on to incest? Your slippery slope is simply ridiculous.
I was also quite clear: if no-one is being coerced, or their rights otherwise violated, if all parties are legally adults, *then* it is none of your, or my, business. Therefore I cannot be making myself the arbiter of anything, because I'm saying quite clearly that it's none of my business either. 'Who gets to decide what a right is?' Well, unlike the simple-minded Theist, I won't argue that there is an easy answer to that (ie, 'see Leviticus 18 - there, that's what God says, end of story'). But as philosophers and scientists like Stephen Law and Sam Harris have argued, just because an answer is difficult, doesn't mean it doesn't exist; and just because we cannot give a definitive answer now, doesn't mean that we can't give an approximate one. The lure of a simple answer to complex problems is seductive, but usually wrong. Try reading this: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/revised-chapter-for-comments.html Or this: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/whats-wrong-with-gay-sex.html Posted by Clownfish, Sunday, 27 February 2011 10:18:16 AM
| |
vanna
You seem to be of the impression that these alternative relationships be they Polygamy, Polyandry or whatever are simply a case of have some kids and move on... Those that move on are engaging in Serial Monogamy. In my experience over many years of being an advocate of these alternative relationships - nothing could be further from the truth. These types of multiple relationships take a considerable amount of effort, understanding and communication to start and maintain - therefore are more likely to succeed in the long run. The average length of these alternative relationships is 16 years compared to 7.6 years for monogamous marriage. In my case we are just coming up on 10 years so I have already passed the average for monogamy. Posted by Tastiger, Sunday, 27 February 2011 1:37:38 PM
| |
Tastiger,
I would think there is a fine line between polygamy, polyandry and the feminist version of society, which is serial de facto relationships normally ending in single parent families living near or below the poverty line, and kept alive through taxpayer funding. The average length of marriage in our society is a little over 12 years. There are more social scientists in universities than someone could count, but almost no research has been conducted into de facto relationships in this country (probably to hide the tragic and sickening details of so many de facto relationships), but from some research in the US, the average length was about 3 years. I would think our society has enough problems already without adding polygamous marriage. Posted by vanna, Sunday, 27 February 2011 2:43:17 PM
| |
Clownfish, you are trying to make yourself the arbiter of when something is and isn’t someone else’s business. Please be honest enough to admit that.
So, if adults decide to enter into a loving relationship, without coercion from either side and without violating each other’s rights then it’s none of our business and none of the state’s business, right? If you think I’m making a slippery slope fallacy then tell me how incest and polygamy couldn’t fit under the above description. My point: If you support same-sex marriage on the basis of equality and anti-discrimination (as most supporters do) then you should also support polygamy on the basis of equality and anti-discrimination. And if you support same-sex marriage on the basis that consensual adult decisions are none of the state’s business per the above reasons, Clownfish, then you have no right arguing against marriages or relationships of any kind- be it polygamy or incest or whatever. The discussion should be about the basic purposes of marriage, NOT equality or discrimination (As I argued in my first post) or what is and isn’t the state’s business. (And Re: The two links. Law’s first article is completely irrelevant- I’ve said nothing about theistic morality- and the second one is only slightly relevant in parts. I have some disagreements about certain arguments made (particularly the “moral capital” discussion) but because they’re so irrelevant I won’t be going off on a tangent) Posted by Trav, Sunday, 27 February 2011 3:53:29 PM
| |
Trav, marriage is about the loving committment of two people to each other, wether they are male-male, female-female, male-female or female-male; If they truely love each other then their marriage commitment is absolutly none of your or anyones business.
Though your postings indicate that life should only be as you want it, that sort of thinking is dicatorial,so have a look at North Africa where the people have had enough, and will no longer be dictated to. This is the 21st century and your thinking and belief, belongs in the 19th century. Posted by Kipp, Sunday, 27 February 2011 5:02:46 PM
| |
Well, Trav, your entire argument against gay marriage seems to be predicated on the assumption that it will lead inexorably to legitimising polygamy and incest, which are apparently so heinous that therefore gay marriage cannot be tolerated either.
So, it appears that the problem is not gay marriage itself, but what you believe to be its inevitable consequence of legitimising polygamy and incest. So, how about this? How about *you* explain exactly why polygamy and incest are so abhorrent, that not even the apparently morally neutral stepping stone of gay marriage can be tolerated? Seeing as you are not advancing theistic morality, I expect that your answer will be devoid of any religious arguments. Posted by Clownfish, Sunday, 27 February 2011 8:26:44 PM
| |
Clownfish- I very briefly argued for traditional marriage in the latter stages of my initial post, but my central point, and the main argument I am making is this: The framework of the debate needs to be re-examined. People need to discuss the purpose (if any) of marriage. If we change the definition, then effectively we are changing from the traditional understanding of the purpose of marriage. Talk about "equality", and about "discrimination" is skipping the major issue, as is talk about what is "anyone else's business".
I have learnt from past experience that casting a net too wide in online discussions like this is untenable for many reasons. Therefore I am only interested in making one singular point at a time. I have no interest in specifically discussing the problems of incest and polygamy because I have simply discussed those within the context of my major argument as outlined above. Kipp: You made this claim about me: [Though your postings indicate that life should only be as you want it, that sort of thinking is dicatorial] But that was straight after you said this: [Trav, marriage is about the loving committment of two people to each other, wether they are male-male, female-female, male-female or female-male; If they truely love each other then their marriage commitment is absolutly none of your or anyones business.] Your definition of marriage indicates that you believe life (ie: Marriage) should only be as you want it. Therefore you are being a dictator too. So please quit taking the moral high ground and confront the actual discussions at hand. Posted by Trav, Sunday, 27 February 2011 9:27:08 PM
| |
Kipp: ie: You are saying that only two people at a time can enjoy the life of marriage together!
Why can't three or four people enjoy the life of marriage together in the form of polygamy? By making a definition of marriage you are necessarily excluding some people and therefore you are dictating your view on others, just as the traditional marriage proponent is doing the same Posted by Trav, Sunday, 27 February 2011 9:30:39 PM
| |
In Australia most Polygamists have lied to both their partners and children for many years, resulting in profound hurt and distrust, along with deep seated hurt and confusion suffered amongst their children, add to this, small town communities [some adults and their children] enjoying the gossip/news item, inflicting violence and bullying upon those innocent children of polygamous parents and/or unfaithful parents.
Many parents, particularly women I have known growing up around the country, deliberately scammed and rorted C/L via Polygamy [three husbands and the fourth victim a relative of mine] who all paid this woman during separations, while she claimed full C/L payments 30 years ago. It wasnt until I became an adult that I realised why this woman could afford to open up a few businesses with no working background or loans behind her, that now flourish around Australia. Posted by weareunique, Sunday, 27 February 2011 9:40:47 PM
| |
Each to their own deceitful journeys, however, when children are involved and on the hurtful receiving end of Polygamy or unfaithfulness, and where Polygamists are deliberately defrauding the Commonwealth and Taxpayers, I strongly disagree with the way of life.
Posted by weareunique, Sunday, 27 February 2011 9:57:02 PM
| |
To those who are claiming polygamists lie to their parents and children etc. - have you actually met someone who is a practising committed polygamist or are you basing your assumptions on sensationalist media reports on very few, who are usually Mormon fundamentalists?
Polygamy is not one person sleeping around hopping from house to house - it is a committed relationship. For example a Muslim must prove he can support any extra wives before the church will allow him to take more wives. There will always be people who exploit the system - it's just the way it is, and it isn't just Polygamists - you are making a blanket assumption. I have a suggestion - let's round up all these pesky Polygamists, single mums who rort the system, throw in some of them gays, lesbians and anyone else who may just not fit into societies view of what is "normal" - build a big space ship and pack 'em off to Mars where they will have to fend for themselves. Sure it will cost a lot, but look how much money the taxpayer will save in the long run... and while we are at it let's bring back the White Australia Policy, Conscription, TV licences and take away the vote from indigenous Australians again – then maybe just for good measure we can solve world hunger and peace. Posted by Tastiger, Monday, 28 February 2011 6:25:49 AM
| |
Trav: 'Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found.' (wikipedia)
So, how does same-sex marriage invalidate this definition? Posted by Clownfish, Monday, 28 February 2011 7:12:04 AM
| |
It is all quite simple really.
The proportion of boys and girls born tells it all. To see what happens when you change that look at China. The one child policy resulted in testing if a fetus was male or female. If female the decision was made to abort in many cases. The result is many Chinese men unable to find wives. Every time a polygamic marriage is undertaken it is one more man unable to find a wife. It is that simple ! If you can't understand that then you are really stupid. Posted by Bazz, Monday, 28 February 2011 10:50:55 AM
| |
"Every time a polygamic marriage is undertaken it is one more man unable to find a wife."
You see Mom - it's not my fault! ! ! (and thank the Lesbians too for the relief!) Do you seriously believe, Bazz, that all those harems would drop straight into your lap just because the government refuses to give them a piece of paper? I do agree with Jaylex: governments should step right out of this whole business of marriage. Leave it for every person and every group one belongs to, to define or interpret for themselves what "marriage" is all about. Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 28 February 2011 11:44:04 AM
| |
I said;
If you can't understand that then you are really stupid. Oh well I was wrong, some people are ! The Chinese are suffering a number of social problems because of a shortage of girls according to a number of reports I have seen over a considerable time. Now I did not save the references, so go and look for them yourself. One of the fundamentals of human nature is the need for a lifetime partner. Even a lot of birds an animals cohabit for life. That is just the way it is and saying it isn't is a detachment from reality. Posted by Bazz, Monday, 28 February 2011 3:30:54 PM
| |
Bazz
In a normal community, about 105 boys are born to 100 girls. In some parts of China that ratio is slightly higher (but not all parts). Something I have never heard a feminist mention is that the number of boys being born in many countries is falling, leading to a concern that this could be caused by pollutants in the environment. However most polygamous marriages were initially amongst societies that had a shortage of men, often because more men were killed at a young age, normally through wars or tribal fighting. I tend to think that polygamy has about as much chance of success in our society as feminist inspired de facto relationships. They have buckley’s chance of success, and like feminist inspired de facto relationships, they are more than likely to lead to single parent families living off the taxpayer. Posted by vanna, Monday, 28 February 2011 5:34:25 PM
| |
Vanna;
There is another factor which I have only just thought about. With Poly marriages the gene pool that exists in a commumity especially small communities contains a larger amount of close relative genes. That is something to avoid. The effects can be seen in moslem communities in Australia and the UK where studies have been done on cousin marriage. The UK parliament was considering a law banning cousin marriage but I never heard anything further on the matter. Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 9:00:19 AM
| |
Trav, you know quite well were I am coming from, and playing semantics does not help the debate.
I care not, about how consenting adults live their lives, and I respect those with religous or so called "moral beliefs". I ask what is your reason to deny two people who have a loving commitment, the right to have their being as a couple legally recognised. It will have no affect on you or any person and individual, love comes in many forms, and is always beautiful. Posted by Kipp, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 6:20:15 PM
| |
Bazz,
A small gene pool could be a problem, particularly for small groups or religious sects that practice polygamy. There has been concern that the diminishing number of sperm donors could result in a small gene pool for women receiving IVF. There was the case of two women living across the street from each other in the US, and they eventually discovered that they both had children from the same father through IVF. Similarly, a small religious sect practicing polygamy would have a small gene pool. Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 9:46:25 PM
| |
Vanna,
Sometimes young children are told that babies come to the world through marriage, but as an adult you know that only in fairy-tales do babies come as a result of the act of some priest or celebrant producing a piece of paper. Polygamy is no exception. "Similarly, a small religious sect practicing polygamy would have a small gene pool" So what? it's their problem. Perhaps they will not be as successful in a Darwinian sense, but if they are happy with their religious experience, who are you to stand in their way? Or if you are concerned about the public purse, then note that religious sects are less likely to call on external medical services or on external education and also that legally-married polygamous families, due to having more members, are less likely to pass asset/income tests to be eligible for a pension. But as I mentioned above, I am not in favour of the state conducting/approving polygamous marriages, or gay marriages, or marriages at all. That should remain in private-domain. Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 10:20:22 PM
| |
Polygamy is not one person sleeping around hopping from house to house - it is a committed relationship. For example a Muslim must prove he can support any extra wives before the church will allow him to take more wives.
There will always be people who exploit the system - it's just the way it is, and it isn't just Polygamists - you are making a blanket assumption. I reject your assumption or point blank assertion that I made an assumption or point blank claim. Please give me an answer to the following Tastiger. Why, in Australia, has research analysis concluded that most Austrlian Polygamists have lied to their partners over past years? Why have I financially supported two Muslim families overseas as a result of their poor dire financial situation ie numerous children in each of those families, dozens of children with the same father? Why bother marrying both women and not just live together as a community? Why bother with a piece of paper or breaking the Australian law that is legislated for a good many reasons? Posted by weareunique, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 11:43:59 PM
| |
weareunique
If you can point me to the statistics that show most Australian Polygamists have lied to their partners - that is Polygamy in the sense of the word and I mean literal meaning from the Oxford Dictionary:- polygamy(pol¦yg|amy) noun *the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time. Derivatives polygamist I will be more than happy to discuss it after seeing where these figures are derived from as my statements are based on personal experience. As to your Muslim issue that it something you would have to discuss with Centrelink as they have already ruled. Centrelink general manager Hank Jongen admitted the agency was making payments to people in multiple-couple relationships. "There's nothing preventing them from being in more than one 'member of a couple' relationship at a time," he said. "In these cases, Centrelink pays each person the relevant income-tested payment at the partnered rate." http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560 "Why bother marrying both women and not just live together as a community? Why bother with a piece of paper or breaking the Australian law that is legislated for a good many reasons?" I am still not certain what those good many reasons are and why should not we have the same rights to that piece of paper as "normal" folk? - that way there would not be anyway to rort the system, Centrelink or Taxation wise as our relationship would be recognised lawfully. Posted by Tastiger, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 5:33:05 AM
| |
Tastiger:
My question posed to you was the following [not a statistics based question]: "Why, in Australia, has research analysis concluded that most Austrlian Polygamists have lied to their partners over past years"? I have known many Polygamists as stated in my previous posts along with having read a great deal of literature on Polygamy within Australia. Many Australian Polygamists through our generations have lied to their spouses and previous spouses, many moving from state to state. Most to gain financially from each situation. You are coming from the aspect of a Polygamist involved in a long term stable open honest relationship with two people. My comments are targetted at the individual who has married on many occasions not divorcing, changing their names constantly unlawfully, and moving on to their next partners, deliberately lying about their true or latest identities and pasts. Most lie about the identities of their childrens parents. A polygamist breaking Australian law. Laws put in place to safeguard children and taxpayers. Below are a couple of latest studies conducted about the effects of Polygamy in families both here and in Malaysia Tastiger. As studies are conducted and concluding, most outcomes describe mostly negative impacts upon both children and mothers leading polygamous lives. A 2010/11 Malaysian Study on Polygamy for your info: http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://polygamy411.com/2010/01/17/a-normal-polygamous-family-a-malaysian-study/&sa=U&ei=MIVtTbGMJoSGuQP3ncDaBA&ved=0CA4QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGOap6ameE5zcquiVX7pRndaZJU4g One Australian social study regarding the negatives for families practicing polygamous relationships. http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2005/2.html&sa=U&ei=N4NtTfD9LJCmvgPXrL23BA&ved=0CCEQFjAI&usg=AFQjCNGUQr23nTL4kvWLqhlcckUPEHplnA Posted by weareunique, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 10:00:07 AM
| |
Polygamy is not legal; moreover, bigamy (as it is known) is a crime - only the first marriage entered into will be acknowledged. Despite the customary Australian practice of acknowledging marriages legally entered into in other nations, polygamy is not acknowledged save where divorce, property settlement and various types of court orders are concerned (provided under section 6 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)). In a similar vein, a new marriage cannot begin until the previous one is formally terminated - in the case of Schmidt 1976 a marriage was declared void as it had taken place before the termination of its predecessor.
This is the type of Polygamy I am referring to Tastiger as opposed to a person living with two spouses in a relationship. Having stated that, Polygamy will not be legalised in Australia's immediate future for validated reasons regarding English/Australian laws pertaining to the "Marriage Act" - the Union between Man and Wife, according to Robert McLelland A/G's. Posted by weareunique, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 10:40:13 AM
| |
"My comments are targetted at the individual who has married on many occasions not divorcing, changing their names constantly unlawfully, and moving on to their next partners, deliberately lying about their true or latest identities and pasts. Most lie about the identities of their childrens parents."
You are referring to bigamy not polygamy - had you made that clear in the first place there would have been no argument from me. No wonder people are frightened if they all think polygamy is the same as bigamy. Bigamy is a totally different kettle of fish to polygamy. Let's use the correct word - Polygamy is what you see on "Big Love" or what you hear about in mostly sensationalist media reports from compounds of Fundamentalists in the USA and Canada (You only hear about those when some twit who thinks he is a prophet and starts marrying all the young girls - you never hear about the thousands who live the lifestyle peacefully and don't interfere with anyone else.) The first report is from Asia and I doubt that what is discussed there is a world wide trend and the second article is a research paper written by a woman from her point of view in 2005 - the issues she brings up about inheritance seem to be covered by laws in most states now and the rest of it sort of has a distinct feminist tone to it. As long as that Muslim you "supported" has not registered his second or third marriage contract officially (at the Attorney General's Office) then his "marriage" is about as legal as that of the next person who has an extra marital affair. Therefore, if we are going to accuse every person who is having an extra marital affair of being in breach of Australian values then we will be accusing tens or hundreds of thousands of people. As for the Marriage Act that will be changed if the Greens get their way and then the barn door is open as soon as the words Union between Man and Woman disappear from said act... Posted by Tastiger, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 12:34:18 PM
| |
In fact I will go one step further and say that no one in this thread has given any sound reason why I should not be able to marry both my spouses if the law were to change. The only reasons I have seen are either moral or based on a misunderstanding of a word.
Someone may put their hand up and say "but you can only love one person!" Not true - I love my parents, I love my Siblings, I love my Kids and obviously a lot of people love their mistresses or there would be no need for the "Mistress Law" http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/1924/its-not-just-a-new-mistress-law-family-law-act-now.aspx Posted by Tastiger, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 12:46:16 PM
| |
Yuyutsu said;
Or if you are concerned about the public purse, The reason for avoiding corrupted gene pools is the emotional and physical ordeal in raising a handicapped child for the rest of your life. Have you never seen an 80 year old mother taking her handicapped middle aged son shopping ? Her biggest worry; who will help him when I am dead ? She will continue to worry when she is dead; it is just that she has to do that worrying before she dies. That is why cousin marriage and polyandry should be legally banned under threat of a prison sentence. Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 12:56:42 PM
| |
"The reason for avoiding corrupted gene pools is the emotional and physical ordeal in raising a handicapped child for the rest of your life"
Then people need to be informed about that risk of living that ordeal. Surely it is up to each one to decide whether they want to take that risk or not. Your idea is to throw everyone to jail, while nature already provides its own punishment! BTW, both cousin-marriage and polyandry do not produce children. It is not the act of marriage that triggers child-birth, but perhaps you are still under-age to know that. Are you aware that if two people really want to have a baby between them despite a jail-threat and nature's own risks, they always have the option of lying about the father's identity (and sometimes even the mother's)? Do you also propose jail sentences for cousins who stay together unsupervised in the same room (even if they are homosexual) or for sterile/post-menopausal three-somes? Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 1:46:28 PM
| |
Yuyutsu;
Your last reply shows you really do not understand. What about the frustration and difficulties of the child itself and the life it will lead ? Any one who knowingly takes that risk should spend many years in prison for child abuse. Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 2:30:48 PM
| |
Dear Bazz,
I only addressed the issue which you raised, not what you were silent about. Now that you did raise the issue of the child, let me relate to it: First, it is the old story of the half-empty/half-full cup. The child got his/her life from the parents, so the child owes them his/her life, not vice-versa. You seem to think that the parents should have given him/her more, but they did not owe him anything in the first place (that is, unless you also want to throw into jail those who choose not to have children at all). Second, how can you tell that the child is frustrated and has difficulties? You are saying this from the perspective of a whole-bodied person, but the child never had that experience and knows no other existence. Third, there are also some advantages in being disabled: for example, one never have to go to work, and one usually has no worries, one is being taken care of all their life, and being given much attention. Fourth, I have seen handicapped persons who are very happy, always smiling and laughing, and are generally quite an inspiration to others who are full-bodied. Fifth, it is the child's choice to come to the world and have the particular mother. If he/she does not want, they simply don't need to come. Why would they? well, we come into this world for many reasons, to experience, learn and complete different issues: how can you say that being handicapped was not just the very thing which this child needed to experience? Sixth, according to your logic, the state should imprison anyone who allows pets and farm animals to breed, because their life is even worse than a half-human. Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 5:34:48 PM
| |
You obviously don't have a clue.
What makes you think the child does not understand its own problem ? Tell any such mother that the child owes her and she doesn't need to feel responsible to the child. There is nothing more to be said to you. Don't bother replying. Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 6:00:31 PM
| |
Leaving aside the obvious eugenic angle to your argument, Bazz, you should also be aware that incestuous relationships have a much lower probability of producing birth defects than, say, smokers, drinkers, women over 40, people with a family history of cancer, workers in risky industries, hemophiliacs, drug users ... I assume you believe each of these groups should 'spend many years in prison for child abuse'?
Posted by Clownfish, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 9:18:59 PM
| |
My sincere apologies Tastiger - the only excuse I have to offer is tiredness and a big week!
You are right, our lives on this planet short, every relationship, particularly long term ones are invaluable, to not only the three, four or more people themselves, but to other people. A point I should have included that probably is a wonderful positive to polygamy if the three or more adults are not producing large families, is the benefit of extended families living together enjoying the support network, which we all know, most of the time had been present in past generations; highly positive environments for children if alcohol drugs and violence were absent. Many children have suffered from lack of extended family presence and support, therefore, I see some positives regarding your family set up. Re; my financial assistance to children in polygamous families Tastiger, these are situations whereby the 'father' has two wives with 6 children produced by three adults. All the best Posted by weareunique, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 9:33:58 PM
| |
Just to back up Clownfish's last opinion I actually have some figures on the chances of incestuous relationships producing birth defects.
Please be aware that I do not support incest by posting these figures - it is simply for illustration purposes:- * Father/daughter, mother/son or brother/sister - 25% * Grandfather/granddaughter or grandmother/grandson - 12.5% * Half-brother/half-sister - 12.5% * Uncle/niece or aunt/nephew - 12.5% * Double first cousins - 12.5% * Great-grandfather/great-granddaughter or great-grandmother/great-grandson - 6.25% * Half-uncle/niece or half-aunt/nephew - 6.25% * First cousins - 6.25% * First cousins once removed or half-first cousins - 3.125% * Second cousins or first cousins twice removed - 1.5625% * Second cousins once removed or half-second cousins - 0.78125% As for Polyandry - "That is why cousin marriage and polyandry should be legally banned under threat of a prison sentence." Again - I wish people would check words before throwing them about :- polyandry noun * polygamy in which a woman has more than one husband. This is usually only practised in regions where there are more women than men in the population and it does exactly the opposite of corrupting the gene pool as one woman may have children with several men therefore diversifying the gene pool. Geneticists have worked out that you can restart a population with 160 individuals - 80 men and 80 women and obviously the more you "mix up" those base genes the better. Thanks weareunique for at least seeing my side of the argument and acknowledging that there just may be some positives in alternate relationships. Posted by Tastiger, Thursday, 3 March 2011 5:44:14 AM
| |
Just to add another perspective to the argument:-
These days with lesbian relationship numbers growing, it really isn't all that unusual for "little Jenny" to go to school and talk about "mummy and mummy", in fact it is quite acceptable at most schools because her home life is seen as loving family environment unless said school is homophobic. Why then would it be so bad if "little Jenny" went to school and talked about "mummy, mummy and daddy" or "mummy, daddy and daddy"? A lot of kids already have a blended family background where more than one "mother or father" figure have an influence on their life - it's just that they don't live with all their role models and this is always not a really healthy environment for them. They grow up thinking it's OK to marry someone and then divorce. Alternate relationships such as polygamy and polyandry may be just a step in the right direction to changing that "short term marriage" thinking. Posted by Tastiger, Thursday, 3 March 2011 8:00:43 AM
|
Run for the hills, folks, the gays wanna get married!