Wow how sexist can you get? Marriage does NOT confer ownership. If a woman wishes to have more than one man or husband it is HER right to so decide, and the man or husband has NOT right to deny her. This is NOT some third-world or Islamic culture where women at chattel. What I am seeing is ignorance and sexism incarnate. Anyone thinking your way should never be allowed to get married at all, to anyone of any sex.
Men are too stupid to know that their wives are already sharing themselves with other men, lol. Any wife who wishes to try out a new man will have NO problem, despite the sexist and bigoted attitudes of their ignorant male spouses. Any man that thinks he can deny his significant other the ability to seek other companionship is an idiot, plain and simple.
Human cultures that exist bear me out. Polyandry is next to nonexistent in the real world. Yes, there are a few fringe folks in the U.S. that practice polyamory. But just that, fringe. You will not be able to find many cultures throughout the world in which polyandry is even rare. Mostly, it's ultra-rare. Humans are animals. Polyandry is rare in the animal world as well, especially in species that have long-lived breeding relationships, and in which a lot of parental care is provided. Males do not want to provide for the offspring of other males with their mates.
Not on a widespread cultural level. Please show me examples in human cultures where wifesharing (polyandry) was common.
Only so long as her original vows didn't include the "forsaking all others" part. If they did, the husband has every right to expect his wife to stay true to him. Likewise wives have every right to expect their husbands to stay true and not cheat on them because of the same vows.
Millions and millions of males and females practice polygamy every day. It is just not legal polygamy and they call it CHEATING, or ADULTERY, instead of polygamy and it proves you need to open your eyes and see some reality.
Anyone that believes humans will keep their word, vows or promises is a fool. 65 years of life has shown me that humans are human and they seldom manage to keep vows they make. Depending on the poll, how it was taken and when, between 22 and 67 percent of spouses cheat at one time or another. How many of the ones that do not admit it, lied? And that is about something for which there is a LEGAL CONTRACT. How many break vows/promises that are not legal? I would guess 100% give or take 1 percent.
Why not? In what manner would greater inclusion deny or disparage the privileges and immunities of individual liberty?
It is also about a civil and orderly society and dedicated parents for each child. The point about not allow the wealthiest or best looking or whatever males marry multiple females meaning many males will not have a sexual partner with which to form a family is very valid. Becoming fathers and marriage partners tends to have a civiling effect males. Of course this also applies to females forming lesbian relationships. So it is in the best interest of society to support and encourage and sanction heterosexual marriage. It is not in our interest to support and encourage and sanction other relationships.
Why do you believe that some group dynamics would not "even out" if women can also have multiple husbands?
It might in a western society or go the other way where women cannot get themselves impregnated because there are no available mates, meaning less procreation, or they do so without a mate and exacerbate the problem of fatherless children. How would either scenario be beneficial to society?
I am not sure how you evolved your line of reasoning. Why do you believe those dynamics would be the only one's available to those persons engaged in that lifestyle? Let's assume a simple scenario where a guy has several "wives". Why would one wife not be able to stay home and take care of the kids while the other wives did other things and potentially bring some income into the household through their efforts? The same could be true of the opposite. Why would either of those situations be any worse than what we have now?
I was merely commenting on your special pleading regarding our different points of view. You seem to be in favor of denying and disparaging individual liberty over a form of central planning, ostensibly in the name of morals of Religion. Our Founding Fathers already enumerated our secular moral and legal ethics in our supreme law of the land. Our supreme law of the land must be more supreme than ten Religious commandments simply because our Founding Fathers said so, in Article Six of our federal Constitution.
I'm an atheist, nothing I have stated has any religious connotation. It is a matter of how society best exist, what is to the benefit of maintaing our society. And that we are heterosexual beings, and we best exist in the human nuclear family that should be encouraged and sanctioned. And we do so in part through our laws. If you want to have a homosexual relationship go for it, but society has no interest nor benefit to encourage it quite the opposite we should encourage people to reconsider and form heterosexual relationships.
By the way, the first five presidents of the USA were deists. Not a one of them believe that Jesus was god.
Polygamy is simply too complex. It is hard for 2 people to live with each other, imagine 4. (It is all placed in a contemporary context, no room for traditional notions here). If I were one of two husbands to my wife, think how this would affect me. If me and the rival husband both wanted children, who is going to be the first one? After the children come along it gets even more complex. 2 people is nice and clean. 2 people meet, they start a family, raise children, done. Well, thanks to our culture this works approximately half the time, but this could potentially get improved in the future as we become more liberal and more secular. another thing... if you suggest polygamy to be widely accepted, I doubt you've ever been jealous.
Why do you believe polygamy is more complex than monogamy. Our form of republican government is more complex than either, but it functions and has functioned for over two hundred years. In my opinion, it may depend more on income and other factors, instead of mere polygamy.
Issues of property and custody become enormously complex in multi-partner marriages. Not that I think people shouldn't be able to make those arrangements, but I'm not happy with the idea of creating a new body of law and a whole set of courts just to manage that type of marriage. Leave it to private courts and arbitrators.
Granny hopes dem Mooslamics an' Mormons don't get a polygamy rights law passed... ... else Uncle Ferd'll be wantin' to move alla his fat g/f's in with us.
Just because you believe you have the right to own your spouse does not mean everyone believes the same way. You have a one on one marriage, and I will have a 7 on 12 marriage and never the twain shall meet.
