Wedded 'throuples' coming to America. 'If marriage is not the union of a man and a woman, why limit it to 2 people?'

[Dexter]

Every successful society and culture in human history has depended upon monogamous marital relationships. Polygamy has of course existed in the margins and even at the center of some human societies. But such groups have persisted only at the margins, and have not been successful in the long run, whether endorsed by governments or not. 

The reason is found in human nature, campaigns against which always end poorly. See: socialism.

Can you substantiate your claim that every successful society throughout history was dependent on monogamy? Perhaps polygamy has only existed in the margins because the majority prefer monogamy. That doesn't make polygamy unnatural.

[musiclady]

Those emotions don't make polygamy unnatural.

So for you, human nature (i.e. emotions) are not part of what is natural??

Interesting twist on reality.....

[Dexter]

So for you, human nature (i.e. emotions) are not part of what is natural??

Interesting twist on reality.....

That's not what I said. I said the existence of those emotions does not make polygamy unnatural. You assume polygamy doesn't work because of jealousy, pride and anger; I disagree with that. I think those emotions are why polygamy wouldn't work for you. Not everybody experiences those emotions the same way you do.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I personally see marriage as a love promise. I don't think the government needs to be involved at all. 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "love promise".  Does this promise include property guarantees and economic support?

[Dexter]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "love promise".

A promise to love one another indefinitely.

Does this promise include property guarantees and economic support?

In America and most of the rest of the world yes, it does, and that's why it is hard to keep the government out of it. That's why it ends up being important for the government to recognize other forms of marriage. If they're going to be involved in the process and give benefits to married people they need to accept that a married couple can consistent of more than just a man and a woman. Some people don't want that lifestyle and it's unfair for them to be denied the same benefits other people receive.

[musiclady]

That's not what I said. I said the existence of those emotions does not make polygamy unnatural. You assume polygamy doesn't work because of jealousy, pride and anger; I disagree with that. I think those emotions are why polygamy wouldn't work for you. Not everybody experiences those emotions the same way you do.

Why do you have to make this about me?  I'm not talking about me.  I'm talking about human nature.  I've been passionately married for nearly 40 years to a man who's WAY too intelligent to look for anyone else....   ^-^

You said that human nature (i.e. emotion) didn't have anything to do with what is natural.

And yet you define marriage as a "love promise."  Which is, of course, emotion.

IOW, you're defending your distortion of the definition of marriage based on emotion, while at the same time saying that human emotion has nothing to do with why polygamy isn't natural.

You can't have it both ways.  Your argument in support of the distortion of marriage is based solely on emotion.  You dismiss the societal defense of traditional marriage (i.e. the rational), and support your position based on "love." 

The argument doesn't work.

[Dexter]

Why do you have to make this about me?

I had to make it about you because you apparently don't realize that people experience emotions and the world around them differently than you do. You said anger, jealousy and pride make polygamy unnatural. That's not true because people can and do have polygamous relationships without being hindered by those emotions.

You said that human nature (i.e. emotion) didn't have anything to do with what is natural.

No I didn't. That's just your misinterpretation of what I said.

And yet you define marriage as a "love promise."  Which is, of course, emotion.

Yes.

IOW, you're defending your distortion of the definition of marriage based on emotion, while at the same time saying that human emotion has nothing to do with why polygamy isn't natural.

No.

You can't have it both ways.  Your argument in support of the distortion of marriage is based solely on emotion.  You dismiss the societal defense of traditional marriage (i.e. the rational), and support your position based on "love." 

The argument doesn't work.

My argument works when you understand it.

[EdinVA]

How is it unnatural? What in nature tells us that humans need to be monogamous?

Because society has deemed it "unnatural" so the questions really is, where does "societies" rights/traditions/beliefs begin and end vs individual rights?
If I do not believe in gay marriage or polygamy, does the individual(s) who do, have the right to force my kids to believe otherwise?
How can public behavior be "regulated" to limit exposure to those who believe that those behaviors are wrong?

[musiclady]

I had to make it about you because you apparently don't realize that people experience emotions and the world around them differently than you do. You said anger, jealousy and pride make polygamy unnatural. That's not true because people can and do have polygamous relationships without being hindered by those emotions.

No I didn't. That's just your misinterpretation of what I said.

Yes.

No.


My argument works when you understand it.

Ah, yes......... when your argument fails, tell the people who don't fall for it that they're stupid.  Great debating technique...   

If you use emotion to defend your distortion of the definition of marriage then you can't use emotion to dismiss the reality of what polygamous relationships are.  Humans are monogamous.  Women are monogamous.  When women (not me, silly) are forced to share a husband, they don't do well with it.  They are jealous.  They are angry.  It doesn't work.

Don't believe what you see on reality TV.........

[Dexter]

Because society has deemed it "unnatural" so the questions really is, where does "societies" rights/traditions/beliefs begin and end vs individual rights?
If I do not believe in gay marriage or polygamy, does the individual(s) who do, have the right to force my kids to believe otherwise?
How can public behavior be "regulated" to limit exposure to those who believe that those behaviors are wrong?

You think those people should be prevented from living the lifestyle they want simply because you don't agree with it? They're not hurting anybody. They also don't care about what you think. They just want to get married.

[andy58-in-nh]

Can you substantiate your claim that every successful society throughout history was dependent on monogamy?

Name a successful society that was not.

Perhaps polygamy has only existed in the margins because the majority prefer monogamy. That doesn't make polygamy unnatural.

Or, perhaps it has existed in the margins because human nature is immutable.

[Relic]

You think those people should be prevented from living the lifestyle they want simply because you don't agree with it? They're not hurting anybody. They also don't care about what you think. They just want to get married.

Marriage is a social contract. As such it's recognized by society. Those that choose to live a polygamist lifestyle are free to do so.

Why is it that leftists are always trying to get society to bend to their whim?

[Dexter]

Ah, yes......... when your argument fails, tell the people who don't fall for it that they're stupid.  Great debating technique...   

If you don't understand what I'm saying I will make you aware of that. It doesn't mean I'm calling you stupid. I have never once called a member of this community stupid and I never will.

If you use emotion to defend your distortion of the definition of marriage then you can't use emotion to dismiss the reality of what polygamous relationships are.

You completely misunderstood what I was saying about the emotions you mentioned. The fact that those emotions exist doesn't mean polygamy is unnatural. Not everybody gets angry and jealous for the same reasons you might. Polygamy works for some people.

Humans are monogamous.  Women are monogamous. 

Not all of them.

When women (not me, silly) are forced to share a husband, they don't do well with it.  They are jealous.  They are angry.  It doesn't work.

Can you prove that all women don't do well with polygamy? Can you prove they all get jealous and angry?

Don't believe what you see on reality TV.........

I don't watch TV.

[EdinVA]

You think those people should be prevented from living the lifestyle they want simply because you don't agree with it? They're not hurting anybody. They also don't care about what you think. They just want to get married.

So, then we should teach "how to" homosexuality in school?
Then we should teach kids in school about how to use heroin and crack?
Where is the line and who gets to decide that line?

If they don't care about what I think, then why should I care about what they think?

[Dexter]

Name a successful society that was not.

That's impossible because most people throughout history were monogamous regardless of the society they lived in. That doesn't mean every successful society throughout history was dependent on monogamy. That is probably the biggest correlation = causation leap I have ever seen.

[Dexter]

Marriage is a social contract. As such it's recognized by society. Those that choose to live a polygamist lifestyle are free to do so.

Polygamy aside for a moment, most of society thinks homosexuals should be allowed to get married. Thoughts on that?

[Relic]

Polygamy aside for a moment, most of society thinks homosexuals should be allowed to get married. Thoughts on that?

It doesn't affect me. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. In the case of queer marriage, society wants it, it's happening. In the case of polygamy, the opposite is true.

My own personal opinion, queers should be allowed to marry one on one. Polygamy doesn't seem to be healthy.

[Dexter]

So, then we should teach "how to" homosexuality in school?
Then we should teach kids in school about how to use heroin and crack?
Where is the line and who gets to decide that line?

You think acceptance of homosexuality/polygamy is comparable to teaching kids how to use drugs?

If they don't care about what I think, then why should I care about what they think?

Nothing obligates you to care about what they think. Though I do wonder why you care so much about what they do.

[Scottftlc]

Well, I"m way late to this...but I would prefer that government not be involved in marriage at all, in any way.  That would mean no marriage benefit, no marriage penalty, no consideration of marriage of government's part at all.  As for benefits (health insurance or other family rights and responsibilities), that could be handled privately or individually (if a company benefit, by the company or employer) and/or every person can claim as dependents for that purpose anyone they so designate as a SO, per the specific rules of the individual plan.  Government employers could also make their own benefit rules.

I think it would be best if government was out of the marriage business altogether.  People would be married by their church or even their private association if they wish.  Their marriage would be theirs and that of their own association or church with no government involvement whatsoever.  Things get so mixed up, screwed up and downright crazy when government gets involved...just look at education and health care.

[Bigun]

Well, I"m way late to this...but I would prefer that government not be involved in marriage at all, in any way.  That would mean no marriage benefit, no marriage penalty, no consideration of marriage of government's part at all.  As for benefits (health insurance or other family rights and responsibilities), that could be handled privately or individually (if a company benefit, by the company or employer) and/or every person can claim as dependents for that purpose anyone they so designate as a SO, per the specific rules of the individual plan.  Government employers could also make their own benefit rules.

I think it would be best if government was out of the marriage business altogether.  People would be married by their church or even their private association if they wish.  Their marriage would be theirs and that of their own association or church with no government involvement whatsoever.  Things get so mixed up, screwed up and downright crazy when government gets involved...just look at education and health care.

100% Agree!

[musiclady]

You think those people should be prevented from living the lifestyle they want simply because you don't agree with it? They're not hurting anybody. They also don't care about what you think. They just want to get married.

It's curious to me that you make frequent accusations that others want society to do what they want it to do (i.e. traditional marriage), but never seem to entertain the reality that you want to force the majority of society, whether they agree or not, to do what YOU want it to do.

It's a blind spot with you, Dexter.  You're perfectly happy imposing your mores on society, but reject it when others who disagree want to do the same thing.

[musiclady]

If you don't understand what I'm saying I will make you aware of that. It doesn't mean I'm calling you stupid. I have never once called a member of this community stupid and I never will.

You completely misunderstood what I was saying about the emotions you mentioned. The fact that those emotions exist doesn't mean polygamy is unnatural. Not everybody gets angry and jealous for the same reasons you might. Polygamy works for some people.

Not all of them.

Can you prove that all women don't do well with polygamy? Can you prove they all get jealous and angry?

I don't watch TV.

First of all, I want to know why I'm the only poster whose comments you separate bit by bit, making it much harder to respond to.

Just curious.  Now to try to respond....

Your implication to everyone who doesn't agree with you is to say,  "You'd agree if you just understood what I was saying.  You just don't get it."  That response implies that if the people responding were a bit brighter, they'd understand you.  You may not use the word 'stupid,' but this is a serial technique you use to put other posters down.

And, no, I didn't misunderstand what you were saying about emotions.

Your argument that because a few people can deal with polygamy (though I doubt many do in reality), it is "natural" is a spurious argument.  One can find exceptions to almost any law of human nature, but it doesn't prove that the law doesn't exist.

Polygamy isn't 'natural' for women because of the very nature of women.  I don't need to "prove" that ALL women respond badly to it.  Again, a spurious argument.

SOME women don't admit that they're battered by their husbands, and claim they're happy with the man who's beating them.  Do you think, therefore, that it is "natural" for women to be abused by their husband?   It is most likely that any woman claiming to be happy in a polygamous marriage does so because of low self-esteem (you know about that, right??). 

She doesn't think she deserves better............. just like many battered women don't think they do.

Your argument fails, Dexter.

[Dexter]

It's curious to me that you make frequent accusations that others want society to do what they want it to do (i.e. traditional marriage), but never seem to entertain the reality that you want to force the majority of society, whether they agree or not, to do what YOU want it to do.

You want to prevent them the lifestyle they want when that lifestyle is not hurting anybody. You want to control their lives, not vise versa. In no way do they want to impose anything on you. You're the only one that wants to use force to dictate the lives of other people.

[musiclady]

You want to prevent them the lifestyle they want when that lifestyle is not hurting anybody. You want to control their lives, not vise versa. In no way do they want to impose anything on you. You're the only one that wants to use force to dictate the lives of other people.

Au contraire, you want to impose your views on the rest of us.  You want to dictate to those who believe in traditional marriage that we are wrong, narrow minded and seeking to harm innocent people and that we need to change.

The truth is the opposite of what you claim.

[Dexter]

First of all, I want to know why I'm the only poster whose comments you separate bit by bit, making it much harder to respond to.

Just curious. 

You're not the only poster I do that to. I do it because I like to pick your thoughts apart one by one.

Your implication to everyone who doesn't agree with you is to say,  "You'd agree if you just understood what I was saying.  You just don't get it."  That response implies that if the people responding were a bit brighter, they'd understand you.  You may not use the word 'stupid,' but this is a serial technique you use to put other posters down.

I'm sorry you take it that way. I don't know of a more polite way to explain to you that you don't completely understand what I was getting at with my post.

And, no, I didn't misunderstand what you were saying about emotions.

Your posts seem to indicate otherwise.

Your argument that because a few people can deal with polygamy (though I doubt many do in reality), it is "natural" is a spurious argument.  One can find exceptions to almost any law of human nature, but it doesn't prove that the law doesn't exist.

Your entire argument for polygamy being unnatural was that emotions like anger and jealousy prevent it from being healthy/natural. I was simply pointing out that the people that prefer polygamy experience those emotions differently.

Polygamy isn't 'natural' for women because of the very nature of women.  I don't need to "prove" that ALL women respond badly to it.  Again, a spurious argument.

Actually you do need to prove that if you're going to make sweeping generalizations like "women are monogamous" and "polygamy doesn't work for women." Not all women are monogamous and polygamy does work for some of them.

It is most likely that any woman claiming to be happy in a polygamous marriage does so because of low self-esteem

You have absolutely no way to substantiate that claim. You're simply making assumptions because you don't understand how somebody else could be happy like that.

Your argument fails, Dexter.

According to you it always does, so I'm okay with that.