English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I know similar questions like this has been asked before, but hear me out…..

Very recently, a front page article in “The Washington Post” talks about how in recent months, polygamist families have been pushing for polygamy and bigamy to be legal, due to their beliefs. Personally, if it does become legal, then the country just declared a “no holds barred” on all marriages. Then very soon the “traditional” family of one husband, one wife, and a few children, could be forgotten. What do you think?

2006-11-25 20:20:57 · 16 answers · asked by Coool 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

16 answers

it should be legally

2006-11-25 20:23:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

There are actually a great many benefits to the idea. Extended families tend to have closer ties within their family units, greater economic stability, and more nurturing home lives. It stands to reason that those same benefits would apply to polygamous marriages.

Aside from the legal aspects, look at the rising popularity of polyamory, or multiple love interests. It is a practice that has no legal support, nor does it have any legal prohibitions, since those involved in polyamory do not seek to make a legal issue of marriage. The belief that by loving more, one is capable of more love has no more or less merit than the belief that by loving less, one is capable of loving more. Personally, I have never seen any studies to support either ideal.

Furthermore, from a religious standpoint, the phenomenon of 1 man and 1 woman forever and ever (cough...amen) did not occur until after the death of Christ. Indeed, in his time, polygamous marriages were fairly common. It is only a Christian virtue as a result of Paul's misogynous teachings. It was never a teaching of Christ, according to the Bible.

Food for thought...
-SD-

2006-11-25 20:33:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

various of adult men have mistresses. absolutely polygamists carry them homestead. it really is what polygamy contained in the U. S. is, stay-in lady acquaintances. easily, they have found out a extra powerful way. They marry each and every lady, then divorce her earlier marrying the subsequent. That way each and every lady can wave a wedding ceremony license round, say in an emergency room to get get entry to. no one is going to move seem up divorces. a number of the FLDS polygamists from the Texas raids were charged with polygamy. that's extra than likely unlawful to marry 2 women people instantly. a wide issue with real existence polygamy is they stay off welfare. You and that i are helping their existence kind. Fundamentalist Mormons do not conceal it. They positioned on such unusual outfits that they could't. you spot them round, rather specially community parts.

2016-11-26 22:37:44 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

lol. What traditional family? My parents divorced when I was 15. Both of them remarried. My mother was a single mother for years. With divorce being around 55% of all marriages, "Traditional" family is long at an end.

As for polygamy and bigamy, I think it's really twisted and I don't think it should be allowed. It opens up a can of worms far too large and we already have enough problems to deal with.

2006-11-25 20:25:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

my friend
think rationally on the life of all those singles mothers, widows, spinsters, and divorcees.
why must polygamy be seen as a product and vehicle for lust while it really could be a way to let males who by nature or fortune are able to care and provide for many females , a way to let them spread serenity and stability ?
is it impossible to imagine it as a way to fulfill every womens right to a home, a family , a supporting, loving relationship?

i am very sorry to see a nation of so vast potential being so driven by lustful , unresponsible people who would legalise homosexual filth but villify consentual polygamist marriage.

is that your honest assessment of the status quo? that traditional families are the rule?
it is obvious that single parent families and horrendous same-sex-couple based families are the majority today.

2006-11-25 20:30:17 · answer #5 · answered by shogunly 5 · 1 1

MY only objection to polygamy is that I am having a hard enough time just finding ONE wife, the last thing I need is someone taking mroe than one off the market... other than that...I dont have a problem with it on any moral or ethical grounds...just my own personal bitterness and jealousy...

2006-11-25 20:50:28 · answer #6 · answered by kveldulf_gondlir 6 · 0 1

I think legal marriages should be abolished entirely--marriage should be in the eyes of God and that's enough by itself--making marriages legal or illegal is playing god and just a way for human lawyers to make money--and the nuclear family died out years ago, get over it, the mom on the brady bunch was divorced, and there was no mother on different strokes

2006-11-25 20:36:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

I won't go into the issue of whether it's right or wrong, but I can almost guarantee you that it won't be legal any time soon. Not within the next 50 years anyway.

2006-11-25 20:24:24 · answer #8 · answered by . 7 · 0 1

The traditional family won't be forgotten; it's what most people yearn for.

That said, there's no reason not to recognise a polygamous relationship, although there's plenty of reason to doubt its longevity!

2006-11-25 20:28:03 · answer #9 · answered by Morosoph 2 · 0 1

most mormon churches who practice polygamy have called for it to stop. it will never be legalized because there is not enough support for it...politicians aren't FOR something unless there is a majority or close majority of people who want to see it happe. and that sect of mormon who still practice polygamy is very small

2006-11-25 20:26:43 · answer #10 · answered by bgbadwolf27 3 · 0 1

I think it should be legal. What right does the government have to tell people how they should marry. This isn't a Christian nation after all. Government should have no say in things of this nature.

2006-11-25 20:23:20 · answer #11 · answered by Dawkins 2 · 4 2

fedest.com, questions and answers