Comments on: The Case For Polygamy http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:06:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: john http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-20240 john Mon, 01 May 2006 18:02:32 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-20240 Can you relate two adult people (regardless of sex) to an adult and a child or an adult and an animal? On either count, Polygamy or homosexual sex, you would be relating one adult to another. Assuming they are all of sound mind and body why not allow the marriage. I have a feeling that the people who would not want these kinds of marriage would also agree to consenting adults "living together" as well. Which questions what their true interest is in this discussion. Marriage is a legal term and has little to do with religion, but the right likes to team the two together due to moral implications of both. And by the way, Polygamy has that ick factor due to religion, generally speaking. The idea of the church mandating multiple marriage and dictating who gets married to whom, is the jacked up part. Can you relate two adult people (regardless of sex) to an adult and a child or an adult and an animal? On either count, Polygamy or homosexual sex, you would be relating one adult to another. Assuming they are all of sound mind and body why not allow the marriage. I have a feeling that the people who would not want these kinds of marriage would also agree to consenting adults “living together” as well. Which questions what their true interest is in this discussion. Marriage is a legal term and has little to do with religion, but the right likes to team the two together due to moral implications of both. And by the way, Polygamy has that ick factor due to religion, generally speaking. The idea of the church mandating multiple marriage and dictating who gets married to whom, is the jacked up part.

]]> By: lynn.w.h http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-20227 lynn.w.h Mon, 01 May 2006 12:39:24 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-20227 Polygamy sucks. Marriage is the unity of two people who has love, faith and understanding for each other. I wonder what marriage would mean to a man/women with a bundle of rings. Polygamy sucks. Marriage is the unity of two people who has love, faith and understanding for each other. I wonder what marriage would mean to a man/women with a bundle of rings.

]]> By: eMath http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-10732 eMath Sun, 02 Apr 2006 04:23:08 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-10732 Debsay said: "If you really don’t believe that someone would actually try this then you don’t know human nature very well… each generation pushes the envelope further." Debsay, how much world history do you know? I'm not talking the history of what country attacked which country when, I'm talking social history. It's totally absurd for you to claim "each generation pushes the envelope further." Just last century, do you really think the 1930s were wilder than the 1920s? Do you have any clue just how permissive the 1890s were compared to the 1910s? That's not even considering the way life was at various times in India or Africa or Europe. There were "boy brides" in several ancient cultures, with actually ceremonies and everything. If you think same-sex marriage is some sort of "slide" in the big picture of history you're missing a helluva lot of historical context and don't know about damn thing about true human nature. Debsay said: “If you really don’t believe that someone would actually try this then you don’t know human nature very well… each generation pushes the envelope further.”

Debsay, how much world history do you know? I’m not talking the history of what country attacked which country when, I’m talking social history. It’s totally absurd for you to claim “each generation pushes the envelope further.”

Just last century, do you really think the 1930s were wilder than the 1920s? Do you have any clue just how permissive the 1890s were compared to the 1910s?

That’s not even considering the way life was at various times in India or Africa or Europe.

There were “boy brides” in several ancient cultures, with actually ceremonies and everything. If you think same-sex marriage is some sort of “slide” in the big picture of history you’re missing a helluva lot of historical context and don’t know about damn thing about true human nature.

]]> By: caroline http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-8705 caroline Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:33:12 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-8705 "Big Love" is to modern Utah polygamy what "Hogan's Heroes" was to Nazi Germany. In Jon Krakauer's book, "Under the Banner of Heaven," he cites polygamous wives in Colorado City (aka Short Creek, aka "Juniper Creek") who insist that pedophilia is rampant within the community. Did Tom Hanks fail to read Krakauer's book or did he simply choose to ignore it? I was worried that Big Love might glamorize Utah polygamy and gloss over the misery it creates for women and children. So far I'm relieved that its entertainment value is on par with Hogan's Heroes. With any luck HBO will cancel the series before it makes the "shenanigans" of Colorado City seem as routine and amusing as the Mafia's drug-peddling and blood-letting. “Big Love” is to modern Utah polygamy what “Hogan’s Heroes” was to Nazi Germany.

In Jon Krakauer’s book, “Under the Banner of Heaven,” he cites polygamous wives in Colorado City (aka Short Creek, aka “Juniper Creek”) who insist that pedophilia is rampant within the community. Did Tom Hanks fail to read Krakauer’s book or did he simply choose to ignore it?

I was worried that Big Love might glamorize Utah polygamy and gloss over the misery it creates for women and children. So far I’m relieved that its entertainment value is on par with Hogan’s Heroes. With any luck HBO will cancel the series before it makes the “shenanigans” of Colorado City seem as routine and amusing as the Mafia’s drug-peddling and blood-letting.

]]> By: debsay http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-8644 debsay Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:35:37 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-8644 yeah, right... they'll get the pet psychic to claim consent... or they'll take video of the german shepard trying to ride their leg and claim consent... come on - if you had said that this stuff would be happening 40 years ago people would have claimed that you were crazy. yeah, right… they’ll get the pet psychic to claim consent…

or they’ll take video of the german shepard trying to ride their leg and claim consent…

come on - if you had said that this stuff would be happening 40 years ago people would have claimed that you were crazy.

]]> By: Callimachus http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-8427 Callimachus Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:17:57 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-8427 Animals can't give consent. Though a trained pony probably can dance better at the reception than some brides I've seen. Animals can’t give consent. Though a trained pony probably can dance better at the reception than some brides I’ve seen.

]]> By: debsay http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-8424 debsay Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:25:53 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-8424 If you can redefine marriage to include same sex couples then you 'can redefine' it to mean anything you want it to. If you really don't believe that someone would actually try this then you don't know human nature very well... each generation pushes the envelope further. If you can redefine marriage to include same sex couples then you ‘can redefine’ it to mean anything you want it to.

If you really don’t believe that someone would actually try this then you don’t know human nature very well… each generation pushes the envelope further.

]]> By: GN http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-8423 GN Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:21:23 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-8423 Well, ... If Mr. Ed and Sally Struthers .... oh, never mind. Sally would nevr remember her lines. But on another note I was thinking that when we take over India someone WILL try to outlaw reincarnation. Well, … If Mr. Ed and Sally Struthers …. oh, never mind. Sally would nevr remember her lines. But on another note I was thinking that when we take over India someone WILL try to outlaw reincarnation.

]]> By: Gratis http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-8415 Gratis Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:53:28 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-8415 I'm confused about the jump from consenting adults marrying multiple persons to beastiality. I mean, how would it possible to take a pony in front of a justice of the peace and have it agree to be married to the sicko that owns it? It wouldn't. That's a huge leap that just doesn't make sense. I’m confused about the jump from consenting adults marrying multiple persons to beastiality. I mean, how would it possible to take a pony in front of a justice of the peace and have it agree to be married to the sicko that owns it? It wouldn’t. That’s a huge leap that just doesn’t make sense.

]]> By: Donklephant » Blog Archive » The Case Against Polygamy http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-8399 Donklephant » Blog Archive » The Case Against Polygamy Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:39:56 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-8399 [...] I suppose I could have posted this in the comments section of Justin’s post about polygamy, but it’s rather long. Besides, Justin gave me posting privileges and what better way to use them than to question his reasoning? [...] [...] I suppose I could have posted this in the comments section of Justin’s post about polygamy, but it’s rather long. Besides, Justin gave me posting privileges and what better way to use them than to question his reasoning? [...]

]]> By: debsay http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-8394 debsay Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:06:28 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-8394 Then after polygamy is included in the definition of marriage, someone will want to include beastiality too. I mean, if you and your shetland pony really love each other..., right? Then we can move on to polygamist beastiality - maybe you have two shetland pony lovers!!! Then after polygamy is included in the definition of marriage, someone will want to include beastiality too. I mean, if you and your shetland pony really love each other…, right? Then we can move on to polygamist beastiality - maybe you have two shetland pony lovers!!!

]]> By: Alan Stewart Carl http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-8393 Alan Stewart Carl Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:04:47 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-8393 You gotta be kidding? Legalized polygamy is a horrid idea. You gotta be kidding? Legalized polygamy is a horrid idea.

]]> By: dave s http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-8389 dave s Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:17:24 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-8389 A good friend of mine was the son of his father's older wife - he had two. This was perfectly legal (Iran, and the marriages had been contracted before the Shah started pushing against polygamy) The house had two wings. He and his mom felt slighted, dad spent most of his time in the younger wife's wing. My friend said it wasn't really very pleasant, and he had no interest whatsoever in multiple wives himself. A good friend of mine was the son of his father’s older wife - he had two. This was perfectly legal (Iran, and the marriages had been contracted before the Shah started pushing against polygamy) The house had two wings. He and his mom felt slighted, dad spent most of his time in the younger wife’s wing. My friend said it wasn’t really very pleasant, and he had no interest whatsoever in multiple wives himself.

]]> By: Gratis http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-8388 Gratis Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:10:57 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-8388 The problem with the polygamists in the U.S. today isn't how many wives they take, it's that they are encouraged to take child wives. Or worse, when a 14-year-old girl is made to marry her 25-year-old <em>uncle</em>, as was the case recently in Utah. Keep the kids from being molested and I say marry as many strangely warped, submissive women as your ego can handle. Oh and in case the author of the cited article doesn't realize it, we already have a "contract-based system of government-registered relationships". That's how I could be married by the mayor and if I divorce my husband we'll have to go to court to divide up the goods. The problem with the polygamists in the U.S. today isn’t how many wives they take, it’s that they are encouraged to take child wives. Or worse, when a 14-year-old girl is made to marry her 25-year-old uncle, as was the case recently in Utah. Keep the kids from being molested and I say marry as many strangely warped, submissive women as your ego can handle.

Oh and in case the author of the cited article doesn’t realize it, we already have a “contract-based system of government-registered relationships”. That’s how I could be married by the mayor and if I divorce my husband we’ll have to go to court to divide up the goods.

]]> By: Justin Gardner http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-8377 Justin Gardner Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:46:18 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-8377 Heh. Again...back to my many wives... Heh.

Again…back to my many wives…

]]> By: Callimachus http://donklephant.com/2006/03/17/the-case-for-polygamy/#comment-8371 Callimachus Fri, 17 Mar 2006 06:06:42 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1971#comment-8371 This one's so easy, it's almost a no-brainer. It even has the sanction of the Bible (O.T.). Historically it has tended to be associated with repression of women and severe extremes of wealth and poverty. But it would work better in an open society like America, especially because it would be just as legal to have, say, a woman with two husbands in her household (if she could afford enough video games and beer for them both). That way you'd prevent the imbalance of a few rich men scooping up a disproportionate chunk of the trim, leaving the poorer stiffs in the land with no hope of Getting Some unless they go blow up a Tel Aviv crosstown bus and collect in Paradise. Besides, multiple husbands makes more sense than multiple wives. Women multi-task better. This one’s so easy, it’s almost a no-brainer. It even has the sanction of the Bible (O.T.). Historically it has tended to be associated with repression of women and severe extremes of wealth and poverty. But it would work better in an open society like America, especially because it would be just as legal to have, say, a woman with two husbands in her household (if she could afford enough video games and beer for them both). That way you’d prevent the imbalance of a few rich men scooping up a disproportionate chunk of the trim, leaving the poorer stiffs in the land with no hope of Getting Some unless they go blow up a Tel Aviv crosstown bus and collect in Paradise.

Besides, multiple husbands makes more sense than multiple wives. Women multi-task better.

]]>