Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

neither is right as nothing can make anyone completely happy ever. Deal with it. Stupid emos complaining about being sad. DEAL WITH IT.

At 7/28/07 06:27 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 7/28/07 12:06 AM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: Basically what I was trying to say was that just because something is abused, that doesn't mean that the something is corrupt.

yes but the increased crime rate isn't due to increased spousal abuse.

I didn't say that it was.

At 7/28/07 09:58 PM, Rockthebestmusic wrote: neither is right as nothing can make anyone completely happy ever. Deal with it. Stupid emos complaining about being sad. DEAL WITH IT.

I'm emo because I'm lobbying for my political views?

:O

At 7/28/07 11:09 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote::

I didn't say that it was.

but you made mention of abuse of freedoms provided. if the crime rate has nothing to do with the marriage itself how would it be an abuse of the polygamus system?

I think you should be with one person. This person, you should love. In my eyes, you can't truly love more than one. This is not family love, either. Get what I mean?

My robotic sensors indicate that polygamy is the most effective method of reproduction.

This renders it acceptable in all circumstances.

At 7/29/07 01:36 AM, SolInvictus wrote: At 7/28/07 11:09 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote::

I didn't say that it was.

but you made mention of abuse of freedoms provided. if the crime rate has nothing to do with the marriage itself how would it be an abuse of the polygamus system?

I'm not exactly clear on what on what you mean by this.

But what I'm trying to say is that any increase in crime is due to abuse of the system, not a corruption in the system itself. There has to be certain boundaries with polygamous marriages just like monogamous marriages.

At 7/28/07 10:50 AM, morefngdbs wrote: As I read the posts in the thread so far, most of you are responding to 'Insert's' topic as if Poligamy is about a man having more than 1 wife.
So I looked it up and as 'Insert' posted,
Polygamy -is having more than 1 spouse (can be a male with several wifes ,or a female with several husbands,also called Polyandry)

Yes, thank you.

On Polyandry
There were references to this becoming a possibility in China, by 2020 there will 30 million more marriageable men than women.
This is because of the 1 child policy & the fact that many families are having females aborted to try again for a male child.
So this could have some very detrimental effects, such as placing a large amount of men using the services of a small amount of prostitutes. (AIDS or STD disease spreading)
So in this case allowing a woman to have more than 1 husband ight be an option.

This is a very good example of how polygamy can be an asset to society.

On a related note, polygamous marriages/relationships can also yield stronger financial environments to support a family. If one person falls into unemployment, they can depend on the other three or four people in the relationship for support.

There is a possibility that I'm not going to be able to reply to this thread until Friday so if that is the case, give me some merit.

Honestly, does anyone really care if some guy has two wifes or more?

It doesn't affect anybody. So just let them be.

At 7/29/07 03:52 PM, Grammer wrote: Oh, and um... it doesn't say anywhere in The Bible that polygamy is wrong, so uh, yeah...

Certainly not in the Old Testament. And you could apparently sleep with someone not your wife if you had your wife's permission, i.e. Abraham and Hagar.

Personally I wasn't trying to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to have multiple husbands or wives, just suggesting that the OP was wrong to suggest that polygamy would solve everyone's relationship problems. Personally I think that there's nothing inherently wrong with a polygamous family, as long as everyone involved is comfortable with the situation. And I honestly couldn't tell you why people are so against the idea.

At 7/29/07 06:36 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 7/29/07 06:02 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: And you could apparently sleep with someone not your wife if you had your wife's permission, i.e. Abraham and Hagar.

Yeah, concubines and such. But I'm pretty sure that Commandment about adultery addresses that

why are you guys using the bible to justify polygamy? isnt this about legalization? throwing in religious beliefs certainly doesnt help.

hint; separation of state and religion.

At 7/29/07 07:04 PM, tony4moroney wrote: why are you guys using the bible to justify polygamy? isnt this about legalization? throwing in religious beliefs certainly doesnt help.

hint; separation of state and religion.

We're talking about it because it's frequently brought into the argument. Religion was even discussed in the topic post, mentioning that Mormons and other religious groups practice polygamy (which isn't really correct, as others have mentioned). Legalization of polygamy would be contested by a number of religious groups, and therefore the concept of religious backing of polygamy is entirely relevant.

Talk all you like about the separation of church and state, but religion has a tremendous influence on the way our government operates.

kthxbai

Well wouldnt legalization be a problem given all the problems that are caused?
polygamous societies for starters which have been noted as a critical factor in recruiting sexually deprived males into carrying out terrorist attacks.
if you guys can justify polygamy youre udnerestimating the power of testosterone, and the pacifism of the pussy.

Just something to say; "Mormons" to not have polygamy. They consider it a great sin. What we call "Mormons" are actually members of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Polygamy was a practice of the CJCLD until 1890, when it was abolished. The group that practices Polygamy now, (which, the CJCLDS urges, should be the group identified as "Mormons") are the Fundamentalist Mormons, a completely separate (and nearly completely unheard of) religion then the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

I'm sorry, I meant "do", not "to".

At 7/29/07 08:25 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Just something to say; "Mormons" to not have polygamy.

Everyone seems to realize this except the topic starter.

money is the root of all evil. this is why we have a broken society. as the population grows, resources deplete, and we become more dependent on products to run our lives, things will only get worse. :(

At 7/29/07 08:17 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 7/29/07 08:10 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Well wouldnt legalization be a problem given all the problems that are caused?

Did I ever say polygamy should be legalized or The Bible condones it?

At 7/29/07 03:52 PM, Grammer wrote: Oh, and um... it doesn't say anywhere in The Bible that polygamy is wrong, so uh, yeah...

Not that I would, but I don't understand why people can't.

Grammer.. meet Grammer.

At 7/29/07 08:25 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Just something to say; "Mormons" to not have polygamy. They consider it a great sin. What we call "Mormons" are actually members of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

But we all recognize them as mormons and they themselves classify themselves as mormons.
These other ones that you speak of, ive never seen them though im sure your correct. so i guess for the sake of the debate, why not call them mormons as this is what they and society classifies them as and the other ones as 'mormon minorities'

At 7/29/07 08:41 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

But we all recognize them as mormons and they themselves classify themselves as mormons.

Actually, the Church officials vehemently speak out against that classification, preferring to use that terminology to refer to the Fundamentalist Mormon Church.

These other ones that you speak of, ive never seen them though im sure your correct. so i guess for the sake of the debate, why not call them mormons as this is what they and society classifies them as and the other ones as 'mormon minorities'

Because that's very confusing in a debate of Polygamy. The Fundamentalists DO practice it, so when one refers to "Mormons" believing in Polygamy you can't tell if he person is incorrectly labeling CJCLS members as polygamists or correctly labeling Fundamentalist Mormons as such.

Oh, and I hate Hilary Clinton. Not relevant, but I haven't told anyone that in a couple of days. Hitler too. I hate Hilary Clinton, and I hate Hitler. There might be some others.

At 7/29/07 08:54 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/29/07 08:41 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

But we all recognize them as mormons and they themselves classify themselves as mormons.

Actually, the Church officials vehemently speak out against that classification, preferring to use that terminology to refer to the Fundamentalist Mormon Church.

These other ones that you speak of, ive never seen them though im sure your correct. so i guess for the sake of the debate, why not call them mormons as this is what they and society classifies them as and the other ones as 'mormon minorities'

Because that's very confusing in a debate of Polygamy. The Fundamentalists DO practice it, so when one refers to "Mormons" believing in Polygamy you can't tell if he person is incorrectly labeling CJCLS members as polygamists or correctly labeling Fundamentalist Mormons as such.

Post Starter I'm assuming is a fundamentalist mormon considerinf hes vying for legalization. I kind of misinterpreted you as saying CJCLS as practicing it but fundamentalist mormons as not. Well, I guess in this case I don't understand the problem of labelling a Fundie Mormon as... a mormon. When people are debating about polygamy I guess it naturally rules out CJCLS considering they dont practice it, but i can understand the need for clarification.

Oh, and I hate Hilary Clinton. Not relevant, but I haven't told anyone that in a couple of days. Hitler too. I hate Hilary Clinton, and I hate Hitler. There might be some others.

I'm indifferent to Hillary but she's infinitesimally better then what the GOP can offer.

At 7/29/07 08:41 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 7/29/07 08:25 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Just something to say; "Mormons" to not have polygamy. They consider it a great sin. What we call "Mormons" are actually members of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

But we all recognize them as mormons

Due to a misconception and desire to categorize things more simply than they are.

and they themselves classify themselves as mormons.

But they aren't, they were excommunicated from the Mormon church and have an entire separate organization. They broke away from the Church, therefore they are no longer members of the Church.

You might as well say that Lutherans are Catholics.

These other ones that you speak of, ive never seen them though im sure your correct. so i guess for the sake of the debate, why not call them mormons as this is what they and society classifies them as and the other ones as 'mormon minorities'

Because that would just be allowing yourself to incorrectly label people. You're wantinag to simplify something that cannot be simplified that way. Mormons, the real Mormons that belong to the original church, are NOT polygamists. A church that broke off of this church over 100 years ago still practices polygamy. Therefore it is INCORRECT to say Mormons are polygamists, or to refer to the polygamists who are NOT Mormon as such.

At 7/29/07 08:25 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Just something to say; "Mormons" to not have polygamy. They consider it a great sin.

Mormons do not have polygamy, got that.

What we call "Mormons" are actually members of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Latter Day saints = Church of Mormons (according to society). Yeah ok.

Polygamy was a practice of the CJCLD until 1890, when it was abolished.

Wait, so Mormons don't practice polygamy anymore? Thread-Starter? Mormon --> Polygamy?

The group that practices Polygamy now, are the Fundamentalist Mormons,

Oh right, so its fundamentalists that are 'tainting' the name of Mormonism.

a completely separate (and nearly completely unheard of) religion then the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

So CJCLD still classify themselves as Mormons? Well, maybe they're excluded from the generalization of Mormon Polygamists. If they want to classify themselves and society classifies themselves as mormons, ok let them. We can just say Fundamentalist Mormons are polygamists whereas CJCLD aren't.

At 7/29/07 08:54 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

Actually, the Church officials vehemently speak out against that classification, preferring to use that terminology to refer to the Fundamentalist Mormon Church.

Oh alright well I never realized that, comment retracted. I can understand the need for the clarification but it was confusing given that the topic starter is vying for polygamy and is himself a mormon. It seemed as though somewhere in the chaos of the previous paragraph I misinterpreted or omitted a few lines from memory.

At 7/29/07 09:11 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 7/29/07 08:41 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 7/29/07 08:25 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Just something to say; "Mormons" to not have polygamy. They consider it a great sin. What we call "Mormons" are actually members of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

But we all recognize them as mormons

Due to a misconception and desire to categorize things more simply than they are.

and they themselves classify themselves as mormons.

But they aren't, they were excommunicated from the Mormon church and have an entire separate organization. They broke away from the Church, therefore they are no longer members of the Church.

Never realized this, I thought they were still Mormons, just an 'alternative branch.'
Catholics, Protestants --> Christians.

You might as well say that Lutherans are Catholics.

Never was clarified that they were excommunicated. Also, confusing to bring up the topic in a clustered paragraph when Poster is apparently a fundamentalist mormon that wants legalization of polygamy.

Because that would just be allowing yourself to incorrectly label people. You're wantinag to simplify something that cannot be simplified that way. Mormons, the real Mormons that belong to the original church, are NOT polygamists.

See, this is something you should be addressing to Cuppa-Nog which appears to have written otherwise.

A church that broke off of this church over 100 years ago still practices polygamy. Therefore it is INCORRECT to say Mormons are polygamists, or to refer to the polygamists who are NOT Mormon as such.

According to Cuppa-Nog its the Fundamentalist Mormons that practice it whereas the CJCLDS the branch that broke off are vehemently against calling themselves as such. Again, something that needs to be discussed amongst both of you.

At 7/29/07 10:04 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Note; that was me trying to clarify how i misinterpreted the paragraph.

At 7/29/07 11:59 AM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: I'm not exactly clear on what on what you mean by this.

But what I'm trying to say is that any increase in crime is due to abuse of the system, not a corruption in the system itself. There has to be certain boundaries with polygamous marriages just like monogamous marriages.

but the increased crime is not directly related (legally) to polygamy. the crime is not a result of the marriage in the sense that now the husband is abusing three wives instead of one. so the crime is not a result of "abusing the system".
what happens as a result of polygamy is that there are not enough women to go around leaving some men with the feeling they have nothing to lose. now considering the men with the most wives are those that could afford multiple wives then those with the least and the greatest chance of not finding a wife are the poor. since the poor are already more prone to committing crimes, add that to the feeling of having nothing to lose and you get increased crime.
as far as abuse of the system goes, even if each man was limited to marrying only two women there would still be many men left without wives. even if most married one woman there still wouldn't be enough for each man.

i just saw the little thing on polyandry, so if by polygamy you had meant simply multiple marriage then the increased crime rate may not apply since the countries with the higher crime rate and with polygamy are those with one man & multiple wives.

At 7/29/07 04:23 AM, I-Bot wrote: My robotic sensors indicate that polygamy is the most effective method of reproduction.

This renders it acceptable in all circumstances.

We should practice omnigamy.
Having one spouse AND many spouses.
Process THAT, I-Bot!

WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA FUCK.
MASSIVE bump.
Sorry about that.

Biggest bump in history? D=

If all parties are consenting, and all spouses and offspring can be adequately provided for, sure, why the hell not?

It's not up to the religious to legally define marriage.

;

At 1/7/09 07:07 PM, reviewer-general wrote: It's not up to the religious to legally define marriage.

;

If only that were actually the case...

I have noting against polygamy (well nothing against it that doesn't apply to monogamy). Polygamy has been unjustly given a bad connotation in the US. When most people think of polygamy they think of a compound with hundreds of abused women in the Midwest. However, if all spouses have knowledge of each other and treat each other well I see no problem with the system.

as long as all partys consent I see nothing wrong with it.

At 7/27/07 02:33 AM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

At 7/27/07 02:26 AM, Imperator wrote: Oh Christ....you opened Pandora's Box.

Prepare to be insulted vigorously.

He shouldn't be insulted for asking a question, but he does deserve to be proven wrong by the facts he chose to ignore.

It's my opinion. No amount of insults can change that.

How about a few truths?

At 7/27/07 02:22 AM, SolInvictus wrote: polygamy has also been linked with increased male violence and crime.

there are a limited number of women and when you can't reproduce you have little to lose.

You're ten times more likely to be assaulted and/or killed by your spouse than by a stranger. Should we outlaw all marriage?

If this is true, then the number of spouses you have should increase those odds.

Everything comes with its repercussions because of free will. I just think that if there was an equal balance of power in a multi-partner home, that it would produce very prepared and well-raised children.

A male polygamist will usually have all the power in the house. The wives will usually have no power.

Think about it. Would you rather have two abusive, neglecting parents or four loving parents?

Interesting how you leave out that whenever there is a polygamist group they almost always sexually or otherwise abuse the children. So when you say loving what exactly do you mean?