General Discussion

leftyladyfrommo

(20,008 posts)

84. Yea! That's right.

Thu Jun 6, 2013, 06:17 PM

Jun 2013

If women want glory in heaven they have to have children - and as many as possible.

The whole idea is based on women as child bearers and sex partners.Kind of a limiting lifestyle.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If polygamy can empower women, why not legalize it? [View all] Emelina Jun 2013 OP

Ugh Blue_Adept Jun 2013 #1

Then why not allow that too? Emelina Jun 2013 #3

Legally there's little difference between polygamy and polyamory. Xithras Jun 2013 #13

But the term... Blue_Adept Jun 2013 #23

While true, the OP was talking about legalization. Xithras Jun 2013 #25

What a group of sane adults voluntarily do to each other isnt my business... TampaAnimusVortex Jun 2013 #91

Polygamy doesn't empower women. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2013 #2

Did you listen to the anthropologist interviewed in the video? Emelina Jun 2013 #4

My degree is in Anthropology. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2013 #7

It's not so great for most men either. lumberjack_jeff Jun 2013 #15

Indeed. No one likes to talk about the male cubs that get cast off. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #93

Well, great for the women, too Warpy Jun 2013 #55

And where the woman's total value is as a breeder. Ick. Squinch Jun 2013 #59

Not always true Warpy Jun 2013 #74

Whenever it is associated with fundamental Mormonism, Squinch Jun 2013 #77

Yea! That's right. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2013 #84

Then the problem is fundamentalist Mormonism Warpy Jun 2013 #92

True. But fundamentalist Mormons are the vast majority of polygamists in the US, I think. Squinch Jun 2013 #94

But nothing Warpy Jun 2013 #95

Well, it was Utah. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2013 #79

Kind of like the hippy communes. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2013 #8

That made me laugh Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #12

Do you really think that anyone here who supports polygamy wouldn't also support polyandry? EOTE Jun 2013 #38

the question was asked to a specific person, who did not in fact answer it at all. Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #51

Well, I'd imagine the great, great bulk of DUers who support polygamy EOTE Jun 2013 #53

That's as maybe, but my point is that when asked the OP did not say Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #63

You could also argue that allowing females to have as many mates as they please would empower them. appleannie1 Jun 2013 #5

That's true. HappyMe Jun 2013 #14

Having been married 47 years, I find just keeping one person happy enough of a job for me. appleannie1 Jun 2013 #31

I live with two men. Things are done my way most of the time. In_The_Wind Jun 2013 #6

Is it sexual? Aerows Jun 2013 #9

Only with one. In_The_Wind Jun 2013 #29

Why not polyandry? hobbit709 Jun 2013 #10

How about a "my body my choice" law to replace all laws? alp227 Jun 2013 #11

It doesn't. n/t Yo_Mama Jun 2013 #16

Polygamy dis-empowers women siligut Jun 2013 #17

Polygamy is one person with a few mates. HappyMe Jun 2013 #21

One woman with > males is polyandry siligut Jun 2013 #24

Thanks for the correct word. HappyMe Jun 2013 #30

Actually, technically, one man with many women is polygyny. One of either sex with Squinch Jun 2013 #64

Is wearing draperies like those women in the photo are doing Squinch Jun 2013 #61

Why am I suspicious of a new poster essentially posting geek tragedy Jun 2013 #18

Polygamy is a consensual agreement. EOTE Jun 2013 #39

People are already allowed to shag whomever they want on a continuing basis. nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #40

Yep. And yet there are still consenting adults who can't marry who they want. EOTE Jun 2013 #42

I favor the simple rule that any two consenting adults should be able to marry. nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #43

So, it's just the number that's arbitrary. EOTE Jun 2013 #46

Having the state attach legal rights and obligations goes beyond geek tragedy Jun 2013 #48

No one other than polygamists/polyandrists, that is. EOTE Jun 2013 #49

Sure, it's worked just fine in sharia law. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #52

Those scary Muslims also breathe air! We should stop immediately! EOTE Jun 2013 #54

Polygamy is associated with backwards, patriarchal geek tragedy Jun 2013 #57

So, guilt by association. I expected nothing less. EOTE Jun 2013 #58

Yawn. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #65

Now the bigotry shines through. EOTE Jun 2013 #67

I favor full marriage equality for same-sex couples. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #69

No, it's bigotry to suggest that certain things are bad because certain groups of people do them. EOTE Jun 2013 #71

You're very angry and saying a lot of nonsensical things. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #72

I figured you might have a problem with plain english. EOTE Jun 2013 #73

Finally. Community support for me and my Yertle. CincyDem Jun 2013 #60

. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #66

yeah...so I missed the part where this was an actual comment made by someone in public CincyDem Jun 2013 #75

I thought he bested Senator Man-on-Dog with that one nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #76

Are you suggesting he and Mitch McConnell are "a thing"? Quantess Jun 2013 #68

I don't care how you try to dress it up, polygamy doesn't "empower" women. Sheldon Cooper Jun 2013 #19

And those old men are so creepy. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2013 #81

It is illegal because it is socially destabilizing. lumberjack_jeff Jun 2013 #20

I don't have a problem with people having multiple committed partners. MadrasT Jun 2013 #22

^that LadyHawkAZ Jun 2013 #36

Because it doesn't empower women leftynyc Jun 2013 #26

The anthrolopogist interviewed does not appear to be a religious zealot... Emelina Jun 2013 #34

Because they generally are leftynyc Jun 2013 #35

common sense noiretextatique Jun 2013 #87

Religion get the red out Jun 2013 #27

This got me wondering..... clarice Jun 2013 #28

I think you have been shown way too much respect in this thread. NCTraveler Jun 2013 #32

Because it doesn't. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #33

Every time I articulate my desire for legal same-sex marriage reflection Jun 2013 #37

So, how about a 10,000 person marriage then? geek tragedy Jun 2013 #41

I agree that I have had that same internal question also. reflection Jun 2013 #44

Any more than two, and it really isn't a marriage. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #45

As I said earlier reflection Jun 2013 #47

If one had 100 years one could eventually figure it out, maybe. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #50

Agreed, probably not going to happen. reflection Jun 2013 #62

And that's kind of the rub--there's no domestic constituency in the US geek tragedy Jun 2013 #70

True, what a mess treestar Jun 2013 #80

That wouldn't be practicable either. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #83

Then you wouldn't put a spouse through graduate school treestar Jun 2013 #85

Legal paternity would be a lot thornier absent marriage. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #86

So society does not have to deal with divorce treestar Jun 2013 #88

The benefits of marriage outweigh the pains of divorces that do happen. nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #89

I'll take 5 please notadmblnd Jun 2013 #56

Child support, custody, and tax issues galore jberryhill Jun 2013 #78

Holding a marriage together is the hardest thing I've ever attempted badtoworse Jun 2013 #82

It doesn't empower women. nt riderinthestorm Jun 2013 #90

It doesn't quite work out that way EdKociela Jun 2013 #96

Just a few set of rules though MattBaggins Jun 2013 #97

Are you sure those young men are angry? Sheldon Cooper Jun 2013 #99

Yes they are horrible MattBaggins Jun 2013 #100

If they are angry, I can't say that I blame them. Sheldon Cooper Jun 2013 #101

I have no problem with legalizing polygamy, but polygamy sounds like a nightmare Zorra Jun 2013 #98