Equal marriage for all?

[thesummerqueen]

When someone throws in "white male" you know there is some king of agenda involved. I was pointing out it should not be used that way.

1) I was making a joke (I am white, as you can see, and it's a George Carlin quote), and 2) I said "white people" not white males.

[A Theist]

I have no problems with plural marriages. However, all parties should be involved. By this I mean, if a man and woman are married, and the man wants to take a second wife, than his first wife should get a say, and be legally bound (married) to this second wife as well. None of this, "I'm a man, I can marry as many women as I want," (or vice versa) nonsense. Either all parties are for the plural marriage or it doesn't happen. Equal voices for equal partners.

I have no problems with plural marriages.

...not me. I have enough problems with just the one wife I'm married to...makes no sense to double the trouble.

[Tonus]

I have no problems with plural marriages.

...not me. I have enough problems with just the one wife I'm married to...makes no sense to double the trouble.

Then have her marry another husband and you can cut your troubles in half!

[KichigaiNeko]

More than a few women make a great living doing that.

That is called "negotiable affection" Mouse and quite valid and a long standing tradition it has too (longer than any of the current religions I am to understand)

I dislike the constant implication of a male only perspective in these discussions.

So how would you like to correct this aberration in our discussions?

For many women (especially in poor countries) polygamy is an only option. The male owns all the finances and the women are dependant .... oops the we go male dominance! I find it hard under the current structure to find example of female financial dominance because the current structure is slanted to far in favour of the male, and has historically been used to increase his "holdings" of any financial equity the female may have thus making it his own and leaving her with nothing... or at best 50%

[thesummerqueen]

...not me. I have enough problems with just the one wife I'm married to...makes no sense to double the trouble.

I'm sure you already realize this, but just to be clear since many Christians don't I'll say this in general:

If plural marriages were allowed, people who wanted only a 'traditional' marriage wouldn't' be obligated to change their ways. This is a problem in the gay marriage debate as well. We're trying to not trying to force people to do anything they don't want to do, simply to give everyone fair shakes.

[The Grand Nudger]

You cut you wife troubles in half but double up on the peril of penis. x.5 for x2 - meh, I'll wait till the rate of exchange is a little more favorable.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

When someone throws in "white male" you know there is some king of agenda involved. I was pointing out it should not be used that way.

1) I was making a joke (I am white, as you can see, and it's a George Carlin quote), and 2) I said "white people" not white males.

1) Never believe an Avatar but though white either not male or you have an outstanding reassignment surgeon.

2) fair go

[thesummerqueen]

1) I was making a joke (I am white, as you can see, and it's a George Carlin quote), and 2) I said "white people" not white males.

1) Never believe an Avatar but though white either not male or you have an outstanding reassignment surgeon.

2) fair go

I use the same avatar across all social platforms - easy enough to confirm had anyone clicked on the links in the "keeping in touch" thread, where many more confirming pictures exist that I am who I am. If you felt like being that nosy. Only a handful of people who have access to this forum have received, however, Rhythm's "PoP."

[festive1]

I have no problems with plural marriages. However, all parties should be involved. By this I mean, if a man and woman are married, and the man wants to take a second wife, than his first wife should get a say, and be legally bound (married) to this second wife as well. None of this, "I'm a man, I can marry as many women as I want," (or vice versa) nonsense. Either all parties are for the plural marriage or it doesn't happen. Equal voices for equal partners.

I have no problems with plural marriages.

...not me. I have enough problems with just the one wife I'm married to...makes no sense to double the trouble.

As others pointed out, if plural marriages are allowed, it doesn't mean everyone has to have a plural marriage. I'm cool with whatever people want. Don't want to get married at all? Awesome! Want to only marry one person of the opposite sex? Great! Want to marry a person of the same sex? Good for you! Want to marry multiple people? Fabulous! So long as all parties know what they're getting into and consent. It really is that simple.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

More than a few women make a great living doing that.

That is called "negotiable affection" Mouse and quite valid and a long standing tradition it has too (longer than any of the current religions I am to understand)

I'd call it living high. Think Blazing Saddles if nothing else.

I dislike the constant implication of a male only perspective in these discussions.

So how would you like to correct this aberration in our discussions?

I have been. I turned around the statements of many men sharing one woman and a man having more than one wife. The former to a woman wanting to have many men and women being willing to share one man. Not just reversals but where it is the women who are in charge. (Maybe I watch to many Joss Whedons productions.)