Polygamy
Do you believe in polygamy? I feel that if you believe in free choice, then you have to at least accept polygamy.
Polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I vote for both.
/g2
Polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I vote for both.
/g2
Comments
Absolutely the wave of the future.
I would not want to restrict anyone's pursuit of happiness, however, and I do not think our courts will, either. At least, not when this issue gets there, and I would put the over/under at 16 June, 2013.
In nature, it is beneficial for the male to mate with as many females as possible where as it is beneficial for a female to find a male who can protect and her and her offspring.
If anything Polyandry makes the most sense, centuries of romance novels and scores of underutilized women show that one man cannot both provide for a family AND meet the advanced emotional needs of the average woman.
Cliffs: I don't see why you'd want to disappoint TWO women, where as I could easily meet the needs of two men.
this comment is 100% directed to me for the record.
Why not 4!!
Or EVEN five!
How far could you go Kristy??
I've often thought 3 men, 1 or 2 wives would be pretty ideal.
One works nights, afternoons, days each.
They only have minimal house-related work to do because many hands..
While one works, the other works on the house and the third spends time with the kids..
I have a dream...
But I voted for option 3 because I am an equally firm believer in the separation of marriage and state. Government has no business telling anyone who they can and cannot 'marry' or live with or whatever.
I firmly believe that the above statement is equivalent to saying "I believe I should be allowed to own slaves and hate black people"
It should be a hate crime to actively work against gay marriage.
She has 3 usable orifices so any more than that number guys and the rate of return begins shrinking.
Also, everyone knows that most women turn off the SEX tap as soon as they get the wedding, house, car and kids. Kristy's argument about servicing more than one man may well be true in her case (especially since she is a bit of a nutter!) but is far from the norm.
GTA wins this thread imo
but my guess is that wives turn off the sex taps because they are too overburdened with work/kids..and husbands are likely not doing their share.
Hire a cleaning lady, fix something around the house that is broken, spend $10 on a cheap bunch of flowers, take her out somewhere she wants to go and GET SOME FUCKING ASS.
(all of this is made easier if you have a second husband/third income around)
No offense, I just don't see how this could possibly work.
How would you make decisions here then? Democracy? Or are you the designated 'man' of the house? And who gets to have the kids?? Tbh, I don't think most people could handle the unreal drama that would be that household. Unless you could find some way to balance everyone's needs, desires, and still have time for epic orgies I can't see how the dynamic nature of ever changing human interactions and personalities can possibly see this working out in the long run without someone getting pissed off and wanting to leave.
Course, judging by all the crushes you have around here maybe someone wanting to leave you is just plain silly nonsense......
If the above was a picture it would have 'STOCK PHOTO' written across it.
[X] [X] [X] - however add a 0 on the end of $10 [X] [ ]
Like I said, once most women have all of the things they want they have no reason to have sex anymore.
/g2
/g2
All in sequence, children are always amazing regardless of who its parents are.
QFT, most couldn't handle it..
because most have their head's up their ass and believe they are entitled to ownership of another person in marriage.
It isn't so, imo..it should be people together because they make each other's lives better and more enjoyable, but polygamy does not mean that marriage should be entered into lightly...when difficulties arise you have an obligation to move Heaven and Earth to make your partner(s) happy and their lives better. Divorce is an option only where permanent harm exists and shouldn't be abused the way it is.. just the same as abortion isn't a means of birth control.
IDK, this doesn't really seem like it could be right..but I hear it often enough that there must be some truth to it. Maybe she has estrogen problems..I've heard that could kill sex drive?
My girlfriend told me that she hasn't had sex with her live in BF for 6 months, another chimed in with 3 months and a single friend said three years since she's done it
....I'm currently in a bet to not have sex for 13 weeks ...which will be, by far, the longest I've gone without since I started. So wtf do I know about any of this.
Typically men want to have sex 2 to 3 times as often as women do during a given week (I am not saying this is aways true). Simple math would tell you that only one scenario is a perfect fit.
I... I think I love you.
Womans point of view obv.
The list for a womans wants and needs in a relationship is about 5 miles long.
Here is a mans according to Chris Rock:
YouTube - Chris Rock-women and lies
food, sex, silence
FEED ME
FUCK ME
SHUT THE FUCK UP
So everyone is entitled to their own opinion provided it agrees with your world view. That is the sort of asinine logic that makes you seem a lot dumber than you actually are. Knock it off . . .
Oh, and for the record, I do not believe in "hate" crimes. It is either a crime, or it isn't. End of story. But that is just my opinion . . .
Milo go fuck yourself.
you are NOT entitled to ACT on that opinion where it blindly labels people as second class citizens, based on birth.
ie: I should not be able to start a campaign banning black people from marrying, neither should you be allowed to actively campaign against gay people.
I'm so sick of people thinking they have a right to say what goes on between other consenting adults.
Anyone who disagrees with me is a moron, no question, hands down ..moron.
Guess I am a moron because I want to live in a free country where people have the right to their opinions and the freedom of speech to discuss them (right or wrong).
Edit: If I want to burn a cross on my front lawn I have the right to do so in a free country.
make the language as pretty as you like, you are still essentially saying this.
a) a bigot
b) a homophobe
c) a moron
d) whatever other epithet you choose to spew
This is what is so frustrating about trying to carry on a discussion with you on these forums. You immediately draw the big guns, whenever your belief system is challenged or threatened in some way. Frankly, it is beneath you as, for the most part, you can be pretty intelligent in putting forth your positions.
Me, I'm old-fashioned. I see no reason to change the definiton of marriage in any way. I would simply arrogate the term "marriage" to the religious institutions. I would instead advocate that government has no place in the "marriage" business. Government should only exist as a means for a couple (ANY couple) to cement their commitment to each other in a Civil Union. Yes, I know "Separate but Equal", blah blah blah, but in this scenario SO WHAT ?!? If the point is to allow non-traditional couples to benefit in the same way that traditional couples do, then this accomplishes that. The problem is that extremists on BOTH sides of the argument are unwilling to compromise, as you seem to be.
So call me a moron, but you will also have to call me right, because I am.
Liberty and freedom are about more than doing whatever the hell a person feels like at any given point in time. That is anarchy.
P.S. I reject the idea that campaigning against "gay marriage" is equivalent to campaigning against gay people. The two are not the same thing at all. But feel free to disagree . . .
You misunderstand. She said you are perfectly free to disagree. But in that case you're a moron.
Ie. I choose to burn a cross on my lawn, I also choose to be a moron.