|
Author
|
Topic: polygamous souls
|
artlovesdawn
Knowflake Posts: 1177
From:
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted November 15, 2007 10:38 PM
 
.
IP: Logged |
Dulce Luna
Knowflake Posts: 4601
From: The Asylum
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted November 15, 2007 10:49 PM
Yikes! I think I should really watch the way I play on words because I'm not so sure I would call it slavery?? I mean, I'm sure in the past the women practically had no say but atleast in today's world I think they consent to this, I'm not even sure. Its just that
symbolically/ceremonially....they are given to the chief? Well anyways, just know that practically every other time he visits a neighboring tribe for diplomatic purposes, he gets a new wife. Yeah, slavery or not its still very unequal.  IP: Logged |
artlovesdawn
Knowflake Posts: 1177
From:
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted November 15, 2007 11:31 PM
. IP: Logged |
maklhouf
Knowflake Posts: 1409
From:
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted November 16, 2007 06:00 AM
marriage as a concept is very problematic anyway. It was born as a system of slavery in the first place and I really don't know why people want to hold on to it when it has outlived its usefulnessIP: Logged |
Dulce Luna
Knowflake Posts: 4601
From: The Asylum
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted November 16, 2007 07:19 AM
quote:
marriage as a concept is very problematic anyway. It was born as a system of slavery in the first place and I really don't know why people want to hold on to it when it has outlived its usefulness
Well maybe because some people still value commitments. 
IP: Logged |
maklhouf
Knowflake Posts: 1409
From:
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted November 16, 2007 07:31 AM
Why then use the title of an ancient slave system to signify commitment? Myself I don't think slavery is always a bad thing BTW, just the way you did it in America.------------------
The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner;
Matthew 21:42 IP: Logged |
miss_muffet
Knowflake Posts: 842
From:
Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted November 16, 2007 07:42 AM
quote:
marriage as a concept is very problematic anyway. It was born as a system of slavery in the first place and I really don't know why people want to hold on to it when it has outlived its usefulness
Marriage in itself is just a piece of paper. A contract. What is important is what is behind the printed words... it is love, it is committment (as DL pointed out and I agree), it is knowing that someone will be there through thick and thin, it is a vow to share the rest of your life with another human being. Argueably, you do not need marriage to do any of the above. And I would agree. Just look at some of the best couples I know who are not married but are just as committed to each other, if not more. BUT... marriage also adds to the romanticism of the whole union. The proposal, the buzz of wedding preparation, the gown, the groom's eyes that lit up the first time he sees the bride, the honeymoon. It's all very romantic... at least for me. Going back to the original topic... Polygamy has absolutely no place in a marriage, whether the "marriage" is on paper or not. It is a contract between two people, not between one person and 10 others plus many more to come. Miss Muffet IP: Logged |
Dulce Luna
Knowflake Posts: 4601
From: The Asylum
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted November 16, 2007 08:24 AM
quote:
Why then use the title of an ancient slave system to signify commitment? Myself I don't think slavery is always a bad thing BTW, just the way you did it in America.
Its not a slave system when two people consent to it.....its a commitment. I admit legally its only a piece of paper, but symbolically its a very beautiful thing.
And anyways, you contradict yourself: you argue that polygamous marraiges are not such a bad thing, but then you say marraige is slavery and outdated. That's totally paradoxical if you ask me. And btw, I'm of Mozambican descent......my ancestors had nothing to do with slavery in America but your assumptions are much appreciated.  IP: Logged |
maklhouf
Knowflake Posts: 1409
From:
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted November 16, 2007 10:24 AM
Not contradictory: I said I was not against all slavery, that includes marriage------------------
The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner;
Matthew 21:42 IP: Logged |
Dulce Luna
Knowflake Posts: 4601
From: The Asylum
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted November 16, 2007 12:34 PM
Too bad its not slavery unless one of the parties is not consenting. Maybe it is slavery to the average commitment phobe, but to delve deeper into this would require us to get lost in semantics which I'm really not in the mood to do at the moment.Anyways, I'd say the same thing about polygamy too......as absurd as I think the whole concept is. IP: Logged |
artlovesdawn
Knowflake Posts: 1177
From:
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted November 16, 2007 01:09 PM
. IP: Logged |
maklhouf
Knowflake Posts: 1409
From:
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted November 21, 2007 10:06 AM
People are indeed very sloppy when it comes to etymology. For instance they talk about tax, when they mean income tax. And they talk about slavery when they mean chattel slavery. That's what you had in the States. Other forms of slavery, such as me working off my debts to you by doing your house work do not involve depriving me of my humanity------------------
The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner;
Matthew 21:42 IP: Logged |
miss_muffet
Knowflake Posts: 842
From:
Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted November 21, 2007 11:56 AM
maklhouf,Your comments about slavery makes me think that you have some slaves tucked away in your house doing your laundry for you.  Miss Muffet IP: Logged |
maklhouf
Knowflake Posts: 1409
From:
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted November 21, 2007 12:13 PM
I wish!
The word "family" actually means, a man's collection of slaves------------------
The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner;
Matthew 21:42 IP: Logged |
miss_muffet
Knowflake Posts: 842
From:
Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted November 21, 2007 04:08 PM
quote:
The word "family" actually means, a man's collection of slaves.
Wow... you obviously have never been to my house. LOL! Miss Muffet IP: Logged |
artlovesdawn
Knowflake Posts: 1177
From:
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted November 21, 2007 10:42 PM
.
IP: Logged |
artlovesdawn
Knowflake Posts: 1177
From:
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted November 22, 2007 08:34 PM
.IP: Logged |
maklhouf
Knowflake Posts: 1409
From:
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted November 23, 2007 06:40 AM
Surely you have no problem connecting marriage and family?
The new civil partnership should fulfil all the modern needs that are supposedly supplied by marriage.
Your dictionary sounds a bit politicaly correct. Ancient Romans were more likely to have slaves than servants.------------------
The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner;
Matthew 21:42 IP: Logged |
maklhouf
Knowflake Posts: 1409
From:
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted December 19, 2007 01:22 PM
I've learned that since the one child policy was introduced in China, polyandry has increased among women, owing to the shortage of eligble males for marriage.------------------
The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner;
Matthew 21:42 IP: Logged |
miss_muffet
Knowflake Posts: 842
From:
Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted December 19, 2007 06:26 PM
quote:
I've learned that since the one child policy was introduced in China, polyandry has increased among women, owing to the shortage of eligble males for marriage.
From what I heard (from a friend who migrated from Beijing), the one child policy introduced in China years ago no longer exists. And the shortage is not of eligible males but of eligible females. Most family wants a boy to carry on the family name and end up murdering their own daughters when they are born. This being the primary reason why they are forced to scarp the law. That being said, they ran out of women for their kids to marry so badly that a girl is already "promised" to a boy for marriage in infancy. MM IP: Logged |
maklhouf
Knowflake Posts: 1409
From:
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted December 21, 2007 07:54 AM
You are right; I meant, of course to say eligible females. So the law has been scrapped? This will take a generation to reverse the effects on the population. I hear they do a little polyandry in India too.------------------
The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner;
Matthew 21:42 IP: Logged |
fayte.m
Knowflake Posts: 9809
From: Still out looking for Schrödinger's cat. fayte1954@hotmail.com
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted December 25, 2007 07:55 PM
polyandry, polygamy, and polyamoury are all different things.
And it is only polyandry that specifies, one woman/many men.
Poligamy involves marrying more than one person.
Polyamoury is much more complex.
And contrary to popular belief polyamourous folks are committed to each other...otherwise it is just fooling around or open marriage/relationships.I do think gay/bi/tg people adapt to the concept of trines more than straight folks.
And sex is not the core reason. It is about love that transcends such issues of sexual attraction and or genders. IP: Logged |
artlovesdawn
Knowflake Posts: 1177
From:
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted December 27, 2007 11:14 AM
. IP: Logged |
Green Fairy
Knowflake Posts: 910
From:
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted December 27, 2007 03:28 PM
Well, i think i am gonna stay close-minded about this topic.
I don't believe i could have more than one life partners, someone to become one with, more than 2 people in a union like this and it wouldn't be just a union with substance anymore, it'd be an amoeba.
It defies the whole idea of yin/yang, "unity in duality", etc etc etc
IP: Logged |
maklhouf
Knowflake Posts: 1409
From:
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted December 28, 2007 12:58 PM
Thank you for those definitions Fayte, and thanks for being so honest about your feelings ALD. Green fairy: obviously nobody should be forced into something they don't want------------------
The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner;
Matthew 21:42 IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
