The debate "Men should be able to have up to four wives if they wanted if they had permission" was started by
April 14, 2016, 4:44 pm.
26 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 72 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
blanco posted 10 arguments, PsychDave posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
fadi posted 2 arguments, danielle posted 3 arguments, RyanWakefield posted 4 arguments, R_o_h_i_t posted 1 argument, Austin7779 posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 8 arguments to the disagreers part.
Daniel0416, PsychDave, nurulnida09, lets_hear_your_argument, Sosocratese, Pugsly, blanco, ReadyToBegin, Freyja, psychorejection, joey and 15 visitors agree.
all4softball, ProudAmerican888, danielle, fadi, Anjali, amzar, R_o_h_i_t, dalton7532, itsme, sagitario, codyray16, Austin7779, sabrina, scooter6381, Nemiroff, Mayukh, Peacegiver, thomas_sherrin, TristenLee03, PrincessTia18, JLabang123, Dev, JakobBoghora, jack_tim_45, peaceguy, Airish, nellie11iah and 45 visitors disagree.
Actually 1 for Muslims
It's not the same to Muslims, Muslims have the permission from God to only have 2 wives. So apparently you shouldn't have told everybody. Anyways if you didn't know know problems.
jealousy can take different forms. many cultures around the world have done multiple marriages despite this universal emotion. spouses will simply be jealous of each other, and that would be normal. like siblings.
I still think that jealousy is a universal human emotion and wouldn't allow such practices to be used all that much. there are not alot of people capable of sharing their partner.
just to clarify, my point about it being accepted as a norm isn't to say that is bad morally, just that the rate of such unions will inevitably increase, and one must look down the road when making legislation.
those are all excellent points, except I disagree on the very little repercussions.
you make an excellent point about how most people wouldn't do it at the moment due to norms, however I think your underestimating the rate of social change. what's fringe today may not be tomorrow, and this practice can become acceptable in common in only a few generations, with social media, maybe even decades.
are you thinking safeguards such as limits are needed, and what would suggest? a limit of 2? what if someone truly wants to spend their life with 3? you can go on forever, but 3 is pretty reasonable the, no?
I agree strongly with your statement.
I negate this merely because of the wording in the proposal. I don't believe "men" should have the privilege to marry multiple "women", I believe ALL people have the right to determine who they love, and how they will show that passion, whether it be multiple persons or a single spouse.
some people want more than one partner. the current system prevents them from doing so. they can still date other people but if they wanted a long term relationship with more than one person then that person has no access to the legal benefits of a spouse. if they have children with them there are more legal head aches. that is the social injustice.
if it is something that alot of people want then it is immoral to try to prevent it. if it is something that very few people want then making it legal would have very little repercussions and is therefore immoral to prevent it as there is little down side involved and will make people happy.
racism is unacceptable nationally, but localities are different, and in many it is not only accepted, it is the expected norm.
I never said overnight, I said over a generations or 2... which still is not long.
traffic laws and property regulations serve a purpose, without which injustices and social ills will occur. as I said, I see no injustice in the 1 partner mandate, especially since marriage isn't even mandatory, and adultery is only a crime as far as divorce is concerned, there are no legal penalties to it as far as I am concerned.
I don't believe marriage should be regulated by the state at all, but I do believe that monogamy should be the socially accepted norm for such unregulated unions. if you don't want to be monogamous simply do not get married, or if your wife is OK with it, have a mistress. but multi marriage for both sexes just seems to be a huge headache for absolutely no reason as there is no ill associated with 1 partner marriages, but potentially a huge beurocratic nightmare (and unlike the other complexities of the modern world, this will carry no benefit or reason)
it's the same idea as many laws. traffic laws for example. we put reasonable restrictions on people's use of their private property for the good of society. but it must be reasonable. saying you may only have a single partner and to do otherwise is punishable by law does not seem reasonable.
and culture does not change social norms over night. racism is still a rampant problem even though it has been unacceptable for a long time. people's concepts of family are not something that will rapidly change.
besides which, jealousy is a very strong instinct in people. the ability to share your partner is not something most people can do whether or not it is socially acceptable.
therefore I do not see large numbers of people doing this. and therefore it wouldn't cause a significant problem.
I know this wasn't originally your argument, but since your arguing pro, what social injustice is perpetuated by the monogamous system that would not also exist in a limited polygamous system? if free love is your goal, then limits are not the solution.
and the culture issue will last only as far as this generation, once it is accepted, current predispositions will fade with every gen fast.
also, even with a limit of 2, the complexity and dilution of family will increase exponentially, It may take longer, but even a limit of 2 may be too high. assuming the limit, having 2 married people marry each other would actually close a chain, restricting that will make things worse (assuming the # limit)
and since the majority of our population comes from a cultural and religious background that is not tolerant to that kind of arrangement, it seems unlikely that alot of people would take advantage of it.
you could always add in other rules to control the spread. a maximum of 2 partners. a married person can't marry another married person. these are just examples. but it seems like you could put limits on it to keep it manageable without a blanket ban.
substantial meaning less than half, but more than tiny. let's say 20 to 30% of the population does it. I think that is quite the underestimation unless we make wealth and class limitations... which likely will also face protest and resistence in the United States.
IF there is a small group,
but I think even if a substantial group does it, even if less then half of the population, the Web will become huge and destroy the system.
what makes you think only a minority would do it?
so your objection is that if everyone, or a high percentage of people, do this then it would be confusing. but your objection is predicated on a high participation. there is no evidence that there would be high participation. if it was only a small group using this then there would be no issue at all.
my apologies. I was confusing your argument with someone else's. it was not a presumption, it was a misunderstanding.
I never hinted at any moral question as long as both sexes have equal rights. my quarrel has always been the practicality of the issue, all the way back from my first post on this thread 2 days ago. and since I did not use any moral argument, I have no idea where your belief is coming from aside from a complete presumption on your part.
can you quote where you feel I used religious morallity?
not everyone has to participate for it to be a fully interconnected thread. if you marry 4 wives, 2 of which take on multiple husbands, and 2 of them take multiples as wel, even with as few broken threads, the Web will grow out of control. the "not everyone will do this argument" will only work if very few choose to actually multimarry, which is not something we can count on.
only 1 sex having this right will avoid the practicality problem, but that is what I meant was sexist, even tho it is practical. both sexes having the right is not sexist, but also completely impractical.
you didn't say your argument was religious. I said that. because much of your argument seems to be based on some sense if it being morally wrong. since those morals are based on Christianity that makes it s religious argument.
the second part of argument assumes that everyone will have multiple partners. this seems highly unlikely. most people can't handle that. I couldn't. so saying everyone will intermarry is just silly. it would be an uncommon arrangement even if it were legal.
in what way is having multiple partners sexist?
when did I say my problems are religious, my problems are practical ones as all of America becomes one family in a ludicrous situation that will not function. Where did you get religion from in my post? just seems you didn't think it through and are only justifying it "cause others do it too"
50 countries have polygamy, but not equal polygamy, only polygyny where only men can take extra wives. I don't think any country has true polygamy where both sexes can multimarry.
that will avoid the ludicrous scenario that will result from both sexes marrying into a crazy interconnected web, but is totally sexist and will not work in the US.
polygamy is legal in 25% of countries.
I'm not going to try to defend the countries that have it on their other issues. but polygamy itself isn't really a problem as far as I'm concerned. your primary objection seems to be a religious one. since the moral values you are defending are based on Christian rules.
I never said this would only apply to men. no one said that.
and the idea of family would evolve to mean something slightly different. it isn't the complete destruction of the family. it is just a bigger family. there are lots of countries that do this and they haven't lost the meaning of family.
that's not what I meant.
we are talking America here?
women will, and should, demand the same right.
so now the 4 wives also have 4 husbands each, who also have several wives.
on the plus side, America will become 1 big family. on the other hand, the idea of family will cease to mean anything, as we know it at least.
I agree that it would make things more complicated. but most of the modern world is complicated. saying we can't allow this because it might cause a little confusion is kinda rediculous.
The biggest issue would be one of inheritance. One reason why the US colonies drifted away from British rule is because of Yeoman farmers and second sons, who didn't inherit anything. Get four wives, with two children each, and that would mean divying up the fair or proper amount to each,one gets everything, or in some cases no inheritance. But security, insurances , and so on become more difficult issues, because coverage for families usually extend to spouse and children. A 1:1 partnership makes things easier, even if there is no problem with polygamy.
marriage should remain 1 to 1, otherwise the system will become so chaotic it will become meaningless.
the debate is about marrying multiple women. therefore it is not having sex out if marriage. the idea that marriage can only be between one man and one woman is a religious idea. we are not a theocratic state. if consenting adults want to have multiple partners then why should we object?
come on people marriage is between you and your wife a bond till you die don't ruin it by having sex when ever out of marriage and cheating and all those other things
[I am a High schooler in the U.S.]
It depends on the couple some couples are open to that and others not.
Hello! I said if they had permission!
That was what I thought until I read some of blancos descriptions of these 4 wife scenarios.
honestly if evryone is cool with it and nobody is getting hurt,who the f%^& are you tell someone what they can do. true?
Then women should also be allowed to have 4 husbands. Lol
James bond is a film...
if a woman is happy for her husband to have more than one wife, then it's only fair that she is allowed more than one husband.
but I don't understand why'd you want want more than one wife or husband anyway
do you watch james bond?
care to back up this claim?
The desire of man for sexual intercourse is more then a woman, men are Alfa they feel the need to breed and show they man hood, as for a woman they feel the need to emotionally and spiritually connect with someone.
sex for humans is pleasure. But I'd you're committed to one person have the honor to be committed.
Sex for men is more of a physical matter, women it has to do more with emotions.
Men can't handle a woman that he loves and cares for messing with other multiple men, a woman is way more stronger mentally and emotionally is what I'm saying. Men would try to kill each other,a woman if the man is treating her good and the other woman is no where to be seen she don't care as long that she is treated good, at least she won't have to be worrying if he's cheating on her because she know. I said only if the man has permission, then why not.
Statistics actually show that there are roughly 101 males for every 100 females, and even if that's not the case , it's pretty safe to say there definitely aren't 4 women for every man. And as for your comments about selfishness, love isn't something that can be easily shared, and if someone only loved one person (which is very common), then they are entitled to do that.
The main problem I found with your argument was your sexist comments saying that women aren't allowed to have multiple husband's as somehow men could get jealous but women wouldn't. This shows that you clearly do not understand that women think just the same as men. They are not sex objects and they are perfectly capable of having a relationship in their own terms.
I am not selfish!! If he truley loves me then he won't ever even want anyone else. the same goes for me, I would never dream of even thinking of another guy like that because he is the only one I love.
Speaking as a society (not religion) it's best practiced in the west to only have one. It's not religion judging you its society. (Speaking for just society not religion)
I don't mind relationships with multiple people, as long as they are equal. If there is one person who has a clear authority in a relationship then it's wrong. In the relationships of some middle eastern countries a few decades ago, women were believed to be made to serve men. Nowadays society has improved and women are equal.
That makes you selfish, and cruel. That you would rather let him lie and cheat on you then to keep it one hundred, and selfish because there is more women then men out there and statistics show us that, and you hold on one instead of sharing makes you selfish .
This just has bad written all over it.
and by having multiple wives it would cause hatred and jealousy between woman. There's no way my other half is gonna have another wife! and I'd never consider another husband. He is the only one for me!
why can't a woman marry 4 men ? your religion is sexist and teaches it's male followers to be traitors to betray their women
Because it creates hatred and jealousy between the husbands. And they are more women than men in the world, if a woman was to have multiple husbands, there will be less men for women to have.
It causes more problems for women to have multiple husbands
Women should also be able to have multiple husbands. Why not?
why shouldn't men have more then one women, their is more women then men out there, it be unfair to women that don't have a man