I guess you're right. Fine by me.

Wrong.

Polygamy is against nature. Nature does not want too many genes getting added to the pool, because it will increase the chanes of inbreeding.

I appreciate the sentiment OP, but one bitch screwing me over is quite enough. Perhaps some family based laws like in Iran or Saudi Arabia might prove useful?

>>2114461

Fine by me. I don't see how this is thought provoking at all. People should be free to do whatever they want, the only rule being it doesn't harm anyone else. Shame we won't see a society like that for a long time.

>>2114474
nice try, but we; re not falling for it.

Polygamy, legalise it.

>>2114474

Did you even graduate highschool?

>>2114474
Yes, because homosexuality is SO natural, amirite?

I'm for both, polygamy, homosexual marriage, ALL THE WAY!

>>2114474
>appeal to nature fallacy

Besides, in most cases we're talking about 2-9 women. One man with 9 pregnant women really isn't thinning the gene pool too much, considering we have 6 billion people.

Besides, you know there are already people out there who are baby-daddys to more than 10 women.

OK.

What's wrong with allowing polygamy? There are problems with cults like the FLDS, of course, but that's more just issues with consent and age.

>>2114474

Except most animals breed freely with many partners. You forgot about that right? Don't worry buddy, we all knew you're wrong anyway.

>>2114474

And you know this how?

Also, natural doesn't mean best.

>>2114474
>Polygamy is against nature.
Right... because no animals have multiple partners OH WAIT A MINUTE. Monogamy is a human tradition, it's upheld by few other animals.

So yeah, legalize polygamy, it doesn't hurt me. I don't give a shit if multiple people want to marry some guy or girl.

>>2114474
It's not against nature. It's against the rules our present society is structured. But those are part of the good rules.

I'm against polygamy for no other reason than it'd further thin the single available women pool, and shit, let's be honest, I need all the help I can get.

Polygamy probably should be allowed under those grounds, excepting that it causes a culture that leads to things like suicide bombings.

Why do you think young, single men in the middle east don't find the idea of blowing themselves up for "72 virgins in the afterlife" Not utterly fucking absurd? Because the available male:available female ratio is so fucked to death by polygamy. Socially, it's a stupid, terrible idea.

Polygamy is fine by me, but of course only if woemn are allowed multiple husbands too.

>>2114507
Oh, hai mister troll.

>>2114507
Then why not let the government pair up couples, so no one goes unloved?

>>2114499
Doesn't matter if she's not signle, you'd still be allwed to marry her!

>>2114476
OP here.

It wasn't my intention to express support for polygamy, I just want to get some ideas flying around.

I support same-sex marriage, but until recently I hadn't considered that polygamy could use the same arguments in its favor. I'm not very comfortable with the idea of polygamy, but I acknowledge it "feeling wrong" is nowhere near a reason to ban it. So, is there any particular reason why polygamy shouldn't be allowed that won't apply for homosexual marriage?

>>2114507

HURRRR, POLYGAMY LEADS TO TERRORISM!

Evidence, that isn't just your little theory? Those terrorists are mis-educated, brainwashed fanatics. And I'm sure polygamy has an effect on their decision to blow themselves up, but there are bigger factors at play.

The vanilla pie I'm enjoying right now is so damn good I can't be bothered with your shit op.

>>2114523
I guess someone could argue that, while a homosexual relationship can be a full, mature relationship, polygamy would only be sexual since (the argument would go) mere lust is the only explanation for a man having multiple wives.

Now, I don't think it's a very good argument, since I can envision mature relationships with more than one person. Then again, I never really got the point of sexual exclusivity, or treating sex as different in kind from other activities, so perhaps I'm not one to judge.

>>2114563

Yeah, that is a bad argument. The argument of "because I want to" should be able to be applied to anything anyone wants to do. There doesn't have to be a reason for it. I don't know why we are still living in societies where tradition and conservative thought restrict people's freedom.

While I can not possibly imagine why a man would want more than one wife, I see nothing wrong with it and it seems rather natural. Homo marriage on the other hand just seems so wrong... even by definition it is wrong.

>>2114474

Hahahahahaha, Hahahahahahaha

haha.

Nice try bitch

Man, this sounds like a troll post but I can't get pissed or counter-troll or anything because I totally agree. Although only under the condition that various combinations of people are allowed legal relationship status, not just one man with multiple relationships - for example, if three people are in a triad relationship, that deserves standing, too. Or if you have two couples, and the wives want to be married to each other too, or whatever.

Of course, I say this as someone currently involved in a long-term, committed threesome, so.

>>2114507

>>2114511


dear god /r9k/ is more and more filled with retards and trolls

i add >>2115191

to this list
>>2115203

I'm cool with polygamy. Not my thing, but I'm not going to go judging consenting adults.

>>2115191
Do tell.

How is that working out for you?

>>2115262
hif wife being a whore and the man being a pussy for letting another man humping her

Polyandry please

>>2115191

That's the problem I ran into. For example, a group of four women and two men wanted to group marry, how would such a legal agreement be arranged? Would one person have to be the "anchor", as in three women and two men are married to one of the women and they all orbit around her in a legal sense? Would they all be linked to each other individually? What if one man wants to split from two of the women, but still stay connected to the other two women and the other man? Legalizing group marriage would take some serious legal philosophizing and thought to arrive at the best possible legislation, but OP is right. Consenting people of majority age with a sound mind and under their own auspices should be allowed to do as they please. I support both gay marriage and group marriage, but I think supporting group marriage in public right now would only hurt the gay rights movement.

>>2115362
go on westerners, go on and try please

>>2115362

Everyone marries everyone that they have a long-term relationship with. In your example, then assuming that they're all straight there would be eight marriages - each woman married to both men.