Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

if its consentual, I can't think of the problem

lol yea my wife is not cool with the idea

It's fine if it's consentual but I have a feeling that the concept didn't originate to favour women. I think in a lot of cases were women find it acceptable they have been indoctrinated.

I think there would be jealousy unless you're brain dead.

I'm the favorite, no I am...no, I'm the favorite..me me me

I'm fine with polygamy and polyandry...as long as it is consensual.


The laws are stupid: let adults do what they want as long as everyone is a consenting adult.

I am againist it and think it should be illegal. If a man really loved a woman that he is with married or not he should not have any other one beside that woman.

It's perfectly fine as long as it's consentual and all parties know about it.

Some people won't be able to handle it and thats fine. Humans are naturally selfish and jealous. Others will and thats fine too. People should at least be allowed the freedom to do so if they wish to.



Who says it needs to be the man with multiple wives. Some chicks are just too much woman for one man.

Originally posted by Nephthys
It's perfectly fine as long as it's consentual and all parties know about it.

Some people won't be able to handle it and thats fine. Humans are naturally selfish and jealous. Others will and thats fine too. People should at least be allowed the freedom to do so if they wish to.



Who says it needs to be the man with multiple wives. Some chicks are just too much woman for one man.

I was thinking about the show when I typed that, but multiple husbands could also happen. That was actually on "Raising Hope"

I am against any government sponsored/involved marriage, I have no problems with a group being consensually involved with each other.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not at all. There are "breakaways" that are not Mormons. If you get caught trying to practice polygamy, as a Mormon, you are excommunicated and the "Bishop" responsible for that member has to report it to the authorities if it's against the law in that state.

Why does your group get to claim the Mormon name rather than theirs (or both)?

I can't see any reason it shouldn't be allowed. There are historical issues of age and consent but that's really a different discussion.

It's hot.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why does your group get to claim the Mormon name rather than theirs (or both)?

The term is not supposed to be used, at all, but any of the groups. However, when someone uses the term, it most likely applies to the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." If they mean the other, breakaway, churches, they will say their proper names or nicknames. Bicknorak is definitely not new to the various religions out there, so I knew exactly what he meant: the church with 14 million members, not the one with less than a thousand.

The other sects do, as well, but prefer to call themselves, in colloquial senses, "Mormon fundamentalists"...depending on who they are.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The term is not supposed to be used, at all, but any of the groups. However, when someone uses the term, it most likely applies to the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." If they mean the other, breakaway, churches, they will say their proper names or nicknames. Bicknorak is definitely not new to the various religions out there, so I knew exactly what he meant: the church with 14 million members, not the one with less than a thousand.

The other sects do, as well, but prefer to call themselves, in colloquial senses, "Mormon fundamentalists"...depending on who they are.

I don't think he did, maybe he will explain to us which he meant.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think he did, maybe he will explain to us which he meant.


I think he meant Mormon Fundies, not Mormons.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I am againist it and think it should be illegal. If a man really loved a woman that he is with married or not he should not have any other one beside that woman.

So, have you ever been in a threesome?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think he meant Mormon Fundies, not Mormons. I think he meant whoever it was applied to. Kind of like how we talk about Islamic Jihad and we don't add extra adjectives to specify that most Muslims don't do suicide bombings to get virgins.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I think he meant whoever it was applied to. Kind of like how we talk about Islamic Jihad and we don't add extra adjectives to specify that most Muslims don't do suicide bombings to get virgins.

Well, Islamic Jihad has many different forms in multiple sects of Islam. It's not quite the same. "Jihad" would be equivalent (symbolically, not literally) to, say, sacraments or baptism: it's a common religious held belief/practice that is executed (no pun intended, as that would be horrible) in different ways.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, Islamic Jihad has many different forms in multiple sects of Islam. It's not quite the same. "Jihad" would be equivalent (symbolically, not literally) to, say, sacraments or baptism: it's a common religious held belief/practice that is executed (no pun intended, as that would be horrible) in different ways. Yes, Jihad shouldn't be described as specific to a single sect. Neither should polygamy.

Originally posted by Robtard
So, have you ever been in a threesome?

No and I don't plan too.

Philosophically I'm with Darwin on this one, though a little loyalty can't hurt when culture calls for it.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Philosophically I'm with Darwin on this one, though a little loyalty can't hurt when culture calls for it.

Darwin wasn't doing philosophy. Evolution says nothing about what you "should" be doing.

It's just like in my japanese animes....

http://seemslegit.com/_images/475c8766955145e4b6437a733b62a93c/2366%20-%20academic%20anime%20pimp.jpg

Clearly polygamy is pretty much the best thing ever.

My views on marriage are kinda along the same lines as bardocks. If someone wants to consider themselves married then fine. If they want their religion to view them as married that's also fine. Same sex/multiple people whatever. But there should be no such thing as a marriage license.....for anyone.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Darwin wasn't doing philosophy. Evolution says nothing about what you "should" be doing. Implications of his theory allow derivation of a criteria for what is considered rational about marriage. The details matching such a criteria remain controversial despite much anthropological and biological exploration on the subject, but such a criteria offers an escape from cultural questions like "what feels right to me" or whatever.

Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

Or does it have to ring a memory from philosophy class to fit that criteria?

Indeed. Darwin may never have intended it to have philosophical implications, but it does and has done so. See: Social Darwinism.

No one is denying that you can derive philosophical ideas (opposing ones if you are so inclined, too) from Darwin's theory, but the theory itself does not have moral or philosophical implications. It does not state what is "better" it just states what develops and why.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No one is denying that you can derive philosophical ideas (opposing ones if you are so inclined, too) from Darwin's theory, but the theory itself does not have moral or philosophical implications. It does not state what is "better" it just states what develops and why. Huh. Well since I was claiming a Darwinian 'criteria' based off the results of a decision and not a Darwinian 'rightness', the derivation of two possible conclusions seemed irrelevant to me, but I appreciate you clarifying for me anyway. Though I was somehow under the impression that "what develops and why" had major implications (by definition) on at least one valid branch of ethics (see consequentialism). Its absolute irrelevance to catagorical ethics again appeared irrelevant.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Implications of his theory allow derivation of a criteria for what is considered rational about marriage.

Sure, so long as you realize that there is nothing special about the axiom you've chosen. I can derive a rational concept of marriage from John Norman's Gor series but, due to the different axioms, my conclusion would be very different.

Originally posted by Quark_666
The details matching such a criteria remain controversial despite much anthropological and biological exploration on the subject, but such a criteria offers an escape from cultural questions like "what feels right to me" or whatever.

Are you seriously trying to sell marriage as a biological process?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

Or does it have to ring a memory from philosophy class to fit that criteria?

It's been over a hundred years since we removed "natural philosophy" from the realm of philosophy in general. With that precedent behind me I feel comfortable saying that evolution is science and not philosophy.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Huh. Well since I was claiming a Darwinian 'criteria' based off the results of a decision and not a Darwinian 'rightness', the derivation of two possible conclusions seemed irrelevant to me, but I appreciate you clarifying for me anyway. Though I was somehow under the impression that "what develops and why" had major implications (by definition) on at least one valid branch of ethics (see consequentialism). Its absolute irrelevance to catagorical ethics again appeared irrelevant.

Lets recap quickly. You said "Philosophically I am with Darwin", Sym explained to you that that's impossible as Darwin wasn't any philosophical statement about polygamy with his work, and Sym was correct in saying that.

I don't think trying to sound particularly knowledgeable about philosophy, especially when what you said could be communicated in much simpler terms makes anyone here overlook what has actually been the topic of discussion.

point of fact: Islamic Jihad is a proper name of a jihadi group. for any language that is not Arabic, the Islamic qualification is redundant. Jihad only has an Islamic connotation in English (there is no Communist jihad).

also, unless part of a proper name, like Islamic Jihad, the term "jihad" does not need to be capitalized, the same way "struggle", "resistance" and "soldier" aren't capitalized.

I hate to sound like a grammar Nazi here (I'm the last person who should criticize, lol), but there were a series of posts above that are a little confusing. there is a big difference between Islamic Jihad and Islamic jihad, is all I'm saying

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
With that precedent behind me I feel comfortable saying that evolution is science and not philosophy.

i get what you are saying, but "science" is still a philosophy. I think the only reason we differentiate the two is because people tend to treat philosophy as "I can say any damn thing I want and people have to acknowledge and respect it". I don't think that the fact science works should be taken to say it isn't a philosophy.

Originally posted by inimalist
i get what you are saying, but "science" is still a philosophy. I think the only reason we differentiate the two is because people tend to treat philosophy as "I can say any damn thing I want and people have to acknowledge and respect it". I don't think that the fact science works should be taken to say it isn't a philosophy.

I disagree, I think in common usage metaphysics, ethics, (some) logic, and a couple other disciplines have been grouped under a label of Philosophy, admittedly those subjects are prone to kooks for several reasons. While the term science (Natural and Social) has largely overtaken what used to be called philosophy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, I think in common usage metaphysics, ethics, (some) logic, and a couple other disciplines have been grouped under a label of Philosophy, admittedly those subjects are prone to kooks for several reasons. While the term science (Natural and Social) has largely overtaken what used to be called philosophy.

I disagree completely.

Any good scientist understands the philosophy behind the methods they are using in an experiment, they know the philosophy behind what specific statistical tests they are using and all data interpretation is strictly philosophy (stats can say, at a certain probability, if your data is likely produced by chance, they can say nothing about what is causing the data. Cause can only be determined by the rigors of experimental design, which is almost entirely philosophy as well).

I agree science is different from most other types of philosophy, but at the end of the day, imho at least, it is really just a highly regulated form of epistemology.

Unless I'm mistaken, bigamy/polygamy was first banned in America (other than for record keeping/census hurdles) because of its long standing association with spousal abuse and abuse of women. Considering that this dates back to when women and children were more or less considered property, that's saying a lot.

I have no problem with polygamy as a possible way of marriage... now, some of the specific cultural trends associated with polygamy (and to me, totally different issues), are not so great.

Legally speaking the first wife/husband should be present at the second wifes/husband wedding and sign a consent form or something to make it legal etc with each successive wedding. The last thing we want is a bunch of douches running around setting up franchises, if you understand the Fight Club reference.

I'm against it, I think. There is something to be said about the unequal treatment of the spouses. Regardless of what people say, they WILL love one over the other. It's possible that a working relationship can be formed from a polygamous marriage, but it brings up too many problems. We already have people going out and getting married all over the place who shouldn't be getting married. Then they have kids, then they get divorced, or fight all the time. Either way, the life of the child or children gets screwed up. Imagine that with a bunch of wifes or husbands.

You can't trust people to be responsible, because most people aren't. It might be able to work out for some people, but I'm betting that "some" will be few, and you'll have way too many people taking advantage and abusing it and screwing it up for everyone else.

If you want to be with more than one person, then don't get married. Simple as that. Makes it a lot easier for everyone.

Polygamy was a big thing back in the day (B.C) Slavery was too

Its nice one provides a lots of information on topic also give some more information on topic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sure, so long as you realize that there is nothing special about the axiom you've chosen. I can derive a rational concept of marriage from John Norman's Gor series but, due to the different axioms, my conclusion would be very different.



Are you seriously trying to sell marriage as a biological process?



It's been over a hundred years since we removed "natural philosophy" from the realm of philosophy in general. With that precedent behind me I feel comfortable saying that evolution is science and not philosophy. Yeah philosophy 101 - there's nothing special about the axiom I've chosen. Well that was easy. Lol. And yep, I'm trying to sell marriage as a biological process because anthropology regards marriage as an attribute derived through evolution (keep in mind I'm not claiming anything special about this assessment). Hence the field: biological anthropology. Although after denying consequential ethics and social Darwinism, I suppose you're now going to call me an idiot for bringing up biological anthropology, huh?Originally posted by Bardock42
Lets recap quickly. You said "Philosophically I am with Darwin", Sym explained to you that that's impossible as Darwin wasn't any philosophical statement about polygamy with his work, and Sym was correct in saying that. Yes, please let's recap. I said "Philosophically I am with Darwin", Sym said "Darwin wasn't doing philosophy" - ignored the definition of philosophy, and denied that science is a philosophy (because, why was it - nobody's published on natural philosophy for a hundred years and biological anthropology doesn't count...). I pointed out that Darwinism provides a criteria, not a conclusion, for my stance. Which is the equivalent of saying I look at the evolutionary consequences of the polygamy rather than how it feels, but you came along and ignored the difference between criteria for and conclusion, and told me this bahaha:Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think trying to sound particularly knowledgeable about philosophy, especially when what you said could be communicated in much simpler terms makes anyone here overlook what has actually been the topic of discussion. See, you have to understand: the person I was responding to was saying that perspectives that look at the outcome of something are not classified as philosophy. Mind you - he wasn't saying they 'shouldn't' be classified as philosophy, he was saying they aren't, which is a little like denying the existence of theism because you don't believe in God. All things considered, I felt it was appropriate to give him something to google. I also thought I was one of the younger, more illiterate members of the forum and I was free to throw around what vocabulary I had without being accused of getting too complex. My bad .

Originally posted by inimalist
point of fact: Islamic Jihad is a proper name of a jihadi group. for any language that is not Arabic, the Islamic qualification is redundant. Jihad only has an Islamic connotation in English (there is no Communist jihad).

also, unless part of a proper name, like Islamic Jihad, the term "jihad" does not need to be capitalized, the same way "struggle", "resistance" and "soldier" aren't capitalized.

I hate to sound like a grammar Nazi here (I'm the last person who should criticize, lol), but there were a series of posts above that are a little confusing. there is a big difference between Islamic Jihad and Islamic jihad, is all I'm saying

Thanks for that. I will never again use "jihad" incorrectly unless it's a typo.

Pretend my post says ,"Islamic jihad." Contrast that with "Christian sacrament."

Also, "Islamic Jihad" can apply to multiple groups, not just one. for example, the Islamic Jihad from the country of Yemen, the Islamic Jihad from Lebanon, etc.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Yeah philosophy 101 - there's nothing special about the axiom I've chosen. Well that was easy. Lol. And yep, I'm trying to sell marriage as a biological process because anthropology regards marriage as an attribute derived through evolution (keep in mind I'm not claiming anything special about this assessment). Hence the field: biological anthropology. Although after denying consequential ethics and social Darwinism, I suppose you're now going to call me an idiot for bringing up biological anthropology, huh? Yes, please let's recap. I said "Philosophically I am with Darwin", Sym said "Darwin wasn't doing philosophy" - ignored the definition of philosophy, and denied that science is a philosophy (because, why was it - nobody's published on natural philosophy for a hundred years and biological anthropology doesn't count...). I pointed out that Darwinism provides a criteria, not a conclusion, for my stance. Which is the equivalent of saying I look at the evolutionary consequences of the polygamy rather than how it feels, but you came along and ignored the difference between criteria for and conclusion, and told me this bahaha: See, you have to understand: the person I was responding to was saying that perspectives that look at the outcome of something are not classified as philosophy. Mind you - he wasn't saying they 'shouldn't' be classified as philosophy, he was saying they aren't, which is a little like denying the existence of theism because you don't believe in God. All things considered, I felt it was appropriate to give him something to google. I also thought I was one of the younger, more illiterate members of the forum and I was free to throw around what vocabulary I had without being accused of getting too complex. My bad .

Saying "I'm with Darwin" is incorrect, you can't be "with" Darwin, cause he didn't make a statement on that, what you meant was "I derive some sort of moral ideas from what Darwin said", which is more or less what you tried to say in the second post (besides some semantic bickering about Philosophy), all I did is point out that what you initially said is still contrary to Sym's meaning.

So perhaps try to respond to what I am actually saying, rather than what you make up, I never denied consequential ethics nor social darwinism, you just used them incorrectly in the context.

Language should be used to communicate, not to obfuscate, and arguing about semantics to avoid the issue when the meaning is apparent is bad form, imo.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Saying "I'm with Darwin" is incorrect, you can't be "with" Darwin, cause he didn't make a statement on that, what you meant was "I derive some sort of moral ideas from what Darwin said", which is more or less what you tried to say in the second post (besides some semantic bickering about Philosophy), all I did is point out that what you initially said is still contrary to Sym's meaning.

So perhaps try to respond to what I am actually saying, rather than what you make up, I never denied consequential ethics nor social darwinism, you just used them incorrectly in the context.

Language should be used to communicate, not to obfuscate, and arguing about semantics to avoid the issue when the meaning is apparent is bad form, imo.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are you seriously trying to sell marriage as a biological process?



It's been over a hundred years since we removed "natural philosophy" from the realm of philosophy in general. With that precedent behind me I feel comfortable saying that evolution is science and not philosophy. Originally posted by Quark_666
See, you have to understand: the person I was responding to was saying that perspectives that look at the outcome of something are not classified as philosophy. Mind you - he wasn't saying they 'shouldn't' be classified as philosophy, he was saying they aren't, which is a little like denying the existence of theism because you don't believe in God. All things considered, I felt it was appropriate to give him something to google. I also thought I was one of the younger, more illiterate members of the forum and I was free to throw around what vocabulary I had without being accused of getting too complex. My bad . While I can agree my first statement was improperly worded, I was surprised that my explanation in the next post that I was using Darwin's theory as "criteria" and not as "morality" didn't clear up any questions. And on sym's part, absolute ridicule. And as you can see, the "someone" I mentioned was symmetric chaos.

I was being an *******. Bad day. Sorry guys.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I was being an *******.

That must have been shitty. Also, you're correct in your use of that term: I think they are just bored.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Unless I'm mistaken, bigamy/polygamy was first banned in America (other than for record keeping/census hurdles) because of its long standing association with spousal abuse and abuse of women. Considering that this dates back to when women and children were more or less considered property, that's saying a lot.

It should still be outlawed.

Why should it be outlawed?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks for that. I will never again use "jihad" incorrectly unless it's a typo.

Pretend my post says ,"Islamic jihad." Contrast that with "Christian sacrament."

Also, "Islamic Jihad" can apply to multiple groups, not just one. for example, the Islamic Jihad from the country of Yemen, the Islamic Jihad from Lebanon, etc.

they are fractions of al'zawahari's initial IJ though, are they not? same way the Muslim Brotherhood exists in more nations other than Egypt

as for the sacrament issue, can there be sacrament that isn't Christian? if not, I'd say it is equally redundant. in English, however, jihad only has the context of Muslim religious "violence". this isn't true in Arabic, for sure, but I'd think for English that would be the case

Originally posted by inimalist
as for the sacrament issue, can there be sacrament that isn't Christian? if not, I'd say it is equally redundant. in English, however, jihad only has the context of Muslim religious "violence". this isn't true in Arabic, for sure, but I'd think for English that would be the case


There can. It is almost always used in the Christian sense, though, similar to "jihad."

And, in English, jihad does not only have the context of muslim religious violence. Have faith in your fellow man. We are not all that ignorant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There can. It is almost always used in the Christian sense, though, similar to "jihad."

And, in English, jihad does not only have the context of muslim religious violence. Have faith in your fellow man. We are not all that ignorant.

I don't even mean it as a matter of ignorance. I suppose the term could become defined more as it is in Arabic, I just don't think its use really conjures up anything other than Muslim religio-political struggle.

I prof I had from Morocco said they used to have "jihads against garbage" to clean the streets. The popular use of the term in an English language context isn't that fluid imho. maybe it will get there, but English has no real need of a term to fill that void, we have dozens (though, if there is anything English is good at, its taking words from other languages)