It CAN be a religious act. But it definitely doesn't need to be. Atheists get married all the time.
Polygamy - let's do it!
- Thread starter jdomaha
- Start date
It CAN be a religious act. But it definitely doesn't need to be. Atheists get married all the time.
You'll see it a lot if you look in the right places. And no I don't mean porn. This time.
I'm anti religious and polyamourous. If I had more than one serious partner it could be nice to have the option of marriage. If I believed in the idea of marriage at all.
Its not a religious thing any more, its to do with the government and money but agreed that some sort of defined union allowing people equal rights could be better move.
Right, however if "marriage" weren't rooted in religion then gay marriage would have been made legal a long time ago. When people think of getting "married" (in secular America at least) they think of church, the preacher, the bible, etc.
I'm with you though, I got married in Hawaii on the beach without any religious vows or anything traditional. But, I think if we really want to change it, we need to let marriage be religious and create legal unions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcc423
On the other hand, if successful men ended up getting multiple wives, then many women would be faced with a choice of being the n-th wife of some successful man or the only wife of a loser.
That would lower the number of women who would opt for the latter option.
As a result, more losers would end up pussyless for the rest of their lives.
For women, it would mean more choices.
That is exactly my whole point in cocksofthealphamales.com
I encourage polygamy and polyandry outside marriage of course.
That's the main point of my e-book (free because I can't sell e-book here) at genepoolsurvivalguide.com
Why do we pay welfare tax? Because some kids are poor. Why those kids are poor? Because their dad is poor. Why his dad is poor? Because mom choose poor dad. Why mom choose poor dad?
Many reason but the main one is because women don't have choice. They are "rationed" in equal share for everyone with anti polygamy laws.
Just do it outside marriage then? Well, the thing is there are laws that confer common law marriage for those living together. There are cases where governments consider a person still married even after divorce and slap him with anti polygamy laws. Interestingly it's done because that guy have many kids he can't afford.
But here's the point. With laws like that, it's the rich and productive that are less likely to surf. The poor keep breeding like rabbits because it's "humans' right". Yet, when a rich smart male want to inherit good genes and good wealth to his kids, it's "evil" for who knows what. Religion, culture, or whatever.
It's the biggest socialism in the world. Gene pool survival socialism. Like all socialism, it's the main cause of poverty in the world.
Pandawa marries 1 wife Draupadi.
Many males would rather share 1 hot smart pretty women than be the only one for an ugly one.
Women are willing to share even more. Many would rather share 1 rich smart men than be the only one for a poor dumb one. And that's the exact reason why polygamy is prohibited. Somebody got to accept all those welfare checks don't they?
Um okay, I'll argue against polygamy just so that somebody on this thread is against it.
Let's say you have a group that practices polygamy. Okay, everybody agrees that the loser men don't get any. So what happens to the loser men? They get chased out or sent off to be killed (in the former, this is a huge problem in the polygamy colony located in British Columbia, I think its called Bountiful).
Somebody correct me if I am wrong in this, but societies that allow polygamy tend to be violent and engage in warfare.
If I recall correctly (and again I'm going by memory so I may be completely off), the Mormons didn't want to renounce polygamy but were forced to by neighboring states, who were pissed off at all the surplus men who were forced to emigrate out of Utah.
(Yeah, I think I oversimplified Mormon history there, but I'm trying to keep this essay under a thousand words).
Anyways, you'all smoking something if you think one guy in five can have four wives and the other four guys are just going to go off and masturbate in peace and not cause a ruckus.
Let's say you have a group that practices polygamy. Okay, everybody agrees that the loser men don't get any. So what happens to the loser men? They get chased out or sent off to be killed (in the former, this is a huge problem in the polygamy colony located in British Columbia, I think its called Bountiful).
Somebody correct me if I am wrong in this, but societies that allow polygamy tend to be violent and engage in warfare.
If I recall correctly (and again I'm going by memory so I may be completely off), the Mormons didn't want to renounce polygamy but were forced to by neighboring states, who were pissed off at all the surplus men who were forced to emigrate out of Utah.
(Yeah, I think I oversimplified Mormon history there, but I'm trying to keep this essay under a thousand words).
Anyways, you'all smoking something if you think one guy in five can have four wives and the other four guys are just going to go off and masturbate in peace and not cause a ruckus.
That is a very good point. In fact, that's the real issue actually.
The argument is just like the argument for socialism. What about if there is huge wealth disparity? Those who can't get rich will get angry.
Well, tough. Socialism sucks. Those who run the fastest often can elbow the hardest. No matter what the system is, disparity of success always happen. End of story.
Ups not yet. There are many peaceful solution actually.
1. Porn.
2. Prostitution
3. Importing women from poor countries
4. If some socialism happens anyway, why not do it in ways that are less harmful. Why ration women to the poor males? Why not ration money instead? Why not just give money to those who DON'T have kids.
Think about it. Not all people put equal dollar value in making kids. Some would spend millions. Some would abort their babies. The former is the rich.
So typically, both will be better of if the rich make more kids and the poor make more money right?
I really like solution for number 3. You see, the bible teach us to wage war against neighboring countries kill all the males and rape all the women. That's why I am a Christian.
But my secular side says it's cruel. Here is a humane version of it. Embrace free market, get rich, import the prettiest girls from the poorer countries.
If males in that country protest, then bomb away for violating the most basic humans' right, right to leave.
Think about it. Win win win. Rather than rewarding the productive with luxury, why not reward the productive with gene pool survival? Every kid will have rich smart dad and hot mom (because males would rather watch porn than marrying the ugly). Ugly bitches can't do shit anyway. Then equality will happen the market way isn't it?
Here I am using the assumption that women prefer the rich and sex=making kids. When that's not true, it's even better. Women are more willing to have sex if they won't get knocked up. If women don't prefer the rich, we have a very good reason to blame women with poor kids. Why didn't she choose to share a rich smart male? Less excuse for welfare.