fellis:
biola what about you? Can you marry a second wife?

biolabee:

haha
i knew ...

no; christianity sanctions mono mono

CAMEROONPRIDE:

CAMEROONPRIDE: divorce is not allowed in Christianity , what God sealed no one can unseal

fellis:
Yes, but you're allowed to divorce when you get tired of each other right?
Because you are definitely bound to get tired of each other

biolabee:

The truth is that you will also tire of the young wife too so its best to admit to yourself you are marrying because of your desires.
Serial monogamy is also not good as it breeds disloyalty

If i tire well, lets see when i get there.. let me still enjoy my small life

Do i want to run 2 families, 2 homes, multiple kids//// how will i afford that harvard education for all my kids in the name of equality and still have a nest egg for old age

You also know womens troubles are geometric progressions

1 wife; 1 trouble
2 wives; 4 troubles
3 wives: 9 troubles///


Make persin no die young o....

hahahaha

CAMEROONPRIDE: in fact u ain't allowed to get remarried(religious marriage) except if your wife is dead

CAMEROONPRIDE: in fact u ain't allowed to get remarried(religious marriage) except if your wife is dead

fellis:

No, you're not divorcing her to marry again. You are divorcing her to have fun and frolick with other women/girls.

fellis:
Thats so untrue, lol.
Anyway maybe that is the rule in the catholic church that you used to worship when you were a Christian. You know christianity has different sects and different rules for those sects.

biolabee: Ok that one I can't answer you

CAMEROONPRIDE: We don't have sects there is only one , true, holy and apostolic church and it is the catholic church. others who called themselves Christians(protestants) are lost souls and pastors worshipers. The Catholic church is the one who gives the rule and others follow.

you keep saying it is false, do u have something to tell me? I mean did a protestant tell u something else?

TV01:

As a Christian, the short answer here is biblical writ, which I believe even non-believers are aware of even if they don't subscribe to it.

But whatever your faith or choice not to subscribe to any, one needs only look at how societies have developed - or how they work in practice - to reach that objective conclusion. Most especially when bearing in mind the optimal benefit to men, women, children and hence society as a whole.

TV01: Society has a vested interest in ensuring it's perpetuation and hence raising of the next generation, the simplest way to do this is for men to commit to the mother of the children they jointly produce. This means whilst the state still has to spend on infrastructure (hospitals, schools etc), the welfare bill is reduced.

TV01: Co-habitation is not as good for kids, rarely proving as enduring as marriage.

TV01: Polygamy is second best here as all things being equal there will be less time and resource for the children and women and it does not meet the emotional needs of the women involved as well.

TV01: Polyandry will never have widespread acceptance by men. Men are more likely to commit and provide when the parenthood of children is not in doubt and the female is monogamous.

TV01: SSM is nowhere, it's not actually procreative, unitive or coital. They can't actually have s.ex and they can't really be married. Any children are by design denied one of their biological parents. Single parenthood is likewise not optimal. All told children thrive best with their biological parents.

TV01:
I could go on about the benefits to men and more about those to women, but it could get expansive. But that's a starter for 10. Open to question or challenge.

Criteria, benefits to men, women and children. Most natural and cost effective and least likely to engender societal ills.

TV

fellis: Also, I found out about this verse in the Bible

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

fellis: ^^^^^That only proves that the bible contains contradictions. It says in one place that divorce on the grounds of adultery is allowed and in another place it says divorec is forbidden. Which one should we take serious now?

CAMEROONPRIDE: so Divorce is forbidden but there are exception just like in most laws/rules

fellis:

This is what I said initially now.....

fellis:

Why can't you answer? Because the answer is yes?

By the way I heard that anglicans can marry more than one wife so polygamy is allowed in christianity depending on the sect you belong to.

Efemena_xy:
Society comprises of people from different faiths and walks of life. Not everyone is a Christian, Muslim, Juju worshipper or even religious. Sure you've already acknowledged that, but what I need you to do here is to give me solid examples of what these optimal benefits you mention are, and how they apply to everyone in society, not just your average Christian / Muslim / religious person.

Efemena_xy:
That's an idealistic view of how you think things should be. The reality is different for many folks out there, some of which is no fault of theirs.

Efemena_xy:
Really? How so? How is it different from your average married couple save the piece of paper? You've still got the mum and dad very much in the picture, living with their kids, partaking in their lives, yes?

Efemena_xy:
Second best for whom?

The kids? (I think not).

The woman/women? (I doubt it, not when you factor in the emotional roller coaster that comes with it...jealousy, strife, competition, plus the health risks of developing high bp or heart failure from being thrust into such an abhorrent situation)

The man? (Yes of course...it is a man's world after all, isn't it?)

Efemena_xy:
Now that's where you're wrong. Wrong because your views are extremely myopic and formed from you being brought up in a culture that sees things differently. Are you not aware that just as polygamy sits easy with you, polyandry also sits well with the people for whom this practise forms the core of their culture? Such as those in Nepal. Do you not think they in turn would view the polygamous relationships you rank as second best, to be utterly deplorable by them??

Efemena_xy:
Re the bolded part of your sentence, I disagree with you on that for these reasons...the exact same reasons I gave at the start of this thread:

Benefits Of Polyandry:

~ Enhances greater economic power within the home(i.e: multiple breadwinners, single mortgage)

~ The death of a parent is less likely to result in poverty or destitution for the remaining family members

~ Common household tasks spread among more people

~ More personal time available to all members, without depriving children of attention

~ Potentially more enjoyable sex life without the risk of venereal disease

~ Less likelihood of being left for another man [s]because if I fancy a 6th he will just join the gang (joke!)[/s]

To further buttress those points above, here's a real life example of a successful polyandrous relationship here in the west. California to be precise:

‘I’ve got TWO men who love me’: Woman has baby with the lover her boyfriend encouraged her to take (and they were BOTH there at the birth)

Jaiya Ma had been living her boyfriend Jon Hanauer, 49, for six years when he urged her to take a new lover.
Within weeks, Jaiya, 34, fell for a furniture designer Ian Ferguson, 44, at a dance class, and a year later she fell pregnant with his baby.
But Jon supported Jaiya, welcomed Ian into his home, and the two men helped deliver baby Eamon during an 'orgasmic' labour.

Now the three live together in a beautiful home in Topanga, California, raising Eamon, two and a half.
'I am so lucky,' said Jaiya, a sexologist. 'I have two amazing men who really care for me and Eamon. Having three parents around just makes life even better, and everyone talks about how advanced Eamon is.'
Jaiya and Jon met in June 2000, while taking tantric yoga classes in Cinncinati, Ohio, and fell in love in March 2001 during a tantric teacher training course.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070634/Polyamorous-woman-Jaiya-Ma-baby-lover-living-boyfriend.html


And another example of a successful polyandous relationship here in the UK:

Meet the husband, wife and lover living under the SAME roof
3 Mar 2013 00:00
“People might think it’s weird but I love both men and couldn’t choose between them,” says mum-of-two

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/husband-wife-lover-live-together-1740096

So you see, the world exists beyond the polygamous shores of Nigeria.

Efemena_xy:
Oh, I don't know about that.

Efemena_xy:
What I do know is that a child needs to be brought up in a loving home, where it'll grow and nuture, safe in the knowledge that it is WANTED and loved. There have been numerous heartbreaking stories and threads opened here in the family section of girls/women giving birth to kids and dumping them in toilets, refuse heaps, underneath cars, abandoning them in uncompleted buildings, leaving them by the road side or even burying them alive!

Efemena_xy:
So are you gonna tell me that those kids don't deserve better than that? Were they not born of heterosexual parents? If a gay couple with the means to love, nurture, train and offer a much, much better standard and shot in life, wish to adopt these abandoned kids, they should be denied? You're saying the kids would be better off being left in the gutter where they were dumped by their pretentious church going, bible wielding, irresponsible parents? Is that what you're saying?

Efemena_xy:
Same point for single parents too.

Efemena_xy:
A subjective statement you've given, open to different forms of interpretation.

biolabee:

I cant answer you because you are obviously looking for words. In my mouths or say that xtians are closet polygamists


Why will i divorce my wife to have fun with young women
Wont i grow old too
will those ones stay with me and take care of me...

abegiiii

fellis:

Calm down it was a joke

TV01:

Snip...

I have stated the benefits of that worldview to society as a whole. If you are asking for a model that satisfies every single faith, worldview, philosophy or individual lifestyle you are just being obtuse.

Snip...

TV01: You both confuse and conflate issues.

TV01: 1.You asked what was best for society, I responded. There will always be exception or outliers to any paradigm. I gave what I believe to give the most bang for societies buck.

TV01: 2. If people make poor choices, are prone to destructive behaviours, or find themselves bearing the consequences of same, that in no way invalidates what is optimum. I stated before, we should act and plan aspirationally, for what is best. Do we break up regular families to make single parents feel better? Or forcibly exclude one birth parent to validate gay parenting?

3. The presence of outlying lifestyles - even if seemingly successful - does not invalidate the overall premise. In the absence of a "one size fits all" model (unless you can show otherwise), will the wholesale adoption of "any and all" be best for society (and feel free to demonstrate that if you believe so)?

TV01: Please read clearly. I did not say that there will be a consequential difference in any two families that are in all ways the same except for a marriage certificate. I said "generally" co-habiting couples do not endure as long as married ones, hence co-habitation is inferior to marriage.

TV01:
Second best to the preferred/optimum paradigm = Marriage, not second in a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy. I am talking optimally - idealistically as you may term it. A non point, based on an incorrectly inferred position.

TV01: And yes, it is a mans world . But regardless of whether that persists, it doesn't mean we cannot adopt norms that are beneficial to all.

TV01:
You seem hellbent on proving me wrong, as opposed to making a point, having a discussion or generating suggestions of your own. Feel free to travel the world searching for exceptions, you are not making a case or even proving a point. And even if my worldview emanates from under a rock in Maroko, all you are doing is gainsaying. Surely you are capable of more?

TV01: Polygamy = Polygny & Polyandry (multiple wives, multiple husbands). My view endorsed neither. And at least try and get your terms right.

And as previously stated, the fact that various practices persist - even as the norm in those societies where they are - does not make them optimal.

TV01:
So the best you can do is ferret out exceptions and assume they should sit alongside, be considered equal too, or trump the rule/ideal?

TV01:

And try and be consistent - and honest - you listed the cons of multiple wives, but the pro for multiple husbands?

I already said I speak to all societies.

TV01: Clearly not. However, feel free to refute, rebut or suggest otherwise

An appeal to emotion and a distractionary ruse.

TV01: What does that have to do with "what is best?"

TV01: And how does it show monogamy as not preferred? Rather the opposite.

Like I said, monogamy is more likely to provide that all things being equal. And don't ascribe things to me, that is clearly not what am saying. Quite the opposite. There will always be some that get it wrong, we endeavour to remediate and give those who suffer as a consequence as close to optimum as possible.

Endorsing second best just because some get first best wrong, is shoddy thinking. It presumes 2nd best will never go wrong and it logically means all the other inferior models should also be incorporated.

TV01:
Same response



Particularly if you want to be willful about it.

Altogether a poorly presented, ill thought out response. It didn't rebut my position, it wasn't focused, it made no real points or a case of your own, and it didn't even speak to the question you yourself posed.

TV

fellis:

Calm down it was a joke