Polygamists’ children rally for their families

“Calling their lives blessed, more than a dozen young women and girls from polygamist families in Utah spoke at a rally Saturday, calling for a change in state laws and the right to live their life and religion.”

Personally I do not agree with polygamy. While humans are by nature polygamists, from the moment you decide to actually get married, you should do it with one person only. You can’t create something beautiful and unique if you have to share yourself within 2 and 3 or 4 partners.

I could never, ever, share my JBQ with someone else. I would walk away (without a fight) if another woman was brought to our lives. I like exclusivity. And I much dislike most women anyway.

Post a comment »

This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 5:58 AM PST:

Sorry, I just don’t agree with polygamy. I don’t care if someone is gay or not, if he had lots of lovers in his/her life or not, but jesus, can’t you just pick ONE partner at some point and live your life happily thereafter?

While humans ARE NOT monogamous species, when they fall in love, a chemical is released into their brains that they make them attached to their partner usually for about 1 to 3 years (long enough to have children). So, if you want to be ok with nature, sure, change a partner and fall in love every 2-3 years. By all means! But DON’T have them all at the SAME time. That’s where it becomes unatural because the human brain is NOT supposed to work that way.

So no, telling me that polygamy is ok if the people want it, it is not ok. It’s unatural. The laws of nature do not allow more than one woman or one man to be TRULY in love at the same time. And if you are not TRULY in love with that someone, why the hell marry to them??? Just f*ck them whenever you please, but don’t marry them! Marry only when you feel commited to one individual.


Thom Holwerda wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 6:32 AM PST:

So no, telling me that polygamy is ok if the people want it, it is not ok. It’s unatural. The laws of nature do not allow more than one woman or one man to be TRULY in love at the same time.

Erm, take a few courses in neural psychology, Eugenia. It is very well possible to be in love with two or even more people at the same time.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 6:35 AM PST:

No, I don’t believe you. If that’s the case, then love is what you THINK you are into. But you are not truly IN love.

Infatuated with many people at the same time, YES (e.g. a bunch of high school people, or actors or other important people).
But IN love, NO. You are IN love with only one person at a time.

Either that, or you are not in love at all. You just think you are.


Thom Holwerda wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 6:37 AM PST:

Go tell my professors at university and those that wrote my textbooks, then, I guess. I’m sorry Eugenia, but on this subject, I prefer to rely on their findings, and not yours. You do not have a master’s degree in neuropsychology, do you? :) .


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 6:38 AM PST:

Give me a text copy of that.

I have never being IN love with more than 1 person at a time. And neither my husband. Or my brother. Or my girlfriends.

Infatuated, YES. But not IN love.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 6:56 AM PST:

>The easiest way is to kick out the young men.

Yup, just like how wild animals do it. The dominant male would throw away all young males. Hurray for behaving like animals.


Thom Holwerda wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 6:57 AM PST:

That depends on how you define “being in love”.

Being in love is a physical condition of which the symptomps include the usual suspects such as insomnia, pains in the abdomen area, mood swings between feeling almost ‘high’ and a dperessed state of mind, etc. THAT is what being in love means. And sure as hell that can have multiple causes (= multiple people). Not only do I know that from books, but I also know it from experience.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 7:05 AM PST:

>That depends on how you define “being in love”.

Being in love is when you are so extremely attracted to an individual that you want to spend all your life with him/her and maybe have children. It’s when you see through her/his eyes and you know what they are thinking. It’s when you feel a DEEPER connection.

Being infatuated (”possessed by an unreasoning passion or attraction”) means that you would like to be around and maybe have sex with someone. There is a lot of passion. Usually though, you know that it’s nothing serious, just some attraction that happens for a few weeks or months.

I have been infatuated with more than 1 person while in high school: 2 school boys, John Taylor of Duran Duran, a popular Greek basketballer. But sure as hell I didn’t love them. I wouldn’t wanna marry them or have any children with them.

There is a difference between being in love and being infatuated. You CAN NOT be in love with more than 1 person at the time. This is why polygamism doesn’t make sense. I am ok though if they want to marry these women in different chunks of time (and then divorce), just not at the same time (remember the chemical release in the brain that usually lasts 3 years).


Thom Holwerda wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 7:09 AM PST:

You CAN NOT be in love with more than 1 person at the time.

All depends on how you define being in love. I prefer to use the scientific definition as described above; a physical condition caused by chemicals/neurotransmitters in the brain. And lo and behold, myself, and multiple of my friends, have all been in love with multiple people at the same time. In addition to that, professors and textbooks from my university also say it’s possible.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 7:13 AM PST:

>All depends on how you define being in love.

Thom don’t get on my f*cking nerves. I just explained above how I (and many others) define being in love. It is NOT the same as being infatuated. If your text books don’t make this distinction, then they are on the wrong. Go talk to your teachers again about it.

And if YOU liked more than 1 girl at the same time, you were not truly in love with these girls. You just wanted to f*ck them, that’s all. That doesn’t make it LOVE. Love is something DEEP.


Thom Holwerda wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 7:29 AM PST:

There is being in love, and loving someone. THAT is the distinction as made in the scientific world. Where the former is as I described it, the latter is something completely different.

While I love my mother, I am not in love with her. While I am in love with girl xyz, I do not love her. Etc.

The following course happens in a relationship: you fall in love with someone, and stay in love for up to a year, at most. Then, this being in love makes place for other feelings (or not!) and you end up getting married, or whatever. Those other feelings are what for instance my parents feel right now, after 30+ years of marriage. It are NOT the same feelings as when they first met.

You are calling being in love, being ‘infatuated’, and ‘loving someone’ as being in love. There is a HUGE difference between the two.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 7:31 AM PST:

This is my last comment on the subject:

I would give my own life to save JBQ’s. Because I truly love him.

But I wouldn’t do the same for someone I am infatuated with. I would in fact take his life with my own hands if I was to save JBQ’s.

I don’t love the person that I could be infatuated with. But I could certainly be sexually and intellectually attracted to him.

Having infatuations at different times in your life (even when married), is normal. But this doesn’t mean that you love your infatuated subjects. They are there to spice up your life and don’t get bored. Your main true love interest usually remains until the day you die (in my case, hopefully, JBQ).

I believe your problem understanding what I am talking about is the fact that you are too young. I have been through countless infatuations in my life, 2 engagements, 3 platonic boyfriends, 3 real boyfriends and 1 marriage. And this marriage has been real, unconditional LOVE. It just does not compare to whatever relationships I had before, not even during our first months together.

I guess you will have to live true love before you start talking about it. And when you do, you will have second thoughts about polygamists too. Simply because you won’t be able to PICTURE yourself with anyone else but your wife (having fantasies about supermodels, sure. But you would not leave or cheat to your wife).


Thom Holwerda wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 7:35 AM PST:

It might be a linguistic problem, though, our misunderstanding. For those two sets of feelings, we have two different words.

Being in love with a girl is called “verliefd zijn”.

Loving your husband is called “houden van”. This is a sort of extreme form of “to like”.

English does not make this distinction, and that is why my English textbooks and professors made the distinction via context.


mikesum32 wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 9:57 AM PST:

>You can’t create something beautiful and unique if you have >to share yourself within 2 and 3 or 4 partners.

Couldn’t you create something more beautiful and more unique?

I personaly have no problem with anyone having any number of husbands or wives or whether they’re gay or straight.

The real problem with polygamy is a numbers problem.

Normally the male and female population is more or less equal, that is to say one girl for every guy.

Well, if everyone has more than one wife, and they don’t share wives somethings gotta give.

Maybe some guys have no wife, but that still doesn’t balance out.

You could share wives. What guy wants to share his wife or lover?

You could get more women by recruitment(hard to do) or making more female babies(takes a long time).

The easier way is to get rid of the male children that will be competing with you for the young women.

You could make up all sorts of silly laws and kick them out for breaking them(hope you find a good job!), or just drop them off and let them be adopted(hope you find some better parents!).

The easiest way is to kick out the young men. It’s a big problem.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1505997,00.html


Thom Holwerda wrote on August 20th, 2006 at 11:29 AM PST:

I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with poligamy. As long as I do not have to be part of it, I’m fine with it. To each his own.


Tam Hanna wrote on August 22nd, 2006 at 3:37 AM PST:

Hi,
I have a funky stand here: as long as they harm/annoy no one, let them do what they want to.

If someone wants to jump off a cliff because thats w00t, as long as he damages/costs no one; good flight. If someone wants to have two girls/boys, as long as they dont harm anyone or scr** in public, have fun.

But as said, get back to tech, Tam
Tam Hanna


harper wrote on August 30th, 2006 at 9:15 AM PST:

No, I don’t believe you. If that’s the case, then love is what you THINK you are into. But you are not truly IN love.

Infatuated with many people at the same time, YES (e.g. a bunch of high school people, or actors or other important people).
But IN love, NO. You are IN love with only one person at a time.

Either that, or you are not in love at all. You just think you are.

Agreed. 100%! There is a HUGE difference between love and infatuation. As far as the original subject, I personally do not agree with polgamy. My wife and I are the same on this subject.

/married and happy for 9 years. ;p

:: PEACE OUT ::


Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.