Why men won't marry you

[CabinetMaker]

The fault was with the initial premise that "men don't hit women." That blanket statement is wrong because of the prevalence of women initiating violence. In fact, my statement was merely trying to correct the poorly worded statement I was responding to.

pro-tip: "initiating" in front of the word "violence" means the violence is unwarranted to start with.

Actually, initiating violence does not mean that it is unwarranted. As noted, it may be the appropriate response to something you started, like breaking into her house.

 

[Yorzhik]

Actually, initiating violence does not mean that it is unwarranted. As noted, it may be the appropriate response to something you started, like breaking into her house.

You gotta be kidd'n me. You don't realize that breaking into a house is a violent act?

 

[CabinetMaker]

You gotta be kidd'n me. You don't realize that breaking into a house is a violent act?

Walking in a front door isn't a particularly violent act.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

You gotta be kidd'n me. You don't realize that breaking into a house is a violent act?

Based on my cursory research, you are correct:

“Psychological/emotional violence involves trauma to the victim caused by acts, threats of acts, or coercive tactics."

So it's emotionally violent to break and enter, like symbolic violence (destruction of victim's property). But obviously more serious.

(If anyone wonders, an unlocked front door is not the same situation, but we were talking about a home invasion, not a friend at the front door.)

 

[1PeaceMaker]

linger: The pope would agree with you. Matt. 19:6, Rom. 7:2, 3

Maybe you could put his picture on your wall like the CathOlics. :freak:

I take it you are no fan of emotional abuse? Proverbs 12:10

Neither am I.

Divorce is for the hard hearts who murder their spouses in spirit, so they don't do the same to the body, and destroy what God is creating through marriage (children).

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Do you hit women?

Why do this to him?

Put another way, have you ever emotionally abused another person?

(If Matt. 7:12 applied in your heart when you asked him, surely you won't mind at all answering me.)

 

[serpentdove]

[Do you hit women?] "Do you mean to be this divisive?"

It's a simple question. :chz4brnz:

"...How about "coming at you with a hammer"? [W]ould that be enough reason to respond with violence?"

Has a lady come at you with a hammer recently?

 

[elohiym]

We love them on the condition that they love us back.

How are you defining love there?

I'm not playing any word games. If you really need a definition of love, you've gift bigger issues.

You are playing words games, refusing to explain what you mean by the word love. I suspect you don't really know what love is. Here's the bottom line: God commanded you to love your wife unconditionally.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her.

Now you either argue that Christ's love for His church is conditional or concede that you are wrong to love your wife conditionally.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then I understood you correctly.

Well, I thought I was pretty clear.

Seems contrary to our design and inclinations, doesn't it?

Why? Polygamy itself is contrary to most people's designs and inclinations but why think it's more 'normal' for a man to have multiple wives and not a woman multiple husbands as you seem to be suggesting?

We're discussing that. I asked you some questions:

Is it acceptable for a woman to have a wife?
Is it acceptable for a woman to have a wife and husband simultaneously?

Not sure why you're bringing homo and bi-sexual aspects into this as it seems an unnecessary tangent but I'll answer. I've no issue with gay marriage although I wouldn't recommend anyone have more than one spouse, even in the rare places where it's still legal.

Polygamy and the evolution of human longevity.

An alternative to previous explanations of the rapid increase in man's longevity and intelligence during the several million years of his recent evolution from pre-hominid, clearly shorter-lived and less intelligent, primate ancestors is presented. The general thesis is that a very greatly accelerated rate of incorporation of favorable genes or gene combinations can be achieved in surprisingly few generations among social animals provided that dominant males become the patriarchs of many descendents by virtue of their partial or complete monopoly on available females.​

The evidence of polygamy is in our genes.

Hmm, can't say I'm particularly impressed as if it were "in our genes" then most people would prefer to be part of a multiple marriage and that's clearly not the case, certainly not now at any rate. The days of patriarchal societies are thankfully mostly gone now in the West.

 

[elohiym]

Well, I thought I was pretty clear.

No, I understand you contradicted yourself.

Polygamy itself is contrary to most people's designs and inclinations...

I disagree, and I provided evidence for polygamy's role in human development in my last post.

Not sure why you're bringing homo and bi-sexual aspects into this...

Not sure why you're not giving yes or no answers to my questions.

1. Is it acceptable for a woman to have a wife? Yes or no?

2. Is it acceptable for a woman to have a wife and husband simultaneously? Yes or no?

Hmm, can't say I'm particularly impressed as if it were "in our genes" ...

You don't have to be impressed with facts.

 

[musterion]

Why men won't marry you

Because now they can "marry" each other.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, I understand you contradicted yourself.

How?

I disagree, and I provided evidence for polygamy's role in human development in my last post.

Society in general doesn't allow it and most people, when marrying, have the intention of committing to a monogamous relationship with one lifetime partner. You didn't answer my latter either so here it is again:

Why think it's more 'normal' for a man to have multiple wives and not a woman multiple husbands as you seem to be suggesting?

Not sure why you're not giving yes or no answers to my questions.

1. Is it acceptable for a woman to have a wife? Yes or no?

2. Is it acceptable for a woman to have a wife and husband simultaneously? Yes or no?

Not sure how you weren't getting the very clear answers. It stands to reason that if I have no issues with gay people being married then I obviously find it acceptable for a woman to have a wife.

I don't think polygamy should be acceptable as in legalized marriage as I think multiple simultaneous partners goes against our inclinations and would be destructive to any supposedly loving marriage, especially with children. My other main objection would be that it seems very much a one way street where it's men who have all the wives and it subjugates women to essentially a lower order of citizen in a patriarchy. By all means correct me on that if it's actually acceptable for women to have multiple partners also?

You don't have to be impressed with facts.

Neither do you. The fact is that polygamy, at least in modern society in the main, doesn't fly.

 

[Yorzhik]

Walking in a front door isn't a particularly violent act.

I can see you don't have the capacity to discuss things on an adult level. Consider all instances where I typed "initiates violence" to be "initiates unprovoked violence." Do you get the point now?

 

[Yorzhik]

It's a simple question. :chz4brnz:

It's a simple, judgmental, divisive question. Why are you like that?

Has a lady come at you with a hammer recently?

If one did, would it be right in your eyes for me to hit her? And if you answer 'yes' to that one, then how about if she has a knife? a fist? a frying pan? a rolling pin? What violence could she initiate (unprovoked) that would not, in your eyes, be proper grounds to respond in kind?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Why think it's more 'normal' for a man to have multiple wives and not a woman multiple husbands as you seem to be suggesting?

I don't see how you can read his words as anti polyandry. You lost a great chance to go forward with him in the conversation (aside from the fact that he's busy) because you are trying to turn this into a conversation with a conservative Mormon. But you are nowhere over the target. Meanwhile, genetically speaking, the greater part of polygamy seems to be polygyny; in other words, his point was valid, it's generally contraindicated for our natures. (the word generally is the key, here)

Jesus didn't preach against polyandry, either. He did preach against adultery very strongly, though.

It stands to reason that if I have no issues with gay people being married then I obviously find it acceptable for a woman to have a wife.

Yet they couldn't be open with you if they had a wife and a husband if they are bisexual. It's like the idea that it's okay to be gay but not BE gay.

I don't think polygamy should be acceptable as in legalized marriage as I think multiple simultaneous partners goes against our inclinations and would be destructive to any supposedly loving marriage, especially with children.

I see it the opposite way around. I think polygamy would be a steam valve in a stressful marriage where two people can't stand to be joined at the hip but love each other very much. They could still have a family and no divorce, while being able to evolve their social environment to suit all the aspects of their lives. Without polygamy those couples would either have to tough it out or divorce to have an acceptable, approved living arrangement in serial polygamy (so-called monogamy).

My other main objection would be that it seems very much a one way street where it's men who have all the wives and it subjugates women to essentially a lower order of citizen in a patriarchy.

Even if polygyny was the only acceptable form of polygamy, which it isn't, that would a faulty assumption. An estrogen dominated household where women hold purses and run the house together is not a place for a man to become controlling or abusive. The women could easily gang up and turn the tables; plus it's the man, usually, who has to do extra work while women instead have a fraction of responsibility towards him.

By all means correct me on that if it's actually acceptable for women to have multiple partners also?

God never penned a prohibition against it. Jesus had a chance to speak against it with the polyandrous woman at the well, but only indicated that one was not her legitimate man.

It may be the only compassionate route around infertility for some couples, without destroying a marriage to produce them or denying a birth-father access to his children.

The fact is that polygamy, at least in modern society in the main, doesn't fly.

Think about this: why would it be good for a man to say, by reason of marriage, that the wife cannot have babies because he doesn't want or can't have them? Why force her to choose between husband and the babies? How does that promote marriage, children or women?

 

[CabinetMaker]

I can see you don't have the capacity to discuss things on an adult level. Consider all instances where I typed "initiates violence" to be "initiates unprovoked violence." Do you get the point now?

Yes. You don't know how to farm an argument. You make qualified statement but fail to state it as such. An argument occurs between two people. Person A provokes the argument. Person B slaps person A. Person A provoked an argument yet person B initiates the violence that follows because they threw the first punch.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't see how you can read his words as anti polyandry. You lost a great chance to go forward with him in the conversation (aside from the fact that he's busy) because you are trying to turn this into a conversation with a conservative Mormon. But you are nowhere over the target. Meanwhile, genetically speaking, the greater part of polygamy seems to be polygyny; in other words, his point was valid, it's generally contraindicated for our natures. (the word generally is the key, here)

I was asking him to answer a question and was met with one in turn (twice) that didn't address anything whatsoever. I'm not trying to 'turn this into a conversation with a conservative Mormon' so that's just baloney frankly. I was simply debating as I do with anyone on this forum with a differing point of view. There's nothing in my nature that would desire to have multiple spouses and in the main that seems to be the way for most people. The evidence for that really should be obvious.

Jesus didn't preach against polyandry, either. He did preach against adultery very strongly, though.
Yet they couldn't be open with you if they had a wife and a husband if they are bisexual. It's like the idea that it's okay to be gay but not BE gay.

For most people adultery involves cheating on your spouse (singular).

Are you saying that bisexual people can't have a fulfilling relationship with one person simply because they have attractions to both sexes? I outlined my reasons why I don't think it's a good idea to have simultaneous partners already so address that if you like.

I see it the opposite way around. I think polygamy would be a steam valve in a stressful marriage where two people can't stand to be joined at the hip but love each other very much. They could still have a family and no divorce, while being able to evolve their social environment to suit all the aspects of their lives. Without polygamy those couples would either have to tough it out or divorce to have an acceptable living arraignment in serial polygamy (so-called monogamy)

What, they love each other that much yet can't stand to be together without having sexual relations with other people to 'let off some steam'? That's essentially what this boils down to. I mean answer me this. If your husband was out having intimacy with another "wife" while you were sat home doing the laundry or something, then you really would be happy with it? Also, what about these additional 'wives'? Aren't they just effectively 'add ons' so what exactly do they get out of these 'arrangements' if it's for the benefit of your marriage?

Even if polygyny was the only acceptable form of polygamy, which it isn't, that would a faulty assumption. An estrogen dominated household where women hold purses and run the house together is not a place for a man to become controlling or abusive. The women could easily gang up and turn the tables; plus it's the man, usually, who has to do extra work while women instead have a fraction of responsibility towards him.

If you check the link your husband used as 'evidence' to support polygamy it emanates from a dominant male perspective in a patriarchal environment. You might be happy enough with that but most women wouldn't be, certainly not nowadays and for a good while now. Polygamy is very much centred for men, not women.

God never penned a prohibition against it. Jesus had a chance to speak against it with the polyandrous woman at the well, but only indicated that one was not her legitimate man.

It may be the only compassionate route around infertility for some couples, without destroying a marriage to produce them or denying a birth-father access to his children.

There are other routes around infertility without having a myriad spouses so that's a misnoma.

Think about this: why would it be good for a man to say, by reason of marriage, that the wife cannot have babies because he doesn't want or can't have them? Why force her to choose between husband and the babies? How does that promote marriage, children or women?

Do you not think that in general, most couples have already talked about having or not having children before getting married? Your solution to any problem in a marriage seems to be to get another spouse and you seem blind as to just how destructive that could be in itself. There's a reason why most people make a commitment to the one person if they embark on wedlock, even if things go awry later on. Can you appreciate that much?

 

[Yorzhik]

Yes.

Good.

An argument occurs between two people. Person A provokes the argument. Person B slaps person A. Person A provoked an argument yet person B initiates the violence that follows because they threw the first punch.

Right. B initiated unprovoked violence. Having an argument (assuming no threat of violence from A in the argument) is no reason to initiate violence.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I was asking him to answer a question and was met with one in turn (twice) that didn't address anything whatsoever.

Let's remember where this started:

if you truly love her then would it be possible to contemplate intimate relations with another woman?

The "her" was me, suggesting polygamy to him 9 years ago.

He answered you. He said he could love two women. You felt he was dodging your question. Your question amounts to an assertion that you can't be attracted to or have sex with another person if you really love your SO.

That also would be an assertion that you didn't ever love anyone that you had sex with if you moved on later and became open to finding someone else.

It would also seem to indicate that divorcees and widows would have a problem, as would anyone who ever lost their virginity and didn't marry that person they foolishly fell for in the first place.

It's like saying that most people have sex without really loving their intimate partner.

Are you sure of that position?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

There's nothing in my nature that would desire to have multiple spouses and in the main that seems to be the way for most people. The evidence for that really should be obvious.

I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to your thoughts about my husband, because your theory of mind seems to have misled you into imagining a conservative Mormon talking to you.

Does "the main" indicate a moral high ground? Just because we here currently have no imagination of what it's like to need more than one spouse doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is evil.

Are you saying that bisexual people can't have a fulfilling relationship with one person simply because they have attractions to both sexes?

I'm saying they'd have to deny their attractions and compatibility to the sex they are not with. So if a bi-girl fell in love with her girl-best friend from high school ten years into her marriage to a man, she's now someone who never really loved her husband? I don't understand you.