RayMe (Feb 25, 2008)
1591, from L.L. polygamia, from Late Gk. polygamia "polygamy," from polygamos "often married," from polys "many" + gamos "marriage" (see gamete). Not etymologically restricted to marriage of one man and multiple women (technically polygyny), but often used as if it were.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Usually it only does mean Polygyny with the way it is used modernly. Language drift strikes again.
Either way it doesn't apply to gays unless they were to start getting married to multiple spouses. It does require a legal situation.
RayMe (Feb 25, 2008)
*is taking notes down on the new words* dang... im learning a lot! thanks guys~!
Hmm in muslim society,.. i told you once to do this means you have to carry a bigger burden... so it's stated that the husband must be fair to all wives...
For example.. if the first wive gets 1000 dollar a month so must the others... or If u stay for two night at A's you must do the same to all B's or C's or D's.. get it? ^^
Secondly... one must be able to have or to be in the condition of able to cope with all his wives... if not, he must not marry more than one or of his ability and a divorce must be made...
There's more... but,... i did not look through XD I will later i guess,... when i decided to do polygamy.. XD
(geez.. my gf gonna kill me >.< btw dear.. i was jk about that.. ehehe )
Legion Ketsueki Lives on~!!
I'm BACK AO!
Those are some pretty good laws, now how many people who engage in polygamy actually follow them? For that matter is it even possible to be that fair? Back nearly 2 centuries ago when the LDS church had polygamy there were similar rules... very similar. (Unlike the rest of the US where 4% of the populace were polygamists but had no such regulations, but history tends to skip that part.) They had to be able to financially care for each and the children, have the permission from the first wife, etc, etc... however it is almost impossible to be impartial or equally partial to all wives, it was trying and when polygamy was declared over there were a lot of very happy people.
Now it can be understandable why polygamy would be practiced in certain circumstances. The birth ratio of men to women is 1/1 but when facing continuous war that ratio can drop to 1/3 or 1/4 or even more. If in an agronomic society that occurs continuously for centuries it would be easy to see how polygamy could be considered normal or needed. It does not change the fact that people are wired for only one serious relationship at a time and someone in the relationship will end up on the losing end. Nor are regulations like that something that can be really ENFORCED without getting involved in peoples personal lives in a way that is no ones business so it has has to be self regulated. That then brings me back to my first question, how many people who engage in polygamy actually follow them?
(The sects that broke off from the LDS church who are polygamists certainly don't.)
I think marriage to more than one is not good ... but also not wrong. I myself... I would think that marriage to only one is more idealistic if your goal is to love the one your with. If you are married to more than one that's more of your love that you have to give to all the women. So, if you're having to spread out your love none of the women get to experience what your full loving potential is like. Nor do you get to experience how much you are able to love a woman and you'll never love a single woman completely. That is unless that you have one main wife... and just a few on the side for really good hot sex; ha-ha!