I'm hearing a lot of "if gay marriage is ok why isn't polygamy ok" arguments.
Well, heck, why do we still have laws against polygamy? If a group of people love each other, why shouldn't we give them the right to marry?
The only thing I worry about is the exploitation of women in such marriages. But given the advances we have made in gender equality, is that still a huge concern? Please share your views on why polygamy should not be legal.
edited to add: No, I'm not looking to practice polygamy myself. I have enough trouble pleasing one woman, the thought of having a couple around the house absolutely terrifies me.
[ March 08, 2004, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I have to point out that, even though Saints was written by a Mormon, that book gave me the WORST vibes about polygamy. All I could think about was how much all the women suffered, (and the men too). It made me cry more than any other book.
Not that it explains why I think it should be illegal. I just don't see how ANYONE benefits.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I never read Saints. Can you give a small example of why it caused suffering for the characters?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Widows who have children to raise would benefit.
[ March 08, 2004, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: skillery ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
In the last century, the only polygamist marriages had unequal rights for women. Look at all the polygamists in the nation these days: an older man married to one or two women and four children. In fact, outside of Islam (which is also heavily debatable), polygamist marriages throughout history have gone hand in hand with unequal treatment of women.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yes, by definition, polygamist relationships are not equal for the men and the women.
But John, if those people don't want to live in equal relationships, who are you to force them? How is that different from forcing your religious beliefs on someone else?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Actually, one of my friends had to read an essay about how great polygamy was, written by a woman whose husband had several wives. I read it too (yes, I do read textbooks for fun, your point?) and it really made polygamy seem quite attractive.
EDIT: It was some kind of required tolerance class for the dorm she was living in.
[ March 08, 2004, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: blacwolve ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Fair enough John.
Do you think our society will ever reach a point where women have enough equality so that a legalization of polygamy would not result in the marginalization of women.
If so, how far do you think we have to go before that happens?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:Yes, by definition, polygamist relationships are not equal for the men and the women.
I can understand that polygamy can be unequal if it is practiced within a society where women do not have equal rights. But there is nothing inherently unequal about the concept of polygamy (i.e. women can have multiple husbands as well).
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
The thing that worries me about polygamy, at least as it seems to exist in the groups that practice it in this country today, is that they seem to have this habit of marrying off fourteen and fifteen year old girls and not giving them any choice in the matter. I have a huge problem with that.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:But John, if those people don't want to live in equal relationships, who are you to force them? How is that different from forcing your religious beliefs on someone else?
People already live that way. Making inequality legal is unconstitutional. And if it were constitutional, this would not be a country I would be proud to be a part of. In fact, endorsing such a thing would make it equitable to Iraq, a country a lot of people in this one fought so hard to kick the despots out of.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
John, so you are saying that because the constitution ensures everybody equality, we should NOT legally recognize relationships that are inherently unequal. While I don't agree, that is a valid point.
Please tell me if I am putting words in your mouth. I am honestly trying to understand your view.
Edit: Added the all-important NOT to my post.
[ March 08, 2004, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Widows who have children to raise would benefit.
They would benefit from marrying single men as well.
Beren:
Saints described many women in different situations involved in polygamy.
One was a wife that "couldn't be told" about her husband's other wife. Everyone else in town knew though, and when she found out it almost killed her.
One was a woman that couldn't tell anyone that she was married and suffered for it.
Two were women that had to learn to share the same husband, each knowing that he loved the other and shared secrets with her that first could never understand.
It's HEART BREAKING.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:John, so you are saying that because the constitution ensures everybody equality, we should legally recognize relationships that are inherently unequal. While I don't agree, that is a valid point.
Actually, there are laws in every single state that strictly prohibit unequal treatment, especially in marriage. And I never said that the relationships that exist—even the polygamists in the SouthWest (they exist, look them up)—are legally endorsed by those laws. In fact, those people are breaking those laws. Yet they aren't prosecuted until they do something that can be used against them in court, so don't begin to turn this into some "unfairly prosecuted" argument, either.
And don't twist what I say. Don't play ignorant, either. It's condescending and just an indicator that you have no real argument.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
This has nothing to do with it being legalized, but I just don't see widespread polygamy working well in any situation except where there are many more females than males, such as war.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Thanks PSI. Now I definitely have to read Saints.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'd hate to be in a polygamous marriage. It seems like it would not be much fun... Then again...
My only problem is that polygamy would: Produce way too many children, resources are dwindling enough as it is. That it would not be completely about love... but something else. Orginally it was more about getting a son any way possible.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
John -- Go back and read my post again. There was a typo. I meant to say that you think that we should NOT legalize unequal relationships.
With that addendum, am I understanding you properly?
I was not playing ignorant, I was just being stupid. Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
You know what, looking back, I would say that you may not be "playing ignorant" at all, and genuinely just not know. If so, then that's fine.
Inequality is not legal already. Any evidence of it is illegal.
[ March 08, 2004, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What does unequal treatment in marriage entail? Is that like divorce laws that favor one sex over the other?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think you guys are using the historical examples of multiple partner marriage a bit too rigidly.
In this day and age I can easily imagine situations where there are two bisexual women and one man. Or even two bisexual men and one woman. Is there really anything we can think of wrong with that situation if all parties involved were happy?
I do agree that the set-ups with a man in his 40s and a bunch of women, most often underage, is a terrible thing.
Are there any cultures in the US which would really do this though? I mean, the fundamentalist Mormons in Utah maybe, but I can't even see the LDS church bringing them back.
So yeah, I don't see anything wrong with them being legal really. I am on the fence as to whether our society is ready though. I'm leaning toward it not being ready. Maybe in 20-30 years.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Does this mean I can rest assured that if gay marriage will be legalized there is still a snowball's chance in my microwave that polygamy will be? Huzzah!
*ducks*
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:In this day and age I can easily imagine situations where there are two bisexual women and one man. Or even two bisexual men and one woman. Is there really anything we can think of wrong with that situation if all parties involved were happy?
Yeah, when it's imaginary. Imaginary, meaning not real. In the real world, things are much, much different.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Xavier: Darn, I will still be alive then.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I think legalizing gay marriages would certainly weaken certain arguments against polygamy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*shrug* Personally, I don't see any obvious argument against polygamy that holds up to logic. As it doesn't seem to involve any inherent harm to society, I don't see anything wrong with it -- provided, of course, that typical rules involving consent are applied.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Well John, your modern day abusive polygamous relationships are imaginary too, beyond rural Utah. Do you really think that what happens there is indicative of what it would be for the rest of the country?
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Yes, actually, I do. Mostly because they were before, and they are in other parts of the world. In other words, your hypothetical, imaginary situation has no example to back up its assertion. Until I can see otherwise (maybe swingers? nope.), then I remain unconvinced.
[ March 08, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's hard for me to imagine polygamy ever being politically correct like homosexuality has become. I don't know why I think that. Maybe because right now it's pretty much only followed (in the states) by Christians.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
<puts on strategy hat>
Now, if you were a devout christian, would you accept homosexual marriages in exchange for legalization of polygamy?
*and vice versa for supporters of homosexual marriages*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I am a Christian (LDS), and no, making polygamy legal would not make me happy.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
No for the vice-versa question. And I say this because polygamy, unlike homosexuality (which was obviously where this was headed), has had its chance and fallen short of treating everyone in the relationship as equal citizens.
And once again, I am not against polygamy as a theory. I'm against every institution in which it has been used, and see no example or logical way to reinstate it without it turning into the same thing all over again. If that could be avoided, then polygamy wouldn't have the current stigma it has.
[ March 09, 2004, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Sorry about that. What I meant to say was that "if your religious beliefs support polygamy..."
I didn't mean to imply that all devout christians support polygamy.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:
quote: I don't see how that's true. There have been many cultures that practiced polygamy. It's not always a religious thing. It's a marriage thing.
Name each one, and you will find religious precedence used in each one.
Leto, that seems illogical to me. Let's take a Godless view for a moment. Polygynous groups are quite natural in the animal world. Most if not all apes organize themselves thus. Do you believe we are glorified apes? If so, it stands to reason that polygyny was the way things were done. Monogamy would have come into practice at some point, but polygyny seemed to be widely accepted as a valid form of marriage in numerous histories.
From this Godless viewpoint, it makes more sense to say that as religions developed, many of them addressed polygamy in one way or another, not to preserve it, but to deal with it as a practice already widely accepted. LDS polygamy is the only instance I can think of of polygyny being introduced to a society that only accepted monogamy. So how do you come to the conclusion that people thoughout history practiced polygamy for religious reasons?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Our society is amongst the most equal ever in the history of the world. If polygamy were ever to be practiced in a mature, respectful way, now would be a great time.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
heh. You'd probably get people saying, "God created Adam and Eve not Adam, Eve, Lois, Jane, Clara, Stella...." Then other people would point to, say, Solomon and his many wives and the argument would go on for hours... I'm way more likely to support monogamy (hetero or homo), but what about polyandry?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*amused* I'm used to Solomon and his many wives being used as an argument against polygamy.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: *amused* I'm used to Solomon and his many wives being used as an argument against polygamy.
I'm with ya there sista!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Interesting, the famed "Song of Solomon" grew out of a polygynous marriage. Many people look upon it as awfully romantic.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*shrug* I look at it as a metaphor . . . but in any case, it is addressed to only ONE woman, is it not?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Read it again, Rivka, and you will see other ladies off in the wings.
I have seen others use it to justify multiple women in bed with a man. I so do not go for that.
[ March 09, 2004, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hmm. Ok, I'll have to look again. (It has been a while.) Can you point me at particular chapters and/or verses?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Synesthesia, while it is truthfully less common, I know of polyandrous groups out there. In fact, I can't remember the source now, but there was at one time an Asian culture that practiced polyandry fairly commonly. Not what you would expect, huh?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What about Abraham, Issac, and Jacob? Didn't all of them have more than one wife? The 12 tribes of Israel were born of Polygamous relationships. I think David and Solomon are used as examples of using poligamy for your own lusts (and then extended as an argument against poligamy altogether while ignoring the Patriarchs).
As for polygamy as less stable and equal than monogamy, the current institution of marriage isn't faring too hot either. All the problems I have heard polygamy causes happen just as much in monogamous relationships. Its not the system that is the problem, it is the people.
[ March 09, 2004, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: As the Bible's primary example of this consider the Song of Songs. This Bible book is the only Bible book exclusively written as a love story and as such is a unique Biblical statement defining the joys of marital love. In the Christian world the book is seen as a representation of Christ's love marriage to the Church. Of course, traditional Christians thus see the book through a decidedly monogamous lense. In terms of the relationship between Solomon and the Shulamite who are the principles of the story this is superficially justifiable. Their statements to and about each other reveal a deep and passionate union that most modern Christians would see as the Christian monogamy ideal.
Yet, we all know that Solomon had multiple wives - and did during the time of the relationship with the Shulamite as celebrated within the book that he wrote. In fact, within the book Solomon includes reference to his already many "queens" and "concubines" as part of the love story, saying:
"There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number. My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her." Songs 6:8, 9
Thus, Songs sees no conflict whatsoever between the integrity of Solomon's marriage to the Shulamite and his other existing marriages. In fact, the praise of the existing wives for the new bride is so easily brought into the story without disruption to the general theme of the love story between Solomon and his new bride that it is almost breathtaking when viewed from the modern perspective. Here no "polygamy conflict" is in view. It is just marriage brought into focus as viewed within Solomon's larger family.
From this website. If I find more info, I will post it.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I think it would set a dangerous precedent: if we legalize polygamy, next thing you know gays will use this as an argument to legitimize gay marriage.
Stay away from slippery slopes!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Occasional, Abraham took a second wife only when his first was barren AND told him to do so; Isaac had one wife; Jacob took his second wife when he was tricked out of marrying her in the first place, and third and fourth at the behest of the first and second. None was polygamous by original preference or as a preferred arrangement.
David was polygamous both as a political tool and by preference, but never to the excesses that Solomon took it.
beverly, that's more "off in the wings" then I thought you meant. Remember, most of Solomon's wives were for political reasons, or other reasons having little to do with a deep relationship. Only the Shulamite was his beloved -- and so one man and one woman is STILL seen as the ideal, even in Solomon's many-wived life.
IMO, of course. And as I said, I find Song of Songs far more beautiful on a metaphoric level.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
John L, I would like to see some evidence to back up your assertion that in the last century, the only polygamist marriages had unequal rights for women. All marriages in the 1800's had unequal rights for women so the only fair comparison is between women in monogomous marriages in the 1800s and women in polygamous relationships in the 1800s.
Study's of this nature have been done and do not support your contention\. All the evidence suggests that LDS women in polymist marriages in the 1800s were better educated, more independent, more likely to be involved in community, had fewer children and were in most ways more "equal" to men than women in monogomous relationships at the time.
This stands in stark contrast to women who participate in polymist sects today.
I can see no logical reason to legally prohibit polygamy as long as the women and men involved in the relationships are consenting adults and the men in the relationships are held to the same standards for child support as men who divorce one wife and marry another.
But then of course, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. Marriage has the unfortunate position of being both a religious/moral institution and a legal institution. Legally, marriage brings with it finanical and social rights and responsibilites, but it also carries a historic religious conotation which endows moral legitimacy to the sexual relationships within a marriage. From my perspective, the government does not and can not have the moral authority to decide what human relationships are legitimate and which are not. The morality and ethics of our personal relationships can not be decide by either majority vote or executive order. If we continue to allow the government to decide who can marry and who can not marry, we move what should be a personal and religious decision to the political realm. Both those who wish to protect the traditional ideal of marriage and those who want to see the legal rights associated with marriage extended to all commited adult relationships, stand to loose by politicizing the issue.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:Hmm. Ok, I'll have to look again. (It has been a while.) Can you point me at particular chapters and/or verses?
I just skimmed through shir hashirim, and I can see what beverly is talking about. In several places, the plural is used, which only makes sense, since Shir Hashirim is an allegory for the love between Hashem and Bnei Yisroel.
quote:What about Abraham, Issac, and Jacob? Didn't all of them have more than one wife?
Isaac had only one wife, and only the child that Abraham had with Sarah was the grandfather of the twelve tribes.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am not arguing that polygamy is an ideal. I am only arguing that there is nothing inherently wrong with it, if one uses the scriptures to condemn the practice.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But then of course, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business all together.
That is such a radical idea that it has taken me a while to wrap my mind around it. But the more I think about it, the less I think I would mind it.
But I cannot see it happening. What would motivate people to push for that?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Rivka, yes the references are somewhat obscure, and while I have searched I have not been able to find the website that linked Solomon's Song with a manage a troi (sp?) situation. I think it was even more obscure.
But there is much evidence in the Bible to suggest polygamy was a common practice and not much evidence to show God's disapproval of it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I believe that (Jewish) Scriptures are entirely consistent with viewing polygamy (or, more specifically, polygyny) as a sometimes-necessary-but-never-preferred practice. That is, not the ideal (nor all that common), but not considered problematic either -- unless you did as Solomon did.
Personally, my only concerns about the legalization of polygamy are legal/practical -- taxes, insurance benefits, inheritance, power of attorney, etc.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
There are several benefits to polygamy:
1. Economy of scale: if you ever shopped at Costco/Price Club, you know what I'm talking about.
2. Family values: It is more likely that a parent (man or woman) can stay home and look after the kids while the other parents worked.
3. Women's rights: Likewise, a woman can pursue her career knowing that her kids are being watched over by someone she trusts.
4. Men's rights (or Beren's fantasy): A man can pursue his dream of staying home to raise the kids, knowing that other members of the family can keep the family unit financially secure.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yes, Rivka, I agree. That could get problematic and messy, especially if someone attempted to live it on Solomon's scale!!
[ March 09, 2004, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
On a very personal note, as a single mother, I finally see the attraction of polygamy -- for reasons 2 and 3 that Beren listed above, mostly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What would motivate people to push for that?
Religious people who believe that homosexuality is a sin could be motivated to push for that by the realization that sooner or later they are likely to loose the fight to prevent same sex marriages and which will degrade what they view as a sacred institution.
Religious people who don't want to legitimize homosexuality but who want to see gay friends treated fairly under the law could be motivated to push for it.
Gay people who want equal treatment under the law could be motivated to push for it by the they are more likely to recieve equal rights if the legal issues are separated from the moral issues.
To me, it seems like the perfect compromise to what is becoming an ugly national debate. We should replace the legal institution of marriage, with an "Adult Domestic Partnership". Any two (or more) consenting adults who wished to accept the legal responsibilities associated with such a partnership, would be granted the rights of such a partnership. Marriage would then be left as a purely religious institution. Every religion would be free to decide what types of marriages they would endorse but their endorsement would have only moral standing, not legal standing.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
As an interesting side-note, from my own conversations most (or at least a large majority) of mainstream Mormons would NOT endorse making polygamy legal. The reasoning is no different than any other American on the issue.
Rabbit: on the othe hand I don't see the government getting out of it because of legal and financial issues marriages (and I consider any partnerships for sexual reasons as still marriage, even when you change the name) create.
[ March 09, 2004, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: Marriage would then be left as a purely religious institution. Every religion would be free to decide what types of marriages they would endorse but their endorsement would have only moral standing, not legal standing.
This is offensive to me as a nonreligious person. So because homosexual people want to marry, you want to take that away from even more people? To me, that seems like a 2 year old grabbing a toy away from someone else and yelling "mine!"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Personally, my only concerns about the legalization of polygamy are legal/practical -- taxes, insurance benefits, inheritance, power of attorney, etc.
Unfortunately, the legal institution of marriage is already inadequate to deal with these issues. Divorce, death, remarriage and non-marriage have already rendered "marriage" and inadequate institution for dealing with all the legal/practical issues that arise.
For example, if my husband is injured and runs up a million dollar medical bill, I am financially liable for that bill. Given that liability, it seems only fair that I should be able to get insurance benefits for him. I have a brother and sister in-law who are not legally married but have been living together over a decade. In California, she is able to get insurance benefits for him. Is it fair that she get these benefits with out accepting the responsibilities I bare as a legal wife? The familial relationships within our society have become very complex, enough so that there is already a field of family law. "Marriage" is no longer an adequate legal institution for our society -- lets return it to the churches where it belongs.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Rappin Ronny: As a non-religious person why do you want the government to endorse your marriage?
Perhaps I should have been more general than religion. I suppose that any Golf Club of Business could perform marriages as well.
quote: I consider any partnerships for sexual reasons as still marriage, even when you change the name.
But I want to do more than change the name. I want to change the idea that legal rights should be granted to people because their partnership is for sexual reasons. Legal rights should be granted to people because they are willing to assume legal and financial responsibility for each other. Whether or not their relationship is sexual should not come into the picture. The idea of the "Adult Domestic Partnership" is to create a legal status for any two (or more) adults who wish to assume the responsibility of "next of kin" for each other. To me the idea is compelling. It says that legal rights are granted because of legal responsibilities and not because of accidents of birth or sexual relations.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: As a non-religious person why do you want the government to endorse your marriage?
Because I see marriage as a union between two people who love each other enough to become one in the eyes of the law.
Religion doesn't own the word marriage. You can have a marriage without any religion being involved at all. And giving the name "Adult Domestic Partnership" to non-church marriages? I'm sorry, but that's incredibly condescending. So anyone who doesn't get married in a church isn't good enough for their relationship to be called a marriage?
If homosexual marriage weren't being debated or had already been outlawed, would you still want to get rid of government-sanctioned marriage?
quote: Perhaps I should have been more general than religion. I suppose that any Golf Club of Business could perform marriages as well.
You would let a GOLF CLUB but not government officials perform marriages?! There's something really wrong with that.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Some of the inequalities of polygamy seem to stem from the fact that these marriages consist of one man and multiple wives. Would group marriages (multiple men and women, all with equal status) be more acceptable? I'm talking about something like the families in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
I think if we ever do have polygamous or polyandrous marriages, it's important to make sure that everyone consents to the addition of a new member. A husband can't take another wife without the approval of the current wive(s), for example. And there should definitely be no children involved.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
No children involved? Why the hell not?
I can't see any reasons other than those that people use to oppose homosexual adoption-the possibility of the child being ostracized for the morality of their parents.
If we want to say that it's a lesser morality, I suppose keeping children out would be reasonable. But if we want to acknowledge that it's just a different morality, we should probably teach tolerance rather than punish group marriages.
Besides, I think the benefits of raising a child in a group would outweigh any possible injuries.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think she meant no children as spouses.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
That makes much sense, but I don't get that from her post.
If that's the case, though, I agree. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I don't see the government getting out of it because of legal and financial issues marriages
I agree with this -- as long as we have tax laws, public funding, etc which is based IN PART on things like marriage (a spouse can maybe get a benefit that someone NOT married to the person would not be entitled to), the government will always be involved in the definition of marriage. We have to file on our tax forms and say whether we are married, single, head of household, etc.
So it's a money thing.
If the government tried to step totally out of the marriage picture altogther, and allow an "anything goes" mentality -- then people could put down their favorite dog as their spouse, etc. After all, there would be no definition of marriage at all to prohibit that. Then said dog could get benefits....
FG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If the government tried to step totally out of the marriage picture altogther, and allow an 'anything goes' mentality..."
I see no reason why the government couldn't say, "anything goes, as long as all the parties involved consent."
As animals, objects, and children cannot grant consent, this eliminates most of the obvious objections.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:But I want to do more than change the name. I want to change the idea that legal rights should be granted to people because their partnership is for sexual reasons. Legal rights should be granted to people because they are willing to assume legal and financial responsibility for each other. Whether or not their relationship is sexual should not come into the picture. The idea of the "Adult Domestic Partnership" is to create a legal status for any two (or more) adults who wish to assume the responsibility of "next of kin" for each other.
Sweet, Rabbit. That's the most well-thought-out thesis I've seen on the topic.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
There has been some concern voiced about children entering into polygamous marriages. I have been concerned about this also. I know this often happens amongst Fundamentalist Mormons, and my theory is that it has to do with their attitude about polygamy. They generally believe that polygamy is essential for exaltation, whereas mainstream LDS believe that simple marriage is the requirement. Fundamentalist Mormons interpret "The New and Everlasting Covenant" as being plural marriage, and does not exist without it. To them, sealed marriages do not exist without it.
Sooooo, you have a society of people all scrounging to snatch up wives because they believe it is necessary to their goal. So what happens? Not enough women to go around. Pretty soon they are snatching up young girls the moment they reach menses, eagerly awaiting each one.
I personally think this is one of the reasons why God felt it was a good idea to give His Saints a reprieve from the whole practice: they were abusing it. It makes sense to me, in my cynical mind, misery loves company. If a certain percentage of the people are living polygamous, they are going to start thinking that they are better than those who don't, and everyone needs to be living it. There will be pressure, etc. yadda yadda yadda. I don't think God ever intended for His people to ALL be having polygamous marriages, but to look at Fundamentalist Mormons, they sure believe that way.
A lot of this is my personal opinion and won't make much sense to someone not of my faith. Sorry about that.
[ March 09, 2004, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
One more possible benefit of polygamy:
I have seen many people state that a lot of people getting married and having kids just aren't ready and shouldn't be doing it yet. Maybe they are right. A polygamous or polyandrous society would allow those that are ready for marriage to get married without ever having to resort to marrying those that are not ready yet. For example, in a polygamous society, guys would have to work hard to attract a mate because the dating pool for the women would include not just the single guys, but also the great guys that are already married.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
But that's still making the same-old "separate but equal" compromise, which I already commented on ad nauseum. Separate but equal is not really equal at all. If it were, then we'd have "separate but equal" marriages already, where non-religious and alternate-lifestyle individuals (outside of homosexuality... there are many "alternate" lifestyles) don't have the same "marriage" as the religious crowd. But those types of people do right now. Why single out homosexuality as the reason for "separate but equal" with marriage, when there are already sinful people (according to various doctrines) getting married and using the same name, same recognition, and same privileges? In other words, if this is just another attempt to "take back" the word marriage for religion, why has it not been done already?
I would posit that it's because in its current state, religious institutions have a comfortable scenario where they can not claim the word marriage for couples who either fail at marriage or are sinful according to their doctrines, and they don't have to admit that there are just people who get married for non-religious reasons (or for reasons outside of anything to do with religion). In this case, religious institutions don't have to admit that marriage doesn't belong to them, because once something is made known that is contrary to their doctrine, it's easy to shrug off as "oh, they were different people" or "that was before they changed and learned what it really meant." Such excuses have been used on this very forum, regarding the incredibly huge divorce rate among Protestant Christians. Religious institutions get to recognize the marriage without having to admit that they have no final say on who can marry, and then when something goes wrong, they can blame the individuals involved for not being adherent to their faith. The difference with homosexual marriage is that it wouldn't be able to be ignored by religious institutions as being outside of their realm of influence, which would make the institutions have to admit they don't have (and haven't for a long time) the final say on who can or cannot marry. In other words, it would force the "churches" (meaning institutions) to finally admit something that has been so for quite a long time, but has existed in a more comfortable (and convenient) form for them. If there's any reason to feel threatened, that's the biggest. Religious institutions are very used to being the final authority on Earth to their members, and a sign that their authority does not extend to those outside of their religions is threatening to those institutions. And it's scary to many members, since their institution feeling threatened in any way is met with claims of attack and persecution (real or, more often, imagined).
A non-LDS heterosexually married couple may not have been sealed in temple, but there is still the "hope" that those people will convert (thus be "made whole") and then be sealed; with homosexual marriages, this is a hope that is not possible. With non-Baptist or non-Pentecostal married heterosexual couples, they may not have been "born again" and baptized by a minister from that denomination, but the hope still remains that they can be converted (thus be "made new/whole") and baptized; with homosexual marriage, this is not a possibility. It is much the same with Catholicism, other Christian denominations, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, and Judaism—while the hope of conversion and completion is possible for non-members that are heterosexual, it's impossible for homosexual marriages to convert (and remain homosexually married). This means the church(es) can never give the final blessing on the marriage, even if it's done post-hoc. This means that the church(es) would have to admit that they are not required to give the final blessing on marriages any more, even though they haven't been required to do so for a very long time. After all, do churches have to give the final blessing in marriage to atheist couples, couples who do not follow dietary, traditional, or ritual laws today? Only according to followers of whatever faith is claiming it, not non-members.
Am I the only one who sees the double-standard in that? Or is everyone of different faiths here going to openly and honestly let those of other faiths know that their marriages are not sanctified and blessed according to their God?
[ March 09, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Avoiding all political/religious arguments, I have one point to make against polygamous relationships (at least with those that would include multiple females):
"Cat fights."
Now, I'm being completely serious here. The amount of bickering between the females at my job is staggering. I can't imagine what a home-life enviroment would produce. I realize you all are talking in theory about "responsible, consenting adults," but I honestly don't think I could name one girl I know IRL who wouldn't get into it with another co-habitating female in such a relationship. And I certainly wouldn't want to handle it as the male (not that I can even handle one woman at a time ).
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Which is why group marriages would be better.
More men to pull the women apart.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Actually, Godric, there are plenty of people who cohabitate in just those conditions already. Suneun even pointed out to me off this thread that there is indeed an online convergence of like-minded people on the subject (and I thank her for showing me... I knew they existed, but never thought about online supportive communities). My only problem with them is that I have seen no example that has lasted as long as a successful marriage, and as far as I know, even the most successful don't get beyond 5-10 years (there are always exceptions to the rule, though). So, I'm not saying that there aren't polyamourous relationships already existant in the world (and, as I said off this thread, I don't think they are any less "real" or caring), but they don't seem to have the longevity of monogomous relationships.
Maybe that will change over time. If it does, I'm open to that possibility. However, what about custody in the event someone wants to leave this aggreement? How would alimony or restitution be paid if one or all decide to "divorce?" There are a whole lot of unanswered questions as far as perpetrating and the possible resurgence of inequality that keep me skeptical, aside from the lack of a strong percentage of lasting relationships.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Interesting that while arguing against polygamy, people are prone to saying that "Polygamists have sex with CHILDREN!"
These are the same people that freak out when homosexuality is linked with pedophilia
I love this debate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Concerning "cat fights" --
When the early Mormons practiced polygamy, my understanding is that it was very common (although not universal) for each wife to have her own home where she raised her own children. That certainly would keep down the friction, but it would also keep down the father's participation in the lives of his children in the various households.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have some knowledge of how poygamy is currently being lived in Wyoming.
Up in Lovell, WY, there are a lot of polygamous households. This is mostly because the county government has decided to not prosecute anybody about it, so a lot of people that want to live like that have moved out there. In fact, a polygamous homestead neighbors my grandfather's farm.
This has caused some serious problems for the county. The welfare toll has been enormous. In general, the people that want to live polygamy also want to have lots of kids, and the wife (wives) tend to be housewives. So you end up many times with a blue-collar worker trying to support 5 wives and 25 children. That just isn't going to happen. So they all go on welfare. Although the polygamous percentage of the county is relatively small, they use a large portion of the countie's budget up in welfare.
And to address Leto's concern, these relationships are not short-lived. They are as long-lived as binary marriages.
Here's a sad story. A good friend of my aunt married a girl that was raised in a polygamous family. She said that she didn't want anything to do with polygamy, and neither did he. They got married in the LDS temple. Five years later, she told him that either he had to find himself another wife (polygamous) or she would leave him. He did find another wife, and they both got excommunicated from the LDS Church.
edit: I don't know any of this first-hand. This comes from the experiences my family members living up there have related to me.
[ March 09, 2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
When the LDS church condoned polygamy, they got around the welfare issue by only asking the most stable and successful men to participate in the practice. You were never expected to take on a second wife unless you could afford to support her.
One could argue that the only thing making life hard for polygamists is the fact that the government DOESN'T take the same kind of active role in their management, and legalization could help establish better standards and support for them Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Interesting that while arguing against polygamy, people are prone to saying that "Polygamists have sex with CHILDREN!"
These are the same people that freak out when homosexuality is linked with pedophilia
Just can't stay away from the snarky remarks, can you, Geoff?
It's the inequality and lack of choice that is the problem. The pedophilia is only an applicable example in current and historical (Western History, AFAIK) examples. When the shoe actually fits, eh? The difference would be that while some pedophiles have been homosexuals (though not nearly all), all current polygamist "marriages" in the US involve children.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
"Man Sharing" is already largely a reality in the African American community. I read an article by an Islamic scholar about how by not legalizing polygamy we are causing so many of our people to sin.
I think this argument has two vastly different vectors. One is "gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because polygamy is not." The other is "if gay marriage is allowed, so should be polygamy." They sound like they are the same argument, but they are not.
The first is saying "Our country has already defined marriage as one man and one woman".
The second is saying "there shouldn't be any rules."
I agree with the first. If the second becomes an issue, I say "separate but equal" will then apply to married vs. unmarried people, and that the legal institution of marriage should be abolished.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The difference would be that while some pedophiles have been homosexuals (though not nearly all), all current polygamist "marriages" in the US involve children.
Leto, am I understanding you? Are you saying that all current polygamist relationships in the US involve marrying underage girls? I know for a FACT that is completely false.
In fact, I would be willing to bet that most of them don't when you take into account the number of non-Fundamentalist Mormons practicing it. I have NEVER heard of any of them marrying underage girls. You need to do some more research. The reason why Fundamentalis Mormons tend to marry underaged girls is addressed in one of my earlier posts. You can find it, it's just a few posts up.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: It is much the same with Catholicism, other Christian denominations, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, and Judaism (emphasis mine)
Judaism doesn't want converts, and views marriages among non-Jews (religious or not) as fully binding.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
What if we have additional rules regulating multiple partner marriages?
1. Age of consent for such marriage is raised to 21. Consent must come from the individual getting married. Parentl consent does not count.
2. Adding an additional spouse to a marriage requires the consent of all spouses in the marriage.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Adding an additional spouse to a marriage requires the consent of all spouses in the marriage.
This was always supposed to be the case in the LDS church's official practice of polygamy. Or I guess it was more like the first wife gave permission, and then subsequent wives, by virtue of being plural themselves, understood that additional future wives were part of the deal.
Of course, the descendants of Joseph Smith and his first wife maintain that he never was married to anyone else, and it's apparent there were some she didn't know about. So that could have been done better.
I don't think polyandry is going to be as popular as polygyny, somehow.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd just like to point out, Geoff, that I don't believe pedophilia to be a behavior inherent to polygamy, and neither do I see anything inherently wrong with polygamy. Of course, as pooka points out, I also think the legal institution of marriage should be abolished and replaced with corporations, so YMMV. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:
quote: Adding an additional spouse to a marriage requires the consent of all spouses in the marriage.
This was always supposed to be the case in the LDS church's official practice of polygamy. Or I guess it was more like the first wife gave permission, and then subsequent wives, by virtue of being plural themselves, understood that additional future wives were part of the deal.
Actually, that's not qute what Beren was saying. In The Moon Is a Harsh Mistriss and Friday by Heinlein, in order to be married to the group, every member of that group has to agree to marry you. If even one spouse votes against it, then it doesn't happen. They didn't have to agree to just the idea of more partners but to the specific partner.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Leto, am I understanding you? Are you saying that all current polygamist relationships in the US involve marrying underage girls? I know for a FACT that is completely false.
In fact, I would be willing to bet that most of them don't when you take into account the number of non-Fundamentalist Mormons practicing it. I have NEVER heard of any of them marrying underage girls. You need to do some more research. The reason why Fundamentalis Mormons tend to marry underaged girls is addressed in one of my earlier posts. You can find it, it's just a few posts up.
Proof? Considering the only widely known polygamists are the fundementalist Mormons (even though they are not considered Mormon by the official LDS church AFAIK), it would seem you have a burden of proof.
And nowhere did I say that polygamy equaled pedophilia. I said that it incorporated marriage of young girls more often than not, which is true. That didn't change Geoff's dismissal.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I said that it incorporated marriage of young girls more often than not
No, you said:
quote: The difference would be that while some pedophiles have been homosexuals (though not nearly all), all current polygamist "marriages" in the US involve children.
Leto, I'm sorry, but you are fading out here. Your arguments are among the most emotional, illogical, and flawed on this very classy forum.
You want proof? Look it up.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Judaism doesn't want converts, and views marriages among non-Jews (religious or not) as fully binding.
Binding as in endorse by your g-d? Or just legally binding outside of your church? While I would be one of the first gentiles to freely admit the Jewish church has far more of a "hands off" approach toward the idea of separation of church and state, I just can't believe (without adequate proof) that it is doctrinally given that non-Jewish marriages are endorsed by your g-d.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Leto, I'm sorry, but you are fading out here. Your arguments are among the most emotional, illogical, and flawed on this very classy forum
Then ignore me. You already misquoted me:
quote:In the last century, the only polygamist marriages had unequal rights for women. Look at all the polygamists in the nation these days: an older man married to one or two women and four children.
Can you give examples to the contrary? You give me zero reason to just "take your word for it."
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
And seriously, people, these threads have become more about arguing the validity of LDS doctrine at almost every turn. I'll be honest with you: it's really damn annoying. I am not LDS, nor do I have any desire to be. It's downright insulting to have "you aren't LDS, so you wouldn't understand" used in an argument (or the convoluted equivocation thereof) when it has nothing to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to begin with. This is about religious law trying to trump secular law in the secular realm. This is not about the secular law trying to force religious law to change, nor is it about any specific faith.
Every single thread becomes either a semantical battle over what is LDS or what is Christian, and it's Pretty Damn Annoying (and insulting).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'll post an example to the contrary. This is quoted from above:
quote: Here's a sad story. A good friend of my aunt married a girl that was raised in a polygamous family. She said that she didn't want anything to do with polygamy, and neither did he. They got married in the LDS temple. Five years later, she told him that either he had to find himself another wife (polygamous) or she would leave him. He did find another wife, and they both got excommunicated from the LDS Church.
These 3 people were all in their 20s -- none old, none children.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
probably not for kids, though not pornographic in any way (no nudity, just adult topic)
[ March 09, 2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Misquoted?
My only knowledge of it comes from the internet. I have read the polygamy "stories" of many different families out of interest and fascination. The people involved were all approximately the same age. They usually weren't Fundamentalist Mormons, though, that is another story altogether. So in order to believe your sweeping generalization, I would have to believe those were all fabrications.
I don't feel terribly motivated to look them all up when you could do it just as well. Or if you are really google-intollerant, I could give you some links.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Every single thread becomes either a semantical battle over what is LDS or what is Christian, and it's Pretty Damn Annoying (and insulting).
Are we reading the same forum? There have been theological discussions on the sides, usually with people other than you. Few of the comments made to you talk about doctrinal issues.
Few semantical ones in this thread either.
[ March 09, 2004, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Unless of course I missed something where John L was explicitly limiting multiple partner "marriages" to those conducted by LDS Fundamentalists for religious purposes, but as far as I can tell, he was merely limited in his knowledge, not his definition. Forgive me if I missed something but I'm kinda skimming here...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Um, I want to apologize. My husband tells me I am sounding downright catty about this, that I am making it personal. I think I am. This has become personal for me, just an old "ghost" popping up from my past. I think I just need to drop this.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Indeed. Me too. I'm done with the argument because I'm getting increasingly more insulted, and reacting accordingly.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I brought up African American man sharing. :smiling helpfully:
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I want to be the Queen Bee of a hive. Lots of drones to keep me happy, lots of workers to do the tough stuff.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
*post deleted due to unexpected attack of better judgement*
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I think the Rabbit is completely right about this. Separate the legal from the moral considerations completely. Make legal rights be contingent on legal responsibilities.
My ideas about the moral side of this are not set. I am not sure what I think. Probably never having been married is one reason for my lack of understanding. But I can clearly see the advantages of polyandry. I think two, or perhaps three, husbands would be the perfect number. I also like Heinlein's lineal marriages in tMiaHM. It does seem like making a real partnership, becoming one flesh, with one person being as difficult as it is, then more spouses would only multiply the difficulties. But I have no doubt that some people could manage it, and be blessed thereby.
I feel like it may be true that in our embodied state here on earth, we simply don't have the time and resources of attention and love that would be necessary to do that well. That in able to be a really good wife to one man, it may be I must forgo trying to be that for two. In heaven, things may be different. But what I feel sure is true is that there is no inequality in heaven. If men can have more than one wife in heaven, then I'm sure it's true that women can have more than one husband.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But what I feel sure is true is that there is no inequality in heaven.
Me too. *loves anne kate*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Isn't it a Mormon belief that there are different degrees of heaven depending on what one believed in life?
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
aka, assuming (improperly, of course) that you are coming from an orthodox Christian viewpoint (though not necessarily an Orthodox Christian one, if that change in captialization makes sense), Jesus explicitly says that people will neither marry nor be given in marriage in heaven. My own interpretation of that is that we will all be so intimately unified in heaven that the concept of Marriage would be so universal as to be pointless-- it would apply to everyone, not any particular pair.
If dkw is around, she could maybe give us a different take on the idea... but to my inexperienced eye, the standard Christian heaven is a large group marriage where everyone is too occupied with ecstasy to bother about sex.
I know Mormons, obivously, view this a bit differently, and know next to nothing about other religious views.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
That doesn't seem to follow, unless every religion that lays down different rules for genders on Earth is wrong. Doesn't it follow that if a god requires different things of different genders on Earth than that god will in heaven as well? Unless souls are genderless. In which case religions that teach that those that die married live on married forever ought to support gay marriage because genders are only a fleeting thing and all souls are equal.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
As a mormon I am not sure how to view sexual identity. One thing that stands out in my study of psychology, physiology, and molecular biology is the concept that gender is a continuum and not a stage.
Meaning we are all concieved female, and then at one point, a certain hormone kicks in, if you are male, and STARTS to develop male sexual organs.
Now, if all goes as traditionally thought of as well, then you get a male baby. But a lot of times development stops on that continuum and you have a range of people that have both genders, one primary gender and one secondary gender, or one expressed gender and one hidden gender.
There are plenty of cases where if there is a question (it is often easier to make a girl) to a definative gender, then hormon therapy and a little *snip* Snip* will "fix" the problem.
That being said, I have a problem believing that there are male and female spirits in the spirit world (pre or post life) without allowing for transgendered spirits. Any thoughts on how Mormons justify that?
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I really don't know. I think that spiritual gender must not correspond exactly with the gender of physical bodies, because of exactly what you note. Physical bodies don't always fall neatly into one or the other.
The verse about there being no marriage in heaven, is by we LDS interpreted as meaning that marriage must take place here. But what is bound on earth by God's authorized representative remains bound in heaven. So we do believe marriages and family ties still exist after death.
As for there being no sex in heaven. How can it be heaven with no sex? I mean really!
Seriously, I think there is a spiritual counterpart to everything in physical existence. That the material is a sort of shadow of, or substrate for, the spiritual. So, just as our bodies will be perfected, so will our marriages and family relationships, including sexual relationships. That we will have learned by then how to achieve all these things with perfect love and joy, and with complete innocence and purity.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I think I reconcile a lot of uncertainties by realizing that we are, as spiritual beings, very limited as yet. There is so much that we can't fully understand yet, because of our lack of development. I do believe completely in eternal progression, and I know that I, for one, have a long long way to go before I could be considered at all Christlike. So I try not to sweat overly much about stuff I don't really understand yet. I hold all these things in abeyance. I make provisional decisions, using my best judgement, and trying always to pick the most loving path. To me it's clear that love is the primary thing. So I'm working hardest on that right now. Maybe in a few aeons I will be able to give my full attention to these other questions, and have more to say about them. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: As a mormon I am not sure how to view sexual identity. One thing that stands out in my study of psychology, physiology, and molecular biology is the concept that gender is a continuum and not a stage.
So you're not familiar with the proclamation on the Family? That's a big surprise for a self described Faithful Mormon like yourself.
Fugu- yes, we believe that only those who go to the Celestial Kingdom will have marriage after death, and that the highest sub-degree of the Celestial Kingdom you have to be married to progress. Because eventually (not necessarily right away) such people will have spirit children of their own. A lot of days I am not entirely certain I have the desire or the guts to face that.
On which note, if there is equality in heaven, the men will catch up on labor and delivery pain? Just joshing anne kate and kat.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Equality doesn't mean being identical. But it does mean equal. I'm fascinated.
*IS aware of the Proclamation on the Family*
[ March 10, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You paint a beautiful picture have heaven, pooka. Rows of men screaming from the pain of childbirth and women lined up to get kicked repeatedly in the nuts.
Sign me up for that ride!
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Pooka It is obvious from: "So you're not familiar with the proclamation on the Family? That's a big surprise for a self described Faithful Mormon like yourself. ": that you don't believe I am a faithful mormon. That is ok. I am. (<---didn't mean to plagiarize .
I never said I was not aware of the proclamation. I am aware of the proclamation, THAT is my point. The proclamation is an example of where I find a discrepency between the authority of the church and what I feel is right.
I have not vested enough faith in the institution of the church or the leadership to the point I can make myself believe everything that is published in the church name has no faults.
To me the proclamation stands at odds with my understanding of biology. My mistake was in assuming other mormons felt the same discrepency. I had already assumed you felt the discrepency and was asking how you came to terms with "we all have a gender in heaven" and "gender is a continuum."
Do other faithful mormons believe that our spirit is either male or female, and if development stops at a certain stage, the ressurection will "fix" it? Or, are there mormons who believe that there is a continuum of gender in the spirit world? Or are there other beliefs with regard to spiritual gender. I wanted a feel for how mormons make that work in their own minds.
For me, I think that either there is no gender in heaven (which makes sense to me intellectually, but does'nt feel right) OR that gender is a continuum, and someone who doesn't fit into the Male/Female role, will have a spirit that reflects their body (which feels right but doesn't sound right).
But I do not think it is right or feel it is right that we are either Male or Female and our spirits will relect our TRUE gender and the resuurection will fix us. In Taiwan, and other asian cultures, transgender is seen as a blessing. For me to call that "wrong" doesn't sit well with me.
Hence, my desire to see if I was the only one who felt the way I do, or if having these thougths places me at too much at odds with churhc doctrine.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I'm sure you're NOT the only LDS person that feels the way you do about this issue. However, I still think it is a pretty radical position to take, based solely on scripture. Add modern statements such as the Proclamation, and it's downright unorthodox.
I think it is safe to say that Mormon doctrine is pretty clear on the existence of exactly two genders, both in the pre-mortal life and in the eternities after death. It begins with "Male and Female created He them" and goes straight through "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord," and on and on from there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you are sincerely looking for a place to discuss this with other LDS, the Cards have the www.nauvoo.com forum.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
But I like the fact that we're discussing it here, too. I am a a faithful Mormon, and I too think that something is uncertain in the continuum vs. exactly two thing. Because it's not a question that directly applies to my situation, I don't feel it to be a major difficulty for my own self, though I really do look forward to the church accepting gay and transgender members. I think we're missing a lot of worthy and wonderful people right now, and I don't think that situation will last forever.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, I think it's fine for here. There are just more Mormons over there, and if you're looking for a range of reactions, it would be helpful.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Dallin Oaks said that a lot of things will be fixed in the ressurection, but you never can be sure, so do your best and have faith. That's a paraphrase.
By saying there are exactly two genders does not mean that the most exaggerated and stereotypical features of gender are the eternal ones. If you think of the continuum that does exist culturally, picture the outer ends and the middle part as being normalized to the middle of each side.
I think many homosexuals are hyper-gendered more than transgendered. Coming from my theory that it's more about excluding the opposite sex than including your own. But I don't know how this got turned into a gay thread.
edit: I removed the last paragraph, but I don't think anyone read it.
[ March 10, 2004, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Gender, sexuality, and sex are three different things which do not always correlate.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Of course they do, fugu. Where do you get your crazy ideas from?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
I'll chime in with my quarter. I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I've had some thoughts, I'll share.
I think legalization of gay marriage legitimizes polygamy from a strict generalist logical point of view. "consenting adults will do as they are want to do..." with the obvious caveat that a polygamous society (historically speaking) is a patriarchal one where women don't get much of a say in the arrangements.
acknowledging that age of consent/good-decision-making is fairly arbitrary in our laws and difficult to legislate, it's hard to accept an argument against polygamy for consenting mature adults.
the logic of social interaction isn't the difficulty, it's the definition of the terms involved. ... I think.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Remember, most of Solomon's wives were for political reasons, or other reasons having little to do with a deep relationship. Only the Shulamite was his beloved -- and so one man and one woman is STILL seen as the ideal, even in Solomon's many-wived life.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
IMO, of course. And as I said, I find Song of Songs far more beautiful on a metaphoric level.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).
![[Confused]](confused.gif)