posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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!"
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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....
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ).
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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 Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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...
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. Me too. I'm done with the argument because I'm getting increasingly more insulted, and reacting accordingly.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
