| Author |
Topic:
Polygamy
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/5 9:00pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
Group marriages would be polygamy, just as much as polygyny, which is one man having multiple wives.
Any variant of polygamy is fair game in here.
Monkhouse posted:
There was an old fellow of Lyme
Who lived with three wives at one time.
When asked, 'Why the third?'
He replied, 'One’s absurd,
and bigamy, sir, is a crime.'
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
AnakinsGirl
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
5/5 9:15pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
Well polygamy by definition is a male who is married to two or more females.
I had an interesting conversation with an older friend the other day about group marriages. I think group marriages or ploygamy gets sort of a "bad rap" because of the crazy mormon weirdos that marry 14 year old girls and have babies with their daughters, but this is not the only form of group marriage out there. It doesn't always have to mean male dominance, brainwashing, or forced marriage.
My friend was telling me about how she and her partner viewed a group marriage as a more positive, life-enriching experience in which a group of consenting adults willingly entered into a partnership. That could mean two men and two women, two mean and three or four wives...my friend is bisexual (mostly of the girl persuasion) and so her idea of a group marriage is one in which she AND her partner would engage in a healthy sexual relationship with one or more other females. To her, the traditional marriage style is outdated as it was developed mostly for political and economic purposes in the first place. In today's society, in which people have the freedom to marry for love and not because of political or family alliances or because a woman MUST marry in order to be supported economically, why can't we redefine what marriage means for us on an individual basis?
I can see the problem with these closed religious societies that force their daughters into marrying men three times their age because their view is that a woman's job is to "serve her husband" and make babies, but not all ploygamists or advocates of group marriages even remotely mirror this situation.
If the participants are consenting adults, do you think it should still be outlawed? Why or why not?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Zahn Kenobi
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
5/5 9:42pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
AnakinsGirl posted:
Well polygamy by definition is a male who is married to two or more females.
I had an interesting conversation with an older friend the other day about group marriages. I think group marriages or ploygamy gets sort of a "bad rap" because of the crazy mormon weirdos that marry 14 year old girls and have babies with their daughters, but this is not the only form of group marriage out there. It doesn't always have to mean male dominance, brainwashing, or forced marriage.
Many of my triple-great and quadruple-great ancestors were "crazy mormon weirdos" who practiced the "principle of plural marriage". The weirdest was probably quadruple-great Grandpa Richard Jenkins Davis, who married one girl who was 19 while he was in his sixties (his fourth wife).
However, she wasn't 14. And furthermore, not even the FLDS have babies with their daughters. There's never been any evidence of that (to my knowledge). One sect which has extremely strange sexual practices is the Kingston Clan (also called the Latter-day Church of Christ), and even then, I don't even know if any of the incest was between father and daughter, and it seemed mostly to consist of uncle/niece.
"crazy mormon weirdos" don't have babies with their daughters. The LDS polygamists back when the Salt Lake City branch practiced it were consenting adults.
You're unfairly maligning 14 million people (all Latter Day Saint sects) when you say "crazy mormon weirdos", only a very small fraction of whom practice deviant polygamy and brainwashing. You're also unfairly maligning my ancestors, who did practice polygamy but in a manner vastly inconsistent with the evils and excesses of Rulon Jeffs and his son.
And to answer your question, no, I don't believe that it's strictly wrong. One thing I would like to see is the removal of marriage as a government institution. Then the gays could get married and be happy and the polygamists could get married and be happy and no one would be able to whine. If a man wants to take another wife, and the first wife is consenting, that's their business, not mine.
-----signature-----
War Monger/Caribou Barbie '08  o sanctissima deipara, salva nos!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/5 10:12pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
AnakinsGirl posted:
Well polygamy by definition is a male who is married to two or more females.
No, people usually only associate it with that, but by definition, its just more than one marriage. Poly being many, and gamy being marriage or mate.
AnakinsGirl posted:
I had an interesting conversation with an older friend the other day about group marriages. I think group marriages or ploygamy gets sort of a "bad rap" because of the crazy mormon weirdos that marry 14 year old girls and have babies with their daughters, but this is not the only form of group marriage out there. It doesn't always have to mean male dominance, brainwashing, or forced marriage.
Mormon teachings, at this point, put a 'no' on polygamy. As it was explained to me by a friend of mine, much of it had to deal with the time at which the LDS church was formed and was relocating, both in that marriage was considered important spiritually (things like eternal marriage) and practically when it came to protection. So you also did have cases of older women being in these marriages where there was nothing sexual tied to it. Not saying it wasn't abused then, but was of a different nature.
AnakinsGirl posted:
If the participants are consenting adults, do you think it should still be outlawed? Why or why not?
I think what consenting adults choose to do is up to them when its not harming others. Absolutely think there's nothing wrong with polygamy of any fashion so long as its consenting and informed adults.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Zahn Kenobi
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
5/5 10:30pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
- Date Edited:
5/5 10:34pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Obi-Zahn Kenobi
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
Mormon teachings, at this point, put a 'no' on polygamy. As it was explained to me by a friend of mine, much of it had to deal with the time at which the LDS church was formed and was relocating, both in that marriage was considered important spiritually (things like eternal marriage) and practically when it came to protection. So you also did have cases of older women being in these marriages where there was nothing sexual tied to it. Not saying it wasn't abused then, but was of a different nature.
Well, for example, of the 33 women to whom Joseph Smith, Jr. was sealed, he only had children with one (Emma Hale Smith, his first wife). It would appear that many of his marriages were eternal sealings, but he did not live with these wives in any normal fashion. Whereas Brigham Young, and many of the LDS leaders in the 19th Century did openly live with many wives and had children in these relationships.
Of course, there are a number of women who are listed as Brigham Young's wives who were married to him at a young age, but no children were produced from these, and they were "divorced" also at a young age when they married other men. In the early days of Mormonism, when a woman was "sealed" to a man, it didn't always imply an earthly marriage, and sometimes it did not imply even an eternal marriage (Latter-day Saints also practice sealing between family members, and many of these early sealings may have essentially been familial sealings).
Oh, a termonology lesson: When two Latter-day Saints are married in the temple, then they are said to be "sealed". Generally, these sealings are done for time (the remainder of their lives) and eternity (the relationship is continued in the afterlife). Many of the early marriages in Mormonism were likely sealings only for eternity, and thus there did not exist an actual sexual or even necessarily romantic relationship (although why you would want to be sealed for eternity to someone you don't have the same relationship on earth with is beyond me). Families are also sealed together for eternity.
This results in some confusion when it comes to the term "sealing" and "marriage", as the two are often used interchangeably, but are still distinct in meaning.
-----signature-----
War Monger/Caribou Barbie '08 o sanctissima deipara, salva nos!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
AnakinsGirl
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
5/5 11:46pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
okay okay okay: let me rephrase what I mean here. I said "crazy mormon weirdos" because the people above me were talking about the extremist groups of mormons that live in obscurity and practice polygamy, often with young women not of consenting age. I am by no means trying to imply that every mormon is a polygamist. I know full well that the average mormon is against it, and that this institution only exists in small extremist factions. Keep in mind I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with my expression. I also read an article by a woman who lived in one of these communities who related the experience of her father and grandfather having raped her.
And yes, I am fully aware that polygamy is a common practice in many cultures, both today and in the past. I am not implying that if you are a man married to many women you are automatically a "crazy mormon weirdo". Obviously. I will save my sarcasm for another thread I guess.
And according to my Anthropology class, Polygamy specifically refers to a man with multiple wives. Not that I am being argumentative, it doesn't really matter, I am just clarifying why I said that earlier.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/6 12:13am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
Well, its clarification over a general misconception that is spread too often. Id differentiate between mormon jokes, and someone actually believing that... and unfortunitely too many people do believe that stuff.
Its a bit trickier online, and with someone newer, to know if its a joke or serious view.
And regarding your anthropology class... well, your anthropology class is wrong.... Im defining this purely off what the word ACTUALLY means. It is too often used wrongly in that sense.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Zahn Kenobi
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
5/6 12:26am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
AnakinsGirl posted:
okay okay okay: let me rephrase what I mean here. I said "crazy mormon weirdos" because the people above me were talking about the extremist groups of mormons that live in obscurity and practice polygamy, often with young women not of consenting age. I am by no means trying to imply that every mormon is a polygamist. I know full well that the average mormon is against it, and that this institution only exists in small extremist factions. Keep in mind I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with my expression. I also read an article by a woman who lived in one of these communities who related the experience of her father and grandfather having raped her.
And yes, I am fully aware that polygamy is a common practice in many cultures, both today and in the past. I am not implying that if you are a man married to many women you are automatically a "crazy mormon weirdo". Obviously. I will save my sarcasm for another thread I guess.
And according to my Anthropology class, Polygamy specifically refers to a man with multiple wives. Not that I am being argumentative, it doesn't really matter, I am just clarifying why I said that earlier.
For one, it was one woman (I am familiar with the account). I am not saying her story is a lie, it is just not necessarily representative, universally or generally, of what actually goes on in the FLDS community.
Polygamy refers to marriage with multiple spouses.
Polygyny refers to a man married to multiple wives.
Polyandry refers to a woman married to multiple men.
Both polyandry and polygyny are forms of polygamy.
Those are the proper definitions.
-----signature-----
War Monger/Caribou Barbie '08 o sanctissima deipara, salva nos!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
AnakinsGirl
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
5/6 3:56am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
Obi-Zahn Kenobi posted:
For one, it was one woman (I am familiar with the account). I am not saying her story is a lie, it is just not necessarily representative, universally or generally, of what actually goes on in the FLDS community.
Polygamy refers to marriage with multiple spouses.
Polygyny refers to a man married to multiple wives.
Polyandry refers to a woman married to multiple men.
Both polyandry and polygyny are forms of polygamy.
Those are the proper definitions.
Thank you for the clarification of definitions. Shows how much I studied in my anthropology class! I also am too lazy to just Google the definitions, haha!
And yes, it was one woman's account, but note that I was largely being facetious in my previous post about "crazy mormon weirdos". But you're right. One cannot generalize about the whole institution based on a single story.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/6 6:02am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
This whole thing kinda pisses me off. Look, people can live how they want. I don't really care. But I think that the government should only recognize a marriage between one man and one woman.
Marriage has already been cheapened enough! Look, even though I am married I still have to will everything to my wife and have a living will. Why? Isn't marriage supposed to clarify these issues? Other than not having to tesify against my spouse and a slightly different tax bracket, what does a marriage do for a couple anymore?
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
king_alvarez
Registered:
May '07
|
Date Posted:
5/6 6:53am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
J-Rod posted:
Other than not having to tesify against my spouse and a slightly different tax bracket, what does a marriage do for a couple anymore?
This is an honest question, not directed specifically at you but at everyone in general. What should marriage do for a couple?
-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/6 8:08am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
king_alvarez posted:
J-Rod posted:
Other than not having to tesify against my spouse and a slightly different tax bracket, what does a marriage do for a couple anymore?
This is an honest question, not directed specifically at you but at everyone in general. What should marriage do for a couple?
Great question. I'm concerned that we are this far into this debate without having this answered.
This is what we, as a nation, need from marriage:
I chose my wife. In this country we all choose our spouse. As such I have more faith and trust in her than I do in my blood family. If you don't, then you married the wrong girl.
Using this as a given, my wife needs to be the first and last legal word on any and all things concerning me should I not be able to speak for myself. All my worldly belongings, all my legal priviledges, everything that's at all mine needs to be hers.
One reason I married her was because I have the ultimate trust and faith in her judgement and her intentions. She is and will be the nucleus of my family and needs all the rights and protections of this position, ideally for the growth and protection of that family. Marriage needs to be a legal recognition of this fact.
It used to be, but it no longer is.
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Eleventh_Guard
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
5/6 10:03am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
J-Rod posted:
This whole thing kinda pisses me off. Look, people can live how they want. I don't really care. But I think that the government should only recognize a marriage between one man and one woman.
Why?
If it's for religious reasons, then that should not affect the government's view of marriage (either for or against or for a particular type) because the government has no place in promoting specific religions or specific religious practices/rites. If it's for child welfare reasons, please show me the unbiased scientific data that show children are better raised in one-woman, one-man households than three-or-more adult households or two-woman or two-man. (Remember, gay and lesbian couples can still be parents through adoption, and lesbians can get sperm donors.)
The only real argument I can think of for banning polygamy is for reasons of insurance, which is only an issue in places like the USA that don't have national health care. Someone could take 5 spouses and put them all on his/her insurance plan, and we would have to come up with policies that would either restrict the number of adults that can be on the plan, or increase premiums for each non-disabled adult beyond 2. But that's an issue for health insurance businesses and law, not a reason to ban polygamy.
-----signature-----
A conversation on Dathomir:
Welk: My daughter did that... I am blameless. I'm not even armed.
Jacen: And you just let her do whatever she wants?
Welk: You're new here, aren't you?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
beezel26
Registered:
May '03
|
Date Posted:
5/6 10:04am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
Anyone here tried Polygamy?
Porter that is,
bet you cant have just One!
http://www.dogberrypatch.com/archives/polygamy-porter-why-have-just-one/
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
5/6 10:39am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
Eleventh_Guard posted:
The only real argument I can think of for banning polygamy is for reasons of insurance, which is only an issue in places like the USA that don't have national health care. Someone could take 5 spouses and put them all on his/her insurance plan, and we would have to come up with policies that would either restrict the number of adults that can be on the plan, or increase premiums for each non-disabled adult beyond 2. But that's an issue for health insurance businesses and law, not a reason to ban polygamy.
Where I work, I pay a certain amount for my health insurance (deducted from each paycheck before taxes). If I want my (hypothetical) wife to be added to the insurance plan, I pay a larger amount. For each additional dependent, I pay a little more. From what I understand, such a policy is common in many parts of the private sector.
With a framework such as that, why should it matter whether or not I have one wife or two on my insurance? I'm still paying the premiums for them. Such an argument would only matter if you had a fixed premium for an entire household, regardless of the number of members.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
