Battle to Legalize Polygamy
 

We were discussing polygamy somewhere but my feeble mind can't remember the thread. Anyway the general feeling was it was a man's thing.....his desire and advantage.

But this article, in the Washington Post, paints a different picture. A movement by women to legalize polygamy. There is much more to the article, covering all the angles. It was a surprise to me, how many people are practicing it and are in favor of it. :eek:

Polygamy has gotten a bad rap from the crazy men in rural communities (i.e. people like Warren Jeffs). Me and my SO have spoke extensively about polyamory (basically loving/caring for more than one person in an open relationship) and in certain situations it can work out very well.

But for something like that to work you have to be open about everything, both consent to everything, and (most importantly I think) both be equals in the relationship. What most people think of when they hear about polygamy is the one man with 40 wives who were married off against their will when they were under age. That is by no means the only way to do things, nor is it the best.

The entire idea of polygamy is so complex it is hard to do more than scratch the surface in a short post... but I thought I would at least give the basic idea of it as I understand it.

A lot depends on how many red crayons are in the house.

:lol2: crayons. But yes, that's the tone I was getting from the article.

I was conjuring up images of Suleyman's harem whenever I heard polygamy. But these woman are talking of a democratically run household of women that have a common husband they use for stud and chores like income and lawn mowing. They're talking like he's a shared pet.

When I was in Sumatra, you could have 4 wives, if #1 gave the ok.
I think this was stared by the fact that no one gave a shit about girl babies. So to survive, and you could support, you could have more that one.:2cents:

And most of you people made fun of Rick Santorum ...

Fun? No, Santorum was no fun.:headshake

His nickname was "Senator Man-on-dog", not "Senator Mormon".

Yeah, but bestiality and incest are still a loooong way down the slippery slope past polygamy.

Way past it in terms of the 'yuck' factor, but what happens once you say that one one has the right to use the yuck factor? A big catch-all which says that as long as no one gets hurt it's ok would catch a hell of alot more than intended.

I'd say incest, though repulsive in every way, should be comepletely legal.

Bestiality? I say no, because animals can't consent.

I'm going to assume you mean the kind between two consenting adult siblings, which almost never happens, and not the parent-child relationships which are the most common, right?

It already is, in West Virginia. At least with first cousins.;)

How could this be bad? At least you'd have a variety of sex partners, and your duties would essentially be unchanged. :rolleyes:

Seriously, though, the vast majority of true poly relationships with which I am familiar work the other way...one woman, multiple male partners.

Of the two issues there - incest and pedophilia, incest is the smaller one by far.

Incest is a funny one. There are solid genetic reasons for that particular taboo.

Of course I meant between consenting people, because as far as I'm concerned, if there is consent, then everything's great.

Should sex between people with an age gap of more than thirty years be banned? Harold and Maude is pretty gross, you know... its disgusting to think about, so lets ban it.


That argument makes just as much sense as banning sex between ANY consenting people.

The argument swings not so much on what we say you can and cannot do in your private time, as what the government will recognize for additional perks. After all, gay marriage isn't about saying that two men or women can get it on if they want, it's saying the government has to pay them for it.

So, why should the guv'ment pay for hetero couples? Ban the lot, I say. :rolleyes:

9th....you protest an awful lot about Gay marriage.....is there something you aren't sharing with us? hmm?

Just to reiterate - you are talking about consenting siblings though, right? Because there is much more than just an age gap between parent and child, so the issue of consent is much more complex.

I have to say I have no problem with bestiality. Animals can't consent, but sex is a natural function. I honestly don't believe an animal will be psychologically or emotionally damaged just because it has been involved in a sexual act with a human being. Obviously I'm not advocating any act that harms the animal physically, but animal cruelty is already covered in law.

There are far more harmful things done to animals in the name of food - I try not to eat anything which is raised in unnatural conditions, but I wouldn't be able to swear hand on heart that I never have

Polygamy? I don't think it should be illegal if the laws are being upheld in every other way (ie no underage partnerships, child welfare looked after, no abuse etc) Or is the potential for harmful relationships the reason it was banned in the first place?

I think it had more to do with the potential for population explosion on the part of the Mormons to reduce their potential for power. Somebody with better recall of history or googelfu might be able to find out why the deal was made to make poligamy illegal when Utah was brought into the Union.

Now, this is where I become interested in the conversation. Would there be any recognized validity in the polygamy argument if it was about multiple husbands or couples and not primarily about multiple wives? I am looking for opinions, here.

I think it would be even *more* shunned if it was one woman/mulitple husbands. A paternalistic society is not terribly hip on men sharing a woman. At least when a guy has multiple wives, the prevaling male-dominated thinking can go, "yeah, sure, you can own two cars, why not two women"...

hmmm... cut back on conversation by 50%, always another guy around when yer building something, draw straws to cover the wife's companies' holiday parties, 50% reduction in crayola check off boxes... we may be on to something.

I agree. I think it really is that way and what struck me the most was the last part..."own two cars...[own] two women." I think that is what bothers me most about this idea. The idea that two people own each other or one owns the other. I know that is not the intention in most relationships. Of course, everyone has their own ideas on what a relationship should be, but why should we be able to dictate that on a legal level to the degree that if a person wants to be married to more than one person, he/she cannot?

I already explained it in the other thread, which I'm not sure how to locate now. It wasn't about out-breeding everybody else. That part of the country was filling up fast since the various gold rushes, and the Mormons had been literally at war with any other groups trying to mine or homestead in their claimed territories. The basis of their claim was theological. Before the time the whole thing fell apart, in the late 1890's, the Mormons were poised to take over the United States according to "God's Divine Plan", when Joseph Smith was supposed to return and bring Jesus with him and the rest of the world would disolve into civil war and be so busy at the time that Brigham Young and his boys would be able to slip right in. Their "infallible-talks-directly-with-God" leader had set the date but died before it arrived. The rest of them sat there in Utah waiting, and when it became obvious even to them that there was a mistake, the new leader told them it would be necessary to get themselves accepted for statehood immediately while they were at least still in control in Zion. They had previously been rejected because in Utah Territory there were no individual rights, the Mormon Church owned all the land and improvements in a theoracy, dictated the results of all trials and elections, and had a nasty habit of disappearing those who disagreed. The final sticking point was the plural marriages, which had been instigated by founder Joseph Smith because he wanted to get into the pants of a young girl living with his family. Since Smith had dictated that plural marriage was a divine state because God also had plural wives, many believers did not intend to give it up. The head of the church had the expected "revelation", polygamy was officially banned, and Utah received statehood. At this point they had the various polygamous sects spinning off, calling themselves the TRUE church of Latter Day Saints, but it was not until the late 1940's that the main Church finally quit looking the other way at the many families which still kept multiple wives and said they would excommunicate anybody found with extras. That's when a lot of these people moved way out of town, because the main Church was giving more than lip service to rooting them out. The Mormon leader always has a "revelation" whenever it appears they will be in trouble with the Federal government, because that means audits and money being cut off.

I suggest reading Under The Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith by John Krakauer (or however the fuck it's spelled). Very interesting, very insightful look at Fundamentalist Mormons.

I suspect that it had a great deal to do with the fact that in the other 44 states it was a sin.

To continue Tonchi's explanation, the Federal government came down on the Mormons in the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which was repealed, by the way, in 1978. ;)

Oh come off it DanaC, the only thing that came to your head was a sideways remark like that? Next time you have the urge to fire off such an insipid remark, do us a favor and just let it go. The funny thing is that my comment wasn't even protest, I just said that the real area of contention isn't can you or can't you do it, but whether you get the financial windfalls. Does that really even supprise you? It's written clear as day in how the reforms are worded and how the campaigns and reeducation programs are being conducted.

This might start to be the case out in the boonies, but if polygamy reached mainstream I would bet that almost all cases would simply depend on the relative social power and finanicial status of the members. Powerful women would have multiple husbands just as powerful men would have multiple wives, just as it always was (with powerful women being rare until now). It wouldn't be different in middle class situations, a single more afluent person would surround him or herself with multiple members of the opposite sex.

I don't think large groups containing multiple men and women together would ever take off because that's already been tried in numerous 'free love' sects. These always seem to degenerate into abuse of most members, with a few powerful men and women using the others essentially as slaves. With media coverage and application of law these would be forced to disband fairly quickly I think.

By windfalls, do you mean the ones that hetero couples routinely get? Is your problem that people get windfalls by being married, or the extending of such windfalls to incorporate homosexual couples?

Dana...I think he's simply homophobic or at the very least - if it makes him feel better to think of it this way - anti gay.

His arguments about windfalls etc are simply his way of rationalizing his emotional attachment to the discussion.

If gay couples get married they should definitely be entitled to the same 'windfalls' as hetro couples. Anyone can see that.

It's not about the money for people like him. It's about exclusion.

As to the idea of having two husbands. Does that mean I'd have twice as much spending money? If so, where do I sign up?

Paint Your Wagon.

Polygamy? Legalize? I guess, for some, it would be okay. Me? No way! Married, raised two daughters, I KNOW what these ladies are like. I lived with them - forever! God! Please! Don't! I can't handle another female in my life. I'll be good! I promise!

Incest? Yuk!!! Any way, shape, form, consenting or not! :vomit:

Age difference? We don't live very long. A 30 year age gap between couples is quite a gap (Harold and Maude minus a decade or two). But, if we could live to be 1000. Now that would be different. 30 years would be like a fart in the wind. I could be 685 and my wife could be 430 - like robbing the cradle eh'?

Funny thread. I like it.

Having had a certain amount of experience (2 years) of a functional triad (2 men, 1 me), I found that two men get along much better than two women do.

I wouldn't mind another "wife" in the house, as long as she and I had some ground rules...mainly, I'm the boss :D

Wow, how did that work?

Yes, but is 'yuck' any grounds for illegality?

Maybe not. But genetic deformities in ensuing offspring might be.

then we should arrest mothers who drink/smoke/do drugs while pregnant on assault charges? All can cause defects in the baby after all...

Actually, multiple men and women together is how I think it works best. My SO and I have discussed this thoroughly. If he is allowed another girlfriend, then I also can have another mate as well. We know that the two of us will be the main focus, but as long as we can handle more relationships, what is wrong with that? We have dappled in relationships with others, but we have yet to find others who share the same views as us and so we do not have outside girlfriends/boyfriends.

As I said before, what helps the relationship to survive is the ebb and flow of the power. We strive to be equal. There will be times when he gets the power and times when I have it. But for the most part we are equals and stand the right to veto any prospective mate. So if he wanted to date another girl that I just couldn't stand, I could veto his ability to date her. We are honest and faithful to each other unless there is explicit permission given. He can do the same with me.

So same sex incest is ok, because there'll be no offspring. And it's ok to fuck your mom if you use a rubber. Got it.;)

In the case of drugs, there's already legal precedent for it.

As my man and I read your post we were thinking "hmm...sounds familiar." Sounds like you two have similar views to ours.

I have read this book twice, plus several about the Salamander Letter scandal, Magic and the Mormon World View, Ashamed of Joseph, When Mormons Call, and most importantly, Mormons and the History of the American West. I have also read the Book of Mormon and a book I got at the Deseret Book Store where a professor at Brigham Young believes he proves that ancient Maya symbolism reflects the presence of the people Joseph Smith invented. I forget the names of about 5 other books I have. All this started when I learned my uncle had finally caved in and joined the Mormon Church, I knew what was coming our way and wanted to be prepared. To be sure, the Mormons are not allowed to own or read books that are not "faith promoting", which makes me, a non-Mormon, the most knowledgeable person in the family concerning this cult.

Yup!

"Yuk" is grounds for illegality in Madman's book and probably a few other books.

If a person desires to have sexual relations with your cousin, kids, aunt, mother, grandmother, sister or brother. That is not considered "normal." It just doesn't seem "right." It seems "groose."

But I fail to see how that constitutes illigality. I personally think eating fish is just nasty, but does that mean that you should all not eat fish just because i dont like it?

Precisely!

My point was more that there is a genetic drive towards making incest taboo. Long before we knew about genetics, we had taboos about incest. These were abandoned when people got the idea of 'purity' of blood, but that was a departure from a a mode of thought which predates the politics of religion, morals or race.

Whether it should be illegal, is a different matter. I have a problem with laws prohibiting the way people deal with their private life, but the reality is most people aren't attracted to their siblings sexually, precisely because we have a genetic need not to be.

Arresting someone for smoking, drinking or taking drugs during pregnancy carries wiht it the complication of addiction. If someone chose to do those things, free from the drive of addiction I'd say that was an unacceptable level of cruelty if they then bore that child. Addiction is a tough thing to break though, particularly during the stress of pregnancy so whilst there is a level of culpability, there should also in my view be a level of societal compassion.

from Positive Liberty:

Full Article

Not a problem if marriage is not longer give special recognition by the government. I heard of some piece of legislation in New York that removed the financial perks from being married, not sure of the details. The idea used to be to encourage people to get married and raise kids, since we seemed to have established that that is no longer going to be the recognized 'official' function of marriage we can probably agree that you can end the compensations on the same logic.

I am, of course, speaking from my version of the prevailing male-centric sociological view. It is not a view I share, and my characterization of women being equivalent to cars as property is a use of absurdism to illustrate what I see as the effective operating norm.

Two people should not own one another, unless that is the stated and unequivocal wish of *both* partners. As far as I am concerned, adult people should be able to marry whomever they wish, in whatever quantities they so desire, live in any configuration they choose, boff whomever in whatever *consenting* fashion seems like fun and doesn't result in serious injury or death. That said, I can see a reasonable case for allowing only one-partner, one set of benefits situations, but they shouldn't be based on gender. Homosexual marriages should be legal, and benefits should be extended identically as they would be in heterosexual unions.

The *only* reason this is not allowed is because a specific form of *religious* morality is being allowed to be foisted upon us.

I know you meant this as a joke, but in truth...that's how it worked for me and Selene's now-ex when she and I first hooked up. He was my best friend. We got drunk and watched football together, worked on the house, and did other guy stuff quite a bit.

For those of you who have the obvious prurient question running through your heads...no, we did *not* double up on Selene. Those sorts of things were always one on one. :blush:

And, as I am, as I have mentioned quite a bit by now, a flaming heterosexual, neither did he and I engage in carnal pasttimes together. Drunken football watching was as intimate as we got.

It was never restricted to only couples capable of conceiving. It still serves the same purpose of encouraging and helping couples raising children, whether or not every couple has them. And plenty of gay couples have and raise children, regardless of the conception method.

I think we are speaking the same language, here.

Seems like there are several of us with the same views. :D