quote:

---

That's why many of those earlier Mormons who believed they were commanded to do such saw it as a sacrifice and a burden, and not as a Happy Joy Joy Harem.

---

Yeah, I'm sure all those poor men just suffered and suffered with all those wives.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
polygamy is about as lame a topic as pole-smoking, carpet-munching disparriage.

fallow
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I had enough trouble finding quality time with one S/O...I can't imagine more than one.

And having the same conversation over curtains or wardrobe more than once...eeeeek!

Seriously though, LDS isn't the only faith that has supported polygamy - the Muslim faith also allows multiple wives.

I've read some of the arguments for and against - and truthfully, I can't say I know enough about the issue either way.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Justa -- I am sure that it was a hardship for many of those men and women. It's certainly nothing I would be be happy about having to deal with.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
The Google ads at the bottom of this page currently read "Cork-Vinyl-Fabric Boards" and "Bulletin Boards."

I think we've really cracked into some vital secret on polygamy...
 

---

Posted by Pot Smoking Little Devils (Member # 6687) on :
 
What's wrong with polygamy? Just think...all those women to make us sandwiches....mmmmmm...sandwiches...*droool*.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*fantasizes about making a sandwich with Polly and Jelly*

*and their cousins*

fallow

PS "and their cousin's cousins"
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
Just a couple of thoughts:

First off, the initial revulsion so many display at the mention of polygamy is almost entirely a cultural phenomenon- there is nothing inherently bad or exploitative about polygamy anymore than there is about monogamy. The biggest problem with implementing such a system in the US, then, is the cultural resistance to the thing which all the participants will have to a greater or lesser degree.
Obviously polygamy as a marital system would have a unique set of challenges including economic viability and emotional stability. However, it would also allow a much greater range of flexibility in division of labor as well as supplying a larger labor pool upon which to draw in order to achieve familial goals.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
Wives=labor pool. Nothing wrong with that!

fil
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

Wives=labor pool. Nothing wrong with that!

---

Of course there isn't anything wrong with that.

In order to examine the matter objectively one must refer to the principle reasons of the existence of marriage. Chief among those reasons is to provide a stable economic and emotionally supported platform for raising children. In a polygamous family there is a lot more flexibility around who can do what tasks. For example, assuming the husband is the primary breadwinner you could still have all the benefits of a "stay at home mom" raising the children AND have a working mother helping the family economically.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
If the family is choosing to limit the number of children, then resources per child may rise. If the family is having the same number of children with each wife that they would otherwise, then the resources per person in the family will be reduced.

Let's say each iwfe has 4 children. In a 3-wife family, that would be 12 children, with 4 grownups, or 3 per grownup. In a traditional couple with three children, there would be 1.5 children per grownup.

Yes, I picked the numbers to make the math easy.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
Dag- good point. Of course, part of the question is also how much individual attention each child gets. In a polygamous family that raises the children jointly a child may get a lot more one-on-one attention if, for example, two women are involved in the child-rearing.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Historically, polygamy was not kind to women.

Currently, polygmay is not kind to women.

So. . . ?
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
AIRY TALE FOR WOMEN OF THE 21st CENTURY
Once upon a time,
in a land far away,
a beautiful, independent,
self-assured princess
happened upon a frog as she sat,
contemplating ecological issues
on the shores of an unpolluted pond
in a verdant meadow near her castle.
The frog hopped into the princess' lap
and said: Elegant Lady,
I was once a handsome prince,
until an evil witch cast a spell upon me.
One kiss from you, however,
and I will turn back
into the dapper, young prince that I am
and then, my sweet, we can marry
and setup housekeeping in your castle
with my mother,
where you can prepare my meals,
clean my clothes, bear my children,
and forever
feel grateful and happy doing so.
That night,
as the princess dined sumptuously
on a repast of lightly salted frog legs
seasoned in a white wine
and onion cream sauce,
she chuckled and thought to herself:
I don't f-ing think so.

Three cheers for being born in a better time.

[ July 19, 2004, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Incidentally, Kasie, what do you have against

Marriage
Marriage to an attractive mate
REALLY Traditional family lifestyle (extended relatives living near or with you)
Housekeeping
Marital Happiness



Oh, I see- that whole cooking and cleaning thing. . . You modern girls don't like those. And HAPPINESS! Heaven forbid you should be happy. . . Evanescence would lose a fortune.


 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
If having a woman do my laundry and cooking and cleaning while having limited mobility and rights is what "traditional marrital happiness" is, then I'd rather have the horrible sharing of duties and responsibilities and rights that the modern world allows, thank you.
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 
Maybe if the princess hadn't met such an arrogant frog they would have lived happily ever after.

He really could have been a little more subtle.

I wonder how she would have prepared him if he'd suggested that she join the four other wives in the castle whom he'd already wed?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
You kidding? They would have fought over who got the biggest leg, and then been bitter about who didn't get the biggest leg for the next twenty years.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
CT, you and your sincerity and clear-headedness take the fun out of being sarcastic and bratty.

Stop it.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I have felt frustrated by the feminist ideal that women can be whatever they want to be because they are free and strong, but if they choose to stay at home, they are choosing to be oppressed and are undoing the work of the feminists of the last fifty-odd years. And if, Heaven forbid, we admit that we LIKE it, then we're brainwashed.

That said, I'm finding that I'm a feminist more and more each day. I just think it goes overboard sometimes. When it becomes less about equality and more about getting back what "men took away", then it's wrong.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
The thing is, both feminism and the "traditional" camp have a glaring lack of choice and options. Polygamy had even less choice. That is what I'm contending with. If I had a wife who wanted to stay at home, this does not mean I can't still share household chores or responsibilities with her. Staying at home doesn't equate to sitting on her keister all day, for sure. But I won't relegate someone to doing specific tasks because they are a certain gender or are a husband or wife. No matter what arguments are made, that is how they "traditionally" did it, without question. In polygamous marriages, the delegation of position went even further. So no thank you, I'd prefer a marriage where it is two people of equal standing and importance, who each have equal say in how things work.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Indeedy.

As long as those choices are there. Neither extreme allows for those choices, so both of them are oppressive and stupid.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
All I can say is that I'm glad Steve cooks.

I had a bad incident with velveeta macNcheese this weekend. The one food I thought I couldn't screw up!

AJ
(You know the foil package with the squishy cheese in it? Well it took on a life of its own and declined to enter the pot.)
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

(You know the foil package with the squishy cheese in it? Well it took on a life of its own and declined to enter the pot.)

---

The visuals conjured by those two sentences are far better than anything you could create with a more detailed description. "Turn around boys -it's a trap!"

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Velveeta is foul. A friend's mother used to make Velveeta grilled cheeses. They had, honestly, three-quarters of an inch of "cheese" on them. All the kids would get excited..."Mom is making grilled cheese!" But my husband and I would be sitting there wishing we were anywhere else. I'm adventurous with food, and I'll try pretty much any cuisine in any area. (Hence my love of dishes containing woodear or one-thousand-year-old eggs.) But, I could not eat those disgusting sandwiches.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I don't like the popular feminist idea that domestic work is drudge work and that whoever engages in work like cooking and cleaning is being oppressed. This leads to situations where the "liberated" woman has discovered that she's too good to clean up after her family and hires a Guatemalan nanny to do it. Gee, aren't we enlightened?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Being on a budget, I am discovering the joys of grilled cheese sandwiches.

But a quarter inch of cheese? Eek.

And I think this thread is pointing out how extremes of any sort can be a bad thing.

-Trevor

Edit: If she has a family, the Enlighted Feminist should motivate her brood to pitch in with regular chores. It builds character and it's still cheaper than hiring a Guatamalan nanny/housekeeper - what with the pesky INS investigation, human rights abuse allegations and on and on and on.

Ok, I was being snarky about the maid/nanny, but learning to clean up after yourself does build character.

[ July 19, 2004, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Actually, Scott, I'm kind of hoping that I'll be able to have my career and a stable, happy marriage with two or three kids (no more!)

But I'm glad I have a choice.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

Gee, aren't we enlightened?

---

Apparently not as enlightened as the barefoot-n-pregnant "traditionals." Gotta love those extremes.

PSI, the grilled cheese would taste way better had they used pepperjack.

[ July 19, 2004, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Actually, I do use pepperjack and sometimes nacho cheese.

And I've been known to add a dash of olive oil and garlic powder to the bread before the cheese for an extra bit of flair.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Who says that a "traditional family woman" doesn't get her kids to help? I think most of them do, if only because it keeps them included and busy when the housework needs to be done.

Even the Bible talks about a woman making good use of her "maidens".

----

Oh, and it's 3/4 inch of cheese.

[ July 19, 2004, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
The bible also mentions using one's slaves and servants. They probably aren't from Guatemala, though.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Trevor, after re-reading, I realize my post about getting the kids to help is out of proportion from yours. Ignore at will.

edit: Wished I'd been faster. I thought you were saying "This is what an enlightened feminist would do" meaning that other women don't do it.

[ July 19, 2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Well after trying to be thrifty and buying the cubed velveta and separate shells and attempting to make shellsNcheese, it became abundantly obvious that Kraft "Velveeta" in the shells and cheese foil packet is completely different that the cubed stuff by itself.

I don't like the stuff by itself.

The best kind of grilled cheese is co-jack on sourdough IMO. Other variations, like sharp cheddar are acceptable, however the sourdough bread is imperative. (Lest you wonder Steve cooks it, I don't.)

AJ
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I'm not excluding a "traditional woman" from putting her children to work. In fact, I still encourage it.

But if the modern Feminist views household chores as drudgery, the Enlightened Feminist spreads that drudgery around as a necessary task. It was a rather obscure attempt at humor.

Although the Bible fails to mention "her sons" as well as her maidens. Which should certainly be a consideration in this new, enlightened era.

-Trevor

Edit: All good PSI - I've been upsetting people left and right last night and today. I'm just glad this time it was a misunderstanding of positions.

[ July 19, 2004, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Yeah...more seriously/to clarify, I've talked about this at length before, notably on the major feminism thread we had (that I started) awhile back. I honestly don't look down on people who choose to stay at home. I think it takes a lot of courage and even more strength.

That said, I also don't look down on women who choose to just have careers, or on those who have children AND a career.

I just feel I owe a lot to the women who came before me and gave me the choice to kiss or eat the frog.

[ July 19, 2004, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
You haven't been upsetting me, Trevor. At least, not recently.

Oh, and since I don't have maidens nowadays, I use my children as such. And my dishwasher.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Weird - Hatrack just ate one of my posts.

It must have been more appetizing than my grilled cheese commentary.

PSI - 3/4? Bwwaauuugh. I can't imagine using more than a slice. Although I may work up the nerve to try two.

Claudia - I'm glad you're enjoying my posts. I try to be as entertaining as possible.

Question though - "gotta love her slats?"

-Trevor

Edit: Deleted the burped post.
Edit 2: Kasie - try the frog with a bit of tobasco. Drowns out the salty taste, I'm told.

Edit 3: Hey! I happen to like Evanesence - even if I can never spell the name correctly.

[ July 19, 2004, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

Oh, and since I don't have maidens nowadays, I use my children as such. And my dishwasher.

---

Heh. "GE Appliances... when handmaidens are hard to come by."
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Trevor,

Mmmmm, tabasco....hot.

*sizzles*
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I saw that post! I wonder what happened to it?
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
"Whirlpool Dishwashers... when servants just aren't good enough."
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
"Kenmore: We don't take breaks to have children."
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Scott R:"Historically, polygamy was not kind to women."

It doesn't have to be that way. In fact, it wasn't always that way.
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 
<----wouldn't mind welcoming this pretty lady into her family. I'd even share her with my husband, every night if necessary!

Ms. Neptune®
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I've made frog legs before - I breaded them in flour and sauteed them in butter and garlic. Mmmmm-mmm!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Did you catch the frog yourself?

<=== has never had froglegs

<=== spent many happy hours as a kid catching frogs
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The perfect song for a wondeful voice.
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 
I'm definitely going to have to get me some of that Leonard Cohen!
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
That is a great song, CT.

And to the person who wants the neptune, I recommend an Asko. Ours has been great.

www.askousa.com
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Hey, I've heard that song on The West Wing!

It's like Joseph called and he wants his pocket-protector back!

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 
Hi Jim-Me, I'm Tammy. Nice to meet you.

Asko...wow! What a pretty appliance. I have this thing about an appliance being pretty. I do love stainless steel appliances!
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
At the talent show on Saturday, someone played the piano and sang this song. It brought down the house. In a good way. Unlike our act. Which did it in a bad way.

I've only heard the Jeff Buckley and...the other guy's versions. Claudia Therese, is Leonard Cohen any good? *blinks innocently*
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I've noticed that the stainless steel appliances are "in" right now. What's up with that? I only noticed it a couple weeks ago when I went to visit my parents new house. The inside of their dishwasher is stainless steel! I thought that was so bizzare. Then at my brother's new house, the same thing.

And I just bought a microwave that is stainless steel, not because it is the "in thing" to do, but because it was a really good deal with a rebate.

But I always wonder at the rise and fall of tends and the general willingness of the world to adjust their asthetic views accordingly.

If something is "in" people are bound to think it is beautiful. Until it is "out". That is a whole 'nother matter. "Ugly as sin" it is then called.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I like stainless steel because it shines up so nice with mineral oil.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 

quote:

---

She tied you to her kitchen chair
She broke your throne, and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the hallelujah

---

I have to admit, that part has always kind of creeped me out...

[EDIT: CT, check out my smapling music thread ]

Hobbes

[ July 19, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

And no one knows where the night is going
And no one knows why the wine is flowing

---

Or why the rowers keep on rowing?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Usually you don't notice aesthetic changes until you look back in retrospect.

Look at a high school yearbook or a 60's flashback.

Stainless steel is just another trend with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Hi Tammy...

<bows>
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
But to me it just looks so, so, industrial. And industrial to me=ugly. I like to think that I don't change my asthetic views so easily with the churning trends. If I thought bell-bottoms and afro hair was ugly back in the 80's, my views on that aren't going to change when a slightly altered version comes into style again this decade. Though thankfully, both are not as extreme as they were then.

I also grew up thinking avacado green and burnt orange were horridly ugly. To the point that I have even asked people from the era if they honestly thought those colors were beautiful. The answer is always, "Of course we did!"

*shakes head sadly*

[ July 19, 2004, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Heh. I happen to like the industrial look, although I admit my fashion sense is a step or two off from everyone else.

As for the rest - you make an excellent point regarding the subjective and whimsical nature of fashion and taste in fashion.

-Trevor

Edit: yep, but I think we needed a break from the intense to the silly. We're due for a shift back any time now.

[ July 19, 2004, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
<=== knows nothing about this Leonard Cohen

<=== is curious
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
CT: It depends on what your definition of "use to be" is.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yes, if you honest-to-goodness like the industrial look and you are not just a slave to fashion, I can respect that.

But what is it with this rising generation that thinks Scooby Doo is cool, or even funny?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I'm a stainless steel fan, the problem is that I want to know what alloy of stainless steel it is or if it is just a fake metallic "look". It's got to be the real thing. Using metal instead of plastic could be a very good thing if we ever do have a petroleum crisis where the price of plastic elevates beyond the affordable.

AJ
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I'm wondering if I can find a place online to listen to at least a clip of his music. Unfortunately, I do not frequent CD stores. But if I went to one, I would check his music out.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Here's my take on fashion: if something is really fashionable, it's probably pretty ugly. In fact, the more fashionable it is, the more likely it is to be ugly. You just don't notice it at the time because the "cool" people are doing it.

Let's take something non-ugly, like jeans and a T-shirt. That's never out of style, but it's never extremely "in" either. But something like ripped jeans -- that's either in or out, depending on the year. Why? Because it's ugly and tacky.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Oy! I grew up on Scooby Doo. Granted, the plots were never unique and you always knew who did it, but it was entertaining.

Almost like the old Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew books - before they started mentioning car bombs.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

UofUlawguy
Member
Member # 5492

posted July 19, 2004 11:08 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott R:"Historically, polygamy was not kind to women."

It doesn't have to be that way. In fact, it wasn't always that way.

---

Most of the woman these days would diagree with you, I think...

A lot of other cultures still believe in slavery, but that doesn't make it right. I understand that cultural context is important, but there is a reason why pologamy is frowned upon here in the US, and most other developed nations...it severly limits the freedom of half the population.

Not every slave owner was brutal, but that didn't mean that slavery itself was a good thing, or that we should bring back slavery now because we "know better", and "it wasn't always that way"....

Kwea

[ July 19, 2004, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Without first hand experience, I have to concede that polygamy looks fine on paper - as long as all participants are willing.

For that matter, that description could be applied to monogamous marriage as well.

There are plenty of incidents of domestic abuse (etc. etc) that can be found in monogamous marriages - polygamous marriages aren't exempt.

You can argue that on the very merit of polygamy as man being center that it could be construed as devaluing women. Monogamous marriages often have "cherish and obey" clauses for women in their marriage vows - does that make the woman any less subordinate to the man in that instance?

In one proposed ideal, all partners would be willing participants and have a harmonious relationship. Although I am not familiar with the polygamous culture that allows a wife to have multiple husbands, which dampens the "equal opportunity" aspect of the proposed ideal.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I can see a way that polygamy might be implemented that would not impede anyone's personal liberty; but actually GETTING it that way would be the difficulty.

Historically, polygamy arises from societies that are built on the idea of male dominance.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Kwea:"Not every slave owner was brutal, but that didn't mean that slavery itself was a good thing, or that we should bring back slavery now because we "know better", and "it wasn't always that way"...."

True. But slavery is inherently a bad thing. By definition. One person is owned as property by another. The level of brutality might vary, and there may also be varying levels of freedom, but the very essence of the thing is its lack of freedom.

Not so with polygamy. There is nothing I can see that would make polygamy inherently a bad thing for women. All of the problems that have been a part of polygamous marriages have had nothing, as far as I can see, to do with the essence of the concept of polygamy.

Would slavery where the slave has complete freedom still be slavery? No.

Would polygamy where each person is equal with every other, and where no one is oppressed still be polygamy? Certainly.
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 

quote:

---

Historically, polygamy arises from societies that are built on the idea of male dominance.

---

quote:

---

There is nothing I can see that would make polygamy inherently a bad thing for women.

---

quote:

---

There is nothing I can see that would make polygamy inherently a bad thing for women

---

 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Jutsa:"Four women and one man is pretty inherent a problem to me."

Why? You might have to spell it out for me.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Tammy:" "


 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
How about this: it's inherently a problem unless one woman and four men would be equally acceptable.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Man, polygamy is such a touchy issue. I mean, I know it is for me. I have a great deal of trouble imagining myself actually wanting to be in such a relationship. But there remains the belief in me that it can be a positive thing. But so much depends on how it is done, how it is handled.

Oh, and culture is *so* a major part of it. I can honestly believe that there have been cultures throughout time where it didn't bother a woman all that much to have her man sleeping with other women. It is difficult to wrap our minds around because of our culture.

I remember talking to a wonderful Filipina gal about polygamy and she said it wouldn't bother her at all. And she meant it so genuinely. She was an amazing, wonderful young woman.

Edit: come to think of it, polygamy is regularly practiced in the Philippines. It is by no means *legal*, but I was shocked at how often I came across families where the men had more than one household that he was a part of. Usually just 2. I'm not sure how OK the women were with it most of the time, but they seemed resigned to deal with it. And more women were able to be wives and mothers, something they truly wanted.

I remember hearing from a lady from South Africa (white) saying that she thought polygamy was a marvelous idea.

I figure that you can't have too many polygamous relationships, because while there may be more willing women than men, there aren't *that* many more. You get groups like the Fundamentalist Mormons who seem to feel the need to have *everyone* in a polygamous relationship and soon you have men snatching up young girls who have scarcely reached womanhood.

But if it were left to those willing to deal with it, I think there would be far more women with a husband who actually want a husband without creating that woman shortage.

[ July 19, 2004, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
dkw:"How about this: it's inherently a problem unless one woman and four men would be equally acceptable."

Why? Is it because it's unfair to a woman who wants to have more than one husband? If so, then the problem isn't polygamy/polygyny, it's the laws (if any) that prohibit polyandry. I still say it's not a problem that is inherent in the concept of polygamy.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
<OffTopicNote Recpient = “ClaudiaTherese” Priority = “Low”>
<MessageText>
CT, I’ve moved out little music conversation over to the sampling music thread since this one is back on it’s topic title
</MessageText>
</OffTopicNote>

Hobbes

[ July 19, 2004, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Assuming a woman has a sex drive and wants to be satisfied in a sexual manner, it can be a little frustrating for the man who may and probably will run out of steam long before he gets to make all the rounds.

I would also assume that modern American men have problems with emotional intimacy. I had a hell of a time trying to be emotionally intimate with one woman; can you imagine trying to be emotionally intimate with several?

I presume this is the crux of Tammy's post.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 
Okay, maybe my 's might be excessive. No, I think I should have added a couple more.

Polygamy to me screams sharing. I like to share, I’m very generous. I just don’t share my husband.

The idea of sharing my husband with three women is extremely distasteful to me. Yes, I'm selfish! I want to be able to crawl into bed with him every evening and know that he is there because he chooses to be with me. With me and not one of my sister wives in the next room.

That’s just one extremely basic reason why I on that statement.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
From a strictly evolutionary perspective, a male who tolerated polyandry would be less successful than one who did not. A father's reproductive resources are limited not by how many children he can sire, but by how many children he can provide for until they reach reproductive age. Polyandy would have him dedicating this limited resource to children not his own. Polygyny, however, allows him to sire more children. Even if he can't provide for all, he can still win the raw numbers game and have more children reach reproductive age.

The concept works in reverse for women, of course. If she can marshall the resources of more than one man to care for her offspring, the offspring have a better chance of reaching reproductive age. If her children's father is dedicating his resources to multiple mothers' children, they have a lesser chance to survive.

Of course, I don't think evolutionary thinking is moral thinking. It's also founded on the assumption that preference for mating behavior is genetically based (or passed on in some other fashion to offspring). But it provides an interesting perspective when examining the issues.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
UofU, you're seriously not getting it. Can you show one single culture where one man and four wives did not set up unequal rights for the wives. Care to show examples of cultures that supported one wife to multiple husbands with equal standing for both genders? Does not exist. There have always been inequalities associated with polygamy, and those inequalities almost exclusively meant inequalities for women.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
TMedina:"Assuming a woman has a sex drive and wants to be satisfied in a sexual manner, it can be a little frustrating for the man who may and probably will run out of steam long before he gets to make all the rounds."

Fair enough. This justs to me that polygamy might not be for everyone, which I already knew.

TMedina:"I had a hell of a time trying to be emotionally intimate with one woman; can you imagine trying to be emotionally intimate with several?"

Again, this indicates to me that polygamy would not work for everyone. However, I think it can and has worked for some people, who were able to meet that particular challenge. I don't think it would work for me.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think probably women of this culture (and perhaps others) are more sexually oriented than women of other cultures and times. Many of them were probably annoyed at how often their husbands wanted sex and were like, "just get another wife already!"

I know I am not likely to be content with less sex because there are more women to spread it around with. But I am a product of my culture. I come from a culture where women enjoy sex. At least, that is the direction this culture is currently going.

As for polyandry, women find it frustrating when their husband is "done" and they are not. Wouldn't it be nice, ladies, to be able to hop into bed with your other husband who is ready and rearin' to go? And your already all het up from the other guy. Just speaking from a strictly sexual viewpoint. Don't read too much into it.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Tammy:"Polygamy to me screams sharing. I like to share, I’m very generous. I just don’t share my husband.

The idea of sharing my husband with three women is extremely distasteful to me. Yes, I'm selfish! I want to be able to crawl into bed with him every evening and know that he is there because he chooses to be with me. With me and not one of my sister wives in the next room."

Understood. I know a lot of people who feel this way. This tells me they should not be forced into a polygamous marriage. But there are others who would be totally cool with it. For them, that problem would not be an issue. Therefore, I do not believe it is inherent in a polygamous marriage.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Uof - I was trying to expound on Tammy's point which, as it turns out, I was incorrect.

I've already made an impartial analysis as to the feasibility of polygamy.

As to Bev - I'll have to take your word for it. I am not emotionally mature enough to share a wife with other husbands.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Society benefits when all people can pursue their greatest talents in areas that are in most demand.

Annie, I can't find fulfillment in housework. It all has to be done again the very next day or week. Granted, my engineering work has to be redone the very next century. So it's not all that different. But I can't find fulfillment in a clean house. I would have gone out of my mind as a stay-at-home mom. I think my mother partly did.

I don't see why a brilliant, well-educated woman, say my sister, for instance, shouldn't make $300 an hour doing legal work, and pay someone who wants the job $20 an hour to do housework for however many hours a week. Society loses if my sister cleans toilets and scrubs floors. It's just not economic.

I have no objection to women choosing whatever job makes them happy, but I do think many women shortchange themselves and their families by not getting as much education as they can, and by not developing their skills and marketability in the working world. This can lead to learned helplessness, dependence, and in some bad situations, poverty and extreme distress.

Women who CAN work and earn a good living have a lot more options. For one thing, they can choose a mate based on his heart, mind, and spirit and without reference to his income. For another thing they can support their families in the event of sickness or disability of their spouse, or if he ups and leaves, which happens rather more often than one might hope, or if he ever becomes abusive or hurtful. I hear a new story like this among my friends and extended family perhaps once a month.

Also I know for my own self that the experience and competence I've gained through working would make me a much better mother.

So I don't dis any people who choose the role and position in life that they feel suits them best. However, I urge (along with Brigham Young) all women and men to learn as many life skills as they can, including home and office and executive skills, so as to be the very best person they can be, and bring the most benefit to their families and their communities.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Hey, I'm right with ya there, buddy. As long as men understand the women's reluctance to share. I'm all for understanding.
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 

quote:

---

The concept works in reverse for women, of course. If she can marshall the resources of more than one man to care for her offspring, the offspring have a better chance of reaching reproductive age.

---

I think that would work better in our modern society.

One wife, four husbands and as many children as that wife chooses to have. Why should she have to "marshal the resources"? The four husbands combined income could support the children and the wife. She is the one giving birth, the hard part after all.

With today's shaky economy, this seems like a way to beat the odds.

I'd never feel left out if I had four husbands. In fact I'd be able to pick and choose who I'd like to hang out with and when. The other three could just watch the children while I'm with one.

I'm beginning to see the pros.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Jutsa:"Can you show one single culture where one man and four wives did not set up unequal rights for the wives. Care to show examples of cultures that supported one wife to multiple husbands with equal standing for both genders? Does not exist. There have always been inequalities associated with polygamy, and those inequalities almost exclusively meant inequalities for women."

Just because polygamy does not have a good track record when judged on a culture-wide basis, does not mean to me that it is inherently unequal or oppressive to women.

Rather than judging polygamy on the basis of culture-wide trends, I would look at individual polygamous marriages. Can you say that it is impossible for a good polygamous marriage to exist, that there is something inherent in the concept that prevents it? I think you cannot.

I think it takes great care and dedication, and a high level of interpersonal and spiritual commitment on the part of all participants, but I think it can work, and that there are many individual examples of it throughout history.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
ak:"Society benefits when all people can pursue their greatest talents in areas that are in most demand.

Annie, I can't find fulfillment in housework. It all has to be done again the very next day or week. Granted, my engineering work has to be redone the very next century. So it's not all that different. But I can't find fulfillment in a clean house. I would have gone out of my mind as a stay-at-home mom."

Sounds like you should look into polygamy. Find a sister-wife who does find enjoyment in housework, and split the responsibilities.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Wouldn't it be nice, ladies, to be able to hop into bed with your other husband who is ready and rearin' to go?

---

I've read half your joint landmark so far; this puts it in a whole new light.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Obviously, if your spouse can just get another if you do not suffice, but you yourself must make do with only him, this puts you in a position of undue dependency and lack of commiserate options.

---

Ooo, you just hit the nail on the head. That is one of my big issues with polygyny. Grrrrrr.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
ClaudiaTherese:"A world where men may have multiple wives and women may have multiple hubands seems inherently less problematic from a distribution of power perspective than a world in which only men may have multiple partners."

I have no legal objections to this. The way I figure it, if it were legal for a man to have more than one wife, there's no legal reason why it shouldn't work the other way as well.

The question in my mind is whether it actually would work the other way. That is, I expect that if both formulations of marriage were legally available, polyandry would be far, far less common than polygyny. The cynic would say that this is because of all the horny men, but I would say there is an even more basic reason.

There tend to be more marriageable women than men, except in those (historically few) instances where the number of women has been artificially kept low, like in modern China. I think I remember reading that there is a slight statistical edge in favor of female births above male. And other causes, such as war, have always worked to keep the male population even lower.

On top of that, consider all the men that are not inclined to marry at all, either because they have no interest in it, or don't like kids, or don't want to be tied down, or whatever. There are also women that feel this way, but I really think it is much more common with men. It all adds up to a lot more women looking to get married than men.

So, practically speaking, I think that polygyny is much more likely of a marriage formulation than polyandry.

[ July 19, 2004, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: UofUlawguy ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 




You didn't listen to me when I said not to read too much into it.


 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 

quote:

---

(At least, if one values such things as intimacy, time with one's spouse, and attention from one's spouse -- with or without sex, regardless.)

---

I'm not strictly referring to sex either. When my husband and I finally go to bed at night, that's our time. We talk, play, and reconfirm our bond and commitments. I can't even imagine being able to lie down to sleep knowing he's going through the same thing the next night with someone down the hall.

I value my spouse's time, feelings, and attentions (sexual and otherwise). He's my best friend. You just don't share your best friend.

We've discussed the issue. He's admitted that it would be hard emotionally and physically to have more than one wife. He'd be a goner in a matter of months. (And for you smarty pants out there...he assures me he doesn't say that just because he's married to me )
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Don't forget all the times throughout history where war has killed off obscene numbers of men. Polygyny was rather practical in those times.

Not too long ago, someone was telling us about a town in Russia (I think) who's population of marriagable men was completely wiped out. Then a troop of American (I think) soldiers passed through. There was a whole fresh crop of babies that next year.

While this idea disgusts me on a visceral level, without marriagable men, that town was doomed to die out, or at least be terribly stagnant until the next generation rose.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I have no legal objections to this. The way I figure it, if it were legal for a man to have more than one wife, there's no legal reason why it shouldn't work the other way as well.

---

The problem is with matters of consent and crossover: if X is married to 1, 2, and 3, can 2 marry Y without X's consent? What if the "marriage units" are (X, 1, 2, 3); (Y, 2); (Z, 1, 3)? Lot of money to be made for divorce lawyers, I guess.

And if Z found a wallet dropped by Q on land owned by 6, who gets to keep the money in a common law jurisdiction with no finder law?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Tryin' to love two women is like a ball and chain.
Tryin' to love two women is like a ball and chain.
Sometimes the pleasure ain't worth the strain.
It's a long, hard grind and it tires your mind.

When you try to please two women you can't please yourself.
When you try to please two women you can't please yourself.
Your best is only half-good. A man can't stock two shelves.
It's a long, hard grind and it tires your mind.

Tryin' to love two women is tearing me apart.
Tryin' to love two women is tearing me apart.
One's got my money, the other's got my heart.
It's a long, hard grind and it tires your mind.

-The Oak Ridge Boys

[ July 19, 2004, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: UofUlawguy ]
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Dagonee:"And if Z found a wallet dropped by Q on land owned by 6, who gets to keep the money in a common law jurisdiction with no finder law?"

Die.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Don't engage in a hypothetical debate with Dag. He loves it way too much. And the annoying thing is, he's usually right. At least more right than wrong.

Although I suspect if polygamy became common practice, books upon books of law would be made to address the issue.

And Beverly - we would never, ever have considered making that observation. Really.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, no, of course not.

Men. Heh.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Trevor, I think the scowl was because I caused him to flash back to 1L, not because of the actual post.

The key to a hypothetical argument is to pick the right hypothetical.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I think an important question to ask is, do you think polygamy will ever be found legal in the United States again? I mean, considering how hard it is to legally define marriage these days, polygamy will most likely come into the equation sometime eventually.

One thing for its eventual legalization is the loose definition these days of what "freedom" as expressed in the Constitution means. The Judicial may go back and forth on the subject, depending on what Circut Court it is brought. I don't think the current make-up of the Supreme Court would uphold the illegality of the practice, although they might avoid the issue by not hearing the case.

Yet, I don't believe that there is enough people who support it to see any changes at the Legislative level. Both Conservatives and Liberals seem to have qualms about the practice. Conservatives because of their belief in the fundimental tradition of man and woman as a couple. Liberals because of what they see as Woman's rights issues. Even mainstream Mormons are currently very hostile toward the practice -- at least as much as the general public.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Ya know, the one thing I accept is this:

quote:

---

Things can and probably will change.

---

quote:

---

Just think what you'll know tomorrow.

---

quote:

---

Just because polygamy does not have a good track record when judged on a culture-wide basis, does not mean to me that it is inherently unequal or oppressive to women.

---

quote:

---

Rather than judging polygamy on the basis of culture-wide trends, I would look at individual polygamous marriages. Can you say that it is impossible for a good polygamous marriage to exist, that there is something inherent in the concept that prevents it? I think you cannot.

---

quote:

---

I think it takes great care and dedication, and a high level of interpersonal and spiritual commitment on the part of all participants, but I think it can work, and that there are many individual examples of it throughout history.

---

quote:

---

I don't think the current make-up of the Supreme Court would uphold the illegality of the practice, although they might avoid the issue by not hearing the case.

---

quote:

---

No, what you are pointing out are either religious mythological examples or exceptions to the rule, neither of which will count as empirical data when compared to the vast majority and cultural trends in each of the cases where polygamy was either the norm or allowed.

---

quote:

---

Polyamory means "loving more than one". This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any combination thereof, according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved, but you needn't wear yourself out trying to figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or filial piety, or a passion for the Saint Paul Saints baseball club into it. "Polyamorous" is also used as a descriptive term by people who are open to more than one relationship even if they are not currently involved in more than one. (Heck, some are involved in less than one.) Some people think the definition is a bit loose, but it's got to be fairly roomy to fit the wide range of poly arrangements out there.

---

quote:

---

I don't think the current make-up of the Supreme Court would uphold the illegality of the practice, although they might avoid the issue by not hearing the case.

"I'd bet a lot that they would uphold laws banning polygamy. I'm not even sure it would be close - there's a good shot at unanimity there."

---

Why? If a state decided to allow polygamous marraiges, a decision that seems to be in their jurisdiction since they can define marraige to include homosexuality, what right would the federal government have to stop it? (Aside from a Constitutional Ammendment of course )
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I thought you were discussing the court upholding a state law banning polygamy when you said, "I don't think the current make-up of the Supreme Court would uphold the illegality of the practice, although they might avoid the issue by not hearing the case."

As far as I know, only Utah is the subject of a national law banning polygamy; every other state could probably get away with passing a law to legalize it.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Dabbler, the problem with polyamory is that it is almost, in nearly every case, dealing with at least one or two bisexuals, indicating that some form of homosexual contact goes on at some point.

Good luck trying to sell that one to the religious groups who used to practice polygamy.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

If a state decided to allow polygamous marraiges, a decision that seems to be in their jurisdiction since they can define marraige to include homosexuality, what right would the federal government have to stop it?

---

Actually, the federal government is already cutting the feet out from under states' ability to legalize homosexual marriage, too. The DoMA was one step, but further steps to deny federal marriage rights is another. I wouldn't doubt for a second if more was being done as well. The federal government has been trumping state law for over a century now. Where have you been?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Why? If a state decided to allow polygamous marraiges, a decision that seems to be in their jurisdiction since they can define marraige to include homosexuality, what right would the federal government have to stop it? (Aside from a Constitutional Ammendment of course )

---

quote:

---

Actually, the federal government is already cutting the feet out from under states' ability to legalize homosexual marriage, too. The DoMA was one step, but further steps to deny federal marriage rights is another. I wouldn't doubt for a second if more was being done as well. The federal government has been trumping state law for over a century now. Where have you been?

---

quote:

---

Then it was a bad point. Are we going to start the whole "if homosexuality, them polygamy!" argument here? That would be its only use.

---

quote:

---

I need a vacation from my life
Me and my husband we need a wife
Somebody who's sole ambition is laundry
I wanna fall asleep on "MY" patio swing
While somebody else does the dishes and cleans
Mariachi's could stroll through the yard and play softly
Wouldn't even have to leave 2523 General George Patton Drive
And I need a vacation from my life

---

quote:

---

Actually, the DoMA can easily be said to reinforce state's rights, by making sure states can choose which types of marriages to recognize. NOTHING in the DoMA interferes with the rights of a state to legalize same-sex unions.

---

quote:

---

And the amendment cannot really be called a federal action - amendments require more state than federal involvement.

---

quote:

---

The homosexual marriage debate has great relevance to polygamy, even though the two are not identical. If nothing else, the tactics from gay marriage advocates could be used by polygamy advocates.

---

quote:

---

That's like saying a state's constitution cannot really be called a state action, since districts vote on it. That's a silly argument, similar to the civilian who yells to the cop, "I pay your salary!" Sure, it's technically true, but no one civilian (just as no one state) can dictate to the force as a whole (or the federal government as a whole). It simply doesn't work that way. A state can work within federal legislature to create or alter federal laws, but it cannot trump or dictate them to the federal government.

---

quote:

---

Wasn't this already attempted by that guy in Utah last year? The one with a bunch of "wives," some of whom were not even 18?

Just because someone uses the same or similar tactics does not make the cause the same. If that were the case, then wars of aggression around the world would be justified by the actions of a few (like the US). You need more justification than "they're doing it too!"

---

The tactics was only one example of why the homosexual marriage issue is related (not identical) to the polygamy issue. Many of the legal issues are very similar. Even more of the ethical issues are similar.

I favor one and not the other, so obviously I believe they are different. But the issues are similar enough that to decide that way requires reconciling the two issues in order to avoid being hypocritical.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Hey, now, we made *no* mention of approving minors in polygyny. *Especially* in polygyny. Since brainwashing may indeed be used, you want to make good and sure the person is old enough to make the decision for themselves legally.
 

---

Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
 
I think if there is no child abuse or spousal abuse let them alone. Now of course that is a huge if and you have to define abuse etc. But I am willing to believe that there are some families that this arrangement works for and that they are not engaging in abuse.

I caught the last hour of the A&E show. I was appalled at the woman who left her husband and 11 children to be the third wife of one of the polygamists. I found that more upsetting than the other women they interviewed. I had to laugh at the comment that the men who engage in polygamy do so because they have a need for more variety. I told my dh if he has that need I'll work really hard to have several personalities for him and I'll choose one each day
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

Your attempt to equate my argument to your silly "I pay your salary" isn't even in the same conceptual ballpark.

---

I bet I could make it work in an "official" semantical debate.

I realize that the way I characterize the DoMA is simply one way of looking at it, but I'm looking at it from the prespective of who got the best out of the deal. As far as I can see, the federal level got far more out of the deal long-term. Just the fact that SCOTUS won't have to deal with this as an issue seems to weigh it heavily in favor of the federal government.

But that's a whole debate in itself.

quote:

---

The tactics was only one example of why the homosexual marriage issue is related (not identical) to the polygamy issue. Many of the legal issues are very similar. Even more of the ethical issues are similar.

---

Which legal issues? Get rid of the DoMA, and federal spousal rights don't even need to be re-written. There are some that still use "husband" or "wife" instead of "spouse" in existence, but wouldn't that also benefit women's rights (and clear up any SS snafus)? They wouldn't need to be re-written either, just revision of one word (not the same ). There still exist sodomy laws and anti-black legislation in some states, but the possibility of getting anyone convicted for breaking them is slim to none.

I'd be curious to hear about the ethical issues that don't have to do with religious groups being indignant over it.
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 

quote:

---

I told my dh if he has that need I'll work really hard to have several personalities for him and I'll choose one each day

---

My husband already believes I have split personalities. He said it works for him though. Poor man.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Whoops! I just realized I was derailing things. Dagonee, you don't have to reply in-depth if you don't wanna. Or if you want to jump to a new topic for it, I'm cool with that, too. My basic gist is that the legal issues are of far lesser consequence with homosexuality than they would be for polygamy. No need to go into detail about the rest.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Briefly, then, because I think we might be talking about two different things:

Civil marriage in the U.S., excluding Mass., is a package of legal rights, responsibilities, and restrictions currently available to a couple consisting of a man and a woman.

Both same sex marriage and poly-marriage are about changing one of the "terms" of traditional marriage - the number and the sex requirement. Both require some changes to the legal framework of marriage in order to implement, assuming we don't want to end up with separate institutions.

Same sex marriage requires that any difference between the roles husband and wife be written out of the law. This has been done to a great extent. Most of the places the distinction survives are clerical in nature. There are a few substantive areas left (rape laws, for example, in some states). This has been an ongoing trend since Married Women's Property Acts were first proposed.

Poly-marriage requires far more substantial changes to the legal framework. For example, must each poly unit be discrete (that is, can a single person belong to at most one poly marriage)? If not, the complications in property law alone are almost impossible to manage. If so, the complications are still extremely difficult.

The existence of the legal civil concept of marriage carries societal costs - administration, divorces, etc. The benefits to society are two-fold: some legal transactions become less complicated because a convenient "default" designee is available for a host of legal decisions. Same sex marriage shares this advantage; poly-marriage does not.

The second class of benefits are intangible but important. Without going into detail, I think the principle societal justification for marriage as an institution was as a means to help provide for the creation and upbringing of future citizens. For various reasons, society decided the monagamous form of marriage was better than the polygamous form for this purpose. Reproduction within the marriage is not possible in same sex unions, but there are feasible societal benefits to non-reproducing couples forming lasting bonds See Jim-me's recent thread on unmarried males for one example.

The crux of the matter, in my opinion, is that the benefits of legal marriage can be provided to same-sex couples without compromising the institution of civil marriage's ability to provide the legal and societal benefits. Altering marriage to allow for poly-marriages would make it less useful on a legal level.

In my view, which holds a both a practical and moral preference for traditional two-person heterosexual marriage, the government can give some people additional rights and no cost by allowing civil gay marriages; it cannot do so by providing polygamous marriages.

All that being said, it's necessary to say why alteration of one term of traditional marriage is the right thing to do in the name of personal autonomy, and altering the other term isn't. That's what I meant by the ethical dimension being similar, even though I reach opposite conclusions.

Dagonee
*Believe it or not, that was brief. I could qualify every paragraph of this 20 different ways.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

Poly-marriage requires far more substantial changes to the legal framework.

---

quote:

---

All that being said, it's necessary to say why alteration of one term of traditional marriage is the right thing to do in the name of personal autonomy, and altering the other term isn't. That's what I meant by the ethical dimension being similar, even though I reach opposite conclusions.

---

I understand, but the ethical issues are really more moral issues than real ethical dilemmas. As far as the legal issue goes, I think you and I are saying the same thing with different conclusions.
 

---

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 
The things that bother me about polygamy don't necessarily have to do with the living arrangements freely decided upon by consenting adults. Look, I'm not interested in sharing a man, but if there are women who are, more power to them.

Where I have the huge problem is in the practice of some of the polygamous sects that have gotten quite a bit of publicity lately. Women are not given a choice of whom they marry - they are told who they are going to marry. Even worse, if that man gets on the bad side of the leadership, the leadership sometimes take the wives away and "assign" them to another man.

And then there is the issue of age. I've read quite a bit about some of these sects, and apparently they make a habit of marrying off girls as young as 13 or 14 years old, often to men much older than they are, and often to relatives. Then, if the girl objects or tries to leave, she is punished. That is just not right. Not in any universe I understand.

Another problem is the reported refusal of the men to support their multiple families. Instead, they encourage their women to apply for welfare benefits. In at least some of these sects, the government is seen as evil and ripping the government off is seen as a great game as well as a holy obligation.

So, perhaps the problem is not inherent in polygamy but in adherence to authoritarian religious sects. But it is a problem, and I haven't seen, in the things I've been reading, that the governments of the states where large numbers of these people live - Utah and Arizona come to mind immediately - going very far out of their way to prevent these abuses. And I'm sorry, but abuses like these are not covered by "freedom of religion", IMO. Not when some of the participants are not given any right to say no if they wish.

To recap: I'm not worried about what consenting adults do in private - but I think that they should be consenting and they should be adults, and if the men are going to father all of these children, they should take moral and financial responsibility for them.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
This thread is moving so fast that I'm always posting like 3 pages behind, <laughs> but seriously, U of U law guy, why does it not occur to you that men can do housework? It seems not to be occurring to anyone on this thread that women are no more inherently endowed with housework ability than men.

I think polyandry would be great. To me that is the natural family unit. One wife and two or three husbands. That would just fit, you know? It works. On lots of different levels. I could certainly support two husbands. Three might be a stretch, but if at least one of them worked outside the home, I'm sure we could manage.

I do think people should be legally allowed to enter into the marriage relationships that suit them, however, I can see the societal reasons for keeping polygamy against the law.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Um...AK? Have you seen how a man keeps a bathroom? Never mind several men?

Ugh. I had to call my ex and apologize after having to live with the disgusting truth.

-Trevor

Edit: For UBB code

[ July 19, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Comparing how I keep a bathroom to how my friend Dennis keeps a bathroom . . . I'm going to have to say you'd be bettter off with him as your housekeeper.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
ak:"but seriously, U of U law guy, why does it not occur to you that men can do housework?"

But it does occur to me. I do a lot of housework myself. At various times in my marriage, I have done more housework than my wife, sometimes a lot more. Even now, when I work 12 hour days, I wash the dishes, bathe the kids, dust, vacuum, take out the garbage, sweep and mop the floors and make dinner at least twice a week. My wife takes care of the kids during the day, cleans the bathrooms, cooks dinner four times a week, does most of the grocery shopping, vacuums on the days I don't, and generally keeps things tidy. My sister-in-law makes dinner one night a week, empties the dishwasher, and babysits when asked.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Hurah for UofUlawguy!
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I'm beginning to see the benefits of having a man-harem.
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 
It's amazing how much better it sounds when the shoe's on the other foot.

Now I wonder how my husband would feel if I had a couple other husbands around?

He wouldn't go for it.

But again, that's just us. I realize that others would absolutely love that arrangement. Fine, so be it.

I would have to admit being bi-sexual would really seem more feasible in such a relationship. Someone's going to feel left out at some point.

(can't type & spell simultaneously - hey are we ever going to get spell check on here?)

[ July 19, 2004, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Tammy ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Not for me. I have mad skills.

Oh. You meant emotionally.

Nevermind.
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 
*giggles* You have mad skills?

Yup! Meant emotionally! My skills are a bit mad as well if I do say so myself.

[ July 19, 2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Tammy ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Ya know, I am so staying out of this conversation.

-Trevor

Edit:

[ July 19, 2004, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
You're just afraid you'll like it.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
PSI
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I'm just letting you all know I've read the thread thus far and have nothing to contribute.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
I was just thinking... if polygamy and polandry (a new word I just learned..did I get it right?) were both made legal then at some point there would be group marriages. Several wives, several husbands. That'd be SO confusing! (The thought is amusing.)

Don't think it'd be very fair that such a relationship could be called a marriage. My marriage actually deserves the word.

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Don't think it'd be very fair that such a relationship could be called a marriage. My marriage actually deserves the word.

---

Where have I heard that before?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Polyandry - multiple husbands

Polygyny - multiple husbands

Polygamy - multiple spouses of non-specific gender

I had to look it up.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Not from me!! Although I am of that opinion. Don't feel strongly enough to campaign about it, though.

But group marriages... it woudl be confusing! Forgetting everybody's name...and forgetting who you're married to and who they're married to.. and not to mention the children! Who's my daddy again? Oh.. you don't remember? Either Jim or Bob... Okay... and "which one's my kid??"

Anne and Bob get married. Bob marries Cindy. Cindy marries Joe. Joe marries Lisa. Lisa marries Bob. Anne marries Peter. Peter marries Cindy and Sharon. Sharon marries Bob. Bob marries Joe. Joe marries Anne. etc. etc.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Oh, and I've told my husband it's fine if he gets another wife. She can do all the cooking and cleaning, but he's not allowed to have sex with her.

Or sleep with her... or be intimate in any way.

Sounds good to me.

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I just thought of this, but in a polygynous relationship you know exactly who the parent of each child is. In a polyandrous relationship you need a paternity test. In a group marriage, you just give up trying to figure it out.
 

---

Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
 
Wow, so many posts since last night. Anyways, I was so shocked by this special because of so many bad things that went along with it. As Taalcon said these people believed they were commanded by God.

People who lived in polygamous realationships talked about the relationships, and there were all sorts of stories about abuse. Fathers sexually abusing girls, and brothers sexually abusing people. It also talked about how many times polygamous families end up being a burden on society. Because of all the children. They had families they were not on welfare, but they talked about one town in Utah where almost every single family was on welfare and almost every single family was polygamous.

It all sounded very hard. The women didnt seem happy and it also seemed like the men werent happy either even though they said they were. The people in these relationships all looked very tired, like it had all taken an incredible strain on them.

[ July 19, 2004, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Promethius ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Silly Fundamentalist Mormons.
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 
Hmmm... If polygamy were legalized, we could all marry Orlando Bloom.
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 

quote:

---

Oh, and I've told my husband it's fine if he gets another wife. She can do all the cooking and cleaning, but he's not allowed to have sex with her.

Or sleep with her... or be intimate in any way.

---

quote:

---

That'd be SO confusing! (The thought is amusing.)

---

You're a poet
And you didn't know it.

Welcome to Hatrack

I guess my husband has said he is worried that polygamy might "come back" (like it was a worrisome growth or something). And if he were commanded to, he would ask me about having another wife. But as has been mentioned, he finds me more than a handful such that he can't imagine another wife, let alone more than that.

But he swears up and down that he would not prefer polygamy.

My sister used to talk a lot about polygamy as a better social structure in which women wouldn't have to compete so viciously for mates. I don't know if socio-liberal is the right word for what she was talking about, since she wasn't really interested in poly-amory. I think she just had an idealized notion of our great-grandmother who was able to work as a schoolteacher while her sister-wife took care of the children.

If there were meaningful division of labor like that it could make sense. But I think with these renegade polygamists today, they don't have any "tax payers" as the employed polygamous wives of old were known.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think I have worried a lot more about polygamy "coming back" than my husband. The idea is not pleasant.
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 

quote:

---

My sister used to talk a lot about polygamy as a better social structure in which women wouldn't have to compete so viciously for mates.

---

Ah but within the marriage competition would exist. Regardless of whether or not your religion mandated multiple partners, regardless of whether you were under spiritual obligation or not, it would be darn hard not to compete. Do you agree?

Not everyone is competitive. There are some who have much milder personalities. I understand this. However even in monogamous relationships there's certain aspects of competition, hopefully it's balanced.

It would definitely be hard if one found oneself under scriptural obligation to conform. At least it would be for me.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Ah but within the marriage competition would exist. Regardless of whether or not your religion mandated multiple partners, regardless of whether you were under spiritual obligation or not, it would be darn hard not to compete. Do you agree?

---

quote:

---

Beverly,
You stated that you have worried more about polygamy making a comeback. I assume you're LDS?

My question is this... since your husband isn't interested in it and neither are you, why would you be worried about it? Would polygamy become mandatory in your church?

---

Hmmm, good questions. Yes, I am LDS. Well, I guess my fears are the following:

First, there is the concept of eternal marriage. LDS believe that that the highest state of eternal existance. Many speculate that there will be many more women than men "worthy" of that state, and therefore more polygamy in the afterlife than in this. Also, if I die and Porter is sealed (eternal marriage) to another woman, we are both his wives forever. Now some may say it is silly for me to worry about polygamy in the afterlife because "things will be different" then. But I am not so sure that they will be *that* different.

Second, even though Porter says he is not interested, I can totally see us both feeling like it is something that needs to happen for us. Example, a nice lonely single lady in our area would really like to be married and just can't find the right man. Then it seems to all three of us that Porter really is the right man.

Thirdly, in the church's history it was not unheard of for men or women to be instructed specifically to enter into polygamous relationships under divine inspiration (my view, not necessarily another's). That could conceivably happen if the practice returned.

Of course then there is the final fear that despite all of Porter's protests, he may just "fall in love" with some other girl and want to marry her. (Green-eyed beast of jealousy rages) Especially if I were older and this was some young, hot, chick.

One of Porter's ancestors (actually, brother of an ancestor) was traveling away from his wife. He came home married to another woman. (LDS, back in the days of polygamy) Dude. That would TICK ME OFF.

Porter thinks my fears are silly and none of these things will ever happen. Or if they do, we will be able to deal with it when it comes.

quote:

---

Single women and widows might not LIKE being single, but society does not prevent them from making a living and supporting themselves and a family. Women are much more... liberated than that.

---

But that's only if you don't take into account LDS doctrine on marriage.

[ July 19, 2004, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Beverly,

Wow! I can see how that would make you worry. That would worry me, too. I'd have a lot of difficulty going through with it. In fact, I already know I couldn't do it. I'm VERY possessive of my husband and he is of me, too. I like it that way. I'm glad I'll never have to deal with that issue.

Most of my response would involve pointing out my personal views about religion and personal decisions and accountability. And I really don't want to get into a critical mode about another person's religion. I know it's a subject close to our hearts.

I'm Seventh-day Adventist (a church often confused with LDS for some reason. Maybe because of the SDA/LDS thing). So I am familiar with people not understanding my beliefs. I don't want to add to that sort of attitude.

If my church told me I had to do something, especially if I thought it was wrong, I wouldn't do it without personal conviction. (That's not too inflammatory, right?) Believing that the leaders (or leader) in your church have divine inspiration would be enough for that personal conviction, I understand.

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Cool! I haven't met all that many Seventh-Day Adventists. Good to meet you.

Yeah, there's the whole question: If God told you to kill someone, would you do it? For me, beyond the issue of knowing it was God's will is the issue, could I actually go through with it? I wonder that about polygamy. I believe it is entirely possible that God might require it of me. Would I be willing? Hard, hard question. On any such matter I would have to have a personal conviction, an extremely convincing one.

[ July 19, 2004, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Beverly, just noticed one part of your post that I hadn't taken in fully.

quote:

---

Of course then there is the final fear that despite all of Porter's protests, he may just "fall in love" with some other girl and want to marry her. (Green-eyed beast of jealousy rages) Especially if I were older and this was some young, hot, chick.

---

That is NOT to be put down as some sort of petty jealousy. You'd have every right to be angry (which is not a strong enough word) and devastated. I would take it, of course, VERY personally. It would be a betrayal by my husband--one I could not forgive him for. (or at least, I dont' see it ever happening.) He marries someone else, he loses me.

And I wasn't going to comment on this...but I can't help it.. the very idea that someone--ANYONE--outside of my marriage could think themselves of having the right to tell my husband he has to marry someone else... that would just BURN me up--and I'm sorry... in that moment I would stop believing that God is speaking through that person. Man is not infallable.

I was just sitting here thinking and stewing on that idea... and just getting madder and madder. He's MY husband! I can see myself getting very dangerous and violent if ever forced into that situation.

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I thought I'd interject that the church as a body repudiated polygamy before Utah was granted statehood. There was a few years of obedience, and then quite a bit of backsliding. (up through, say 1910 or so) Then the church re-repudiated it. Not sympathizing with/being polygamist is more important, from a temple service point of view, than reading the Book of Mormon.

But we have lessons about it in church, and I think that is what leads to such speculations. Also, as Beverly said, in the afterlife men who have had more than one wife in this life will still have them all. This is not the case for women, which leads to many odd speculations as in cases were a couple was married only for a short time and then the woman remarries and has children and all with a second husband, who will she be with in the afterlife? And the answer I have always been told amounts to "None of your business. God will sort it out".
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Katarin, trust me, I totally understand what you are sayin'.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Yeah, I believe that God will probably at least once in our lives require something we're not comfortable with from us. At least with Abraham, he stopped him before he actually killed Isaac.

If I were SURE it was God's will that I do something like allow my husband to marry another woman, that would be a difficult thing. I don't see myself ever being sure on something like that unless He told me Himself. I just don't trust other men (or women) to tell me something like that. Men and women make mistakes and lie.

And nice to meet you, too. Hope I didn't piss you off. This is just how I feel about it. I understand people are different.

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I wish I knew more about polygamy in the early church. I kinda want to read about it, but I kinda don't want to at the same time. It seems to be something that a lot of people don't want to talk about. But I *do* want to talk about it! I want to understand how things were back then. I want to know what it was like for them.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
We have the debate in our church, too. Will there be marriage in heaven? The older among us mostly say that there will be no marriage at all. (Because Christ said there would be no marriage or giving in marriage in Heaven.)

The younger among us say that we'll be too busy with the judgement while we're in Heaven, but that when we go to the New Earth there will be marriage. (Or maybe that's just MY take on it.)

It just seems silly to think that there wouldn't be marriage. God created it in Eden and wanted Adam and Eve to populate the Earth. Okay, so we have a populated Earth now--but what, did God run out of room?? NOOOO! There's lots of planets to populate.

Anyway...

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Not at all, Katarin.

And in the LDS church there is a pretty strong emphasis on receiving your own witness. Since it is entirely possible for a leader, being human, to make a mistake, it is important for us to have a confirmation directly from God that yes, it is God's will. We believe every person has that solemn promise from God--a personal witness as to the truth of His will on any matter.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Cool, and interesting.

In LDS theology, those who are worthy of the highest degree of glory are 1) married and 2) go on to become Gods and Goddesses themselves creating worlds and having offspring as we are God's offspring. Since many worlds are involved, there is no problem with overcrowding a single planet.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 

quote:

---

And in the LDS church there is a pretty strong emphasis on receiving your own witness. Since it is entirely possible for a leader, being human, to make a mistake, it is important for us to have a confirmation directly from God that yes, it is God's will. We believe every person has that solemn promise from God--a personal witness as to the truth of His will on any matter.

---

Oh, that's good! Makes me feel better about it.

Can't say that we have an equivalent doctrine on becoming Gods and Goddesses. Seems radical to me.

Maybe in those sticky situations of who's married to who in the afterlife, people could just choose their favorite spouse.

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Speaking of marriage and wifely duty, my husband just woke up... Gonna go make supper for him.

I'm so dutiful..

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I guess not worrying about it is a way of trusting God.

Bev, it was just like monogamy in that a lot of folks had plenty to complain about and a few felt happy and blessed. Like supposedly my great grandfather's wives all adored him. Their main problem was jealousy because he was such a nice guy.

But my sister read a book recently where the woman seemed to basically think her husband was a jerk. And she was jealous as well. Explain that to me.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 


Huh.

*tries to imagine if she would be jealous of a jerk husband*

Yeah, trusting God would be good. It's not like I dwell on it all the time, but I have gone through periods of my life when it deeply troubled me. I am not particularly worried about it right now.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Katarain, yeah I am not aware of any other Christian religion that has a doctrine anything like that.
 

---

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 

quote:

---

I wish I knew more about polygamy in the early church. I kinda want to read about it, but I kinda don't want to at the same time. It seems to be something that a lot of people don't want to talk about. But I *do* want to talk about it! I want to understand how things were back then. I want to know what it was like for them.

---

I'm taking an American Religion class and this came up (I also have some family that is Mormon so the two combined just made me wonder): When exactly did the commandment for polygamy occur? Was it under Joseph Smith? He only had one wife right? If so, at what point? I know that polygamy was a large cause of the Mormon persecution, but did persecution only become great after the commandment or was it already great? Or was it under Brigham Young? If anyone knows, I would really be interesed in knowing!

Thanks!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I can only tell you what little I actually know. It was under Joseph Smith. It was practiced very "hush hush" before it was declared openly. Joseph (and others I believe) were married to other wives during this time, but it is unsure if any of those marriages (during the "hush hush" time) were actually consummated. This POV is put forth in OSC's book "Saints".

The first cannonized LDS scripture on the subject is found in Doctrine and Covenants 132 . The topic of polygamy is not addressed until verse 34. I do not think this passage represents the first teaching of this doctrine though.

I think this is the only canonized LDS scripture on the subject, if you exempt the Official Declaration where it was repealed as being practiced by the church.

Many of the church leaders spoke extensively on the subject, but the things they taught are not currently taught since the practice is no longer sanctioned, so many (including myself) are fairly ignorant about it.

[ July 19, 2004, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I don't know if anyone knows for sure how many wives Joseph Smith had. Part of the problem is his wife flip-flopped on her acceptance of the doctrine. You might find reading Card's Saints rewarding.

I used to feel trepidation about reading up on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But after my grandfather died, I decided I needed to because it was the one thing that kept him from accepting the church fully. I found out most of his ideas had no basis in fact. What I feel sad about is there was a monument to John D. Lee at a crossing of the Colorado, and it looked like some people had shot at it or tried to deface it. (John D. Lee was tried and executed for the massacre, two other men were disciplined as well but dozens of others participated to one degree or another). If anyone wants to know more you can read the book by Juanita Brooks. My grasp of the details is already starting to slide.

Anyway, I don't really know many books that recall polygamy as a good thing. Just like you don't see many books on Hollywood parents that say they were really good, commendable people. Though I guess Family Kingdom by Samuel W. Taylor was one about my Great grandfather. He seemed to have the gift of making each of his wives feel like he secretly preferred her.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
You know, that is one of the reasons I really hesitate to read about it. I fear the authors of most such books would be biased. I want to somehow get a well-rounded, unbiased view. Don't know if that is possible though.

On the subject of Samuel W. Taylor being good at being a polygamous husband, I think there are actually quite a few men out there that would do a good job. Some men just seem to have a gift for making women feel valued and special, fulfilling their deepest needs. These are the sorts of men that I imagine doing a decent job at it.

[ July 19, 2004, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 
Thanks Beverly and Pooka! Very interesting!

Looking at the Official Declaration, where it states: "And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land." Am I to understand that Mormons currently have no issue with polygamy except that it against the law of the land? In other words, if the law were to change, then the church would again see polygamy as an acceptable and holy practice? Was there never a second commandment or something that said that God no longer wanted polygamy? (I wonder only because I was told by a Mormon that God no longer sanctioned polygamy and that He only allowed it for a temporary period so the His people could survive and multiply in the wilderness.)
 

---

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 
By the way, thanks for the suggestion on reading Saints, I definately will now.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
That is correct, Amancer, which is why some of us view the country's changing views on marriage with some degree of anxiousness/anticipation.

Even the recent statement by the First Presidency of the LDS church is interesting:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman."

If I remember correctly, the constitutional ammendment supporters were wanting the wording to be "one man and one woman" which would rule out polygamy. The above statement does not disallow the prospect of polygamy, only that the marriage bounds are between man and woman rather than same sex.

[ July 19, 2004, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Hi again.

I was telling my husband about the conversation on polygamy. He teased me about it being his decision to get another wife and that I would have privileges as the first wife. Grr... No worries, though. He was just joking. (So don't think he wasn't!)

He said something funny that I just have to share, although I wasn't sure if I should! He said he doesn't see the point in having multiple wives if you can only be with one of them at a time. (Isn't there a smiley with really big eyes?? there should be.)

Funny only cause it was a joke...

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Tee hee. Yeah, that is another thing that I don't recall hearing specifically addressed. I'm pretty sure that is a no-no, though, LDS doctrinally speaking.

I honestly don't understand why a woman would participate in a three-some unless there was some bisexual-ness there, or they were just doing it for the guy for some reason. I don't see what else a woman would get out of it.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
After reading Joseph F. Smith's teachings in the teachings of the presidents series (Joseph F. Smith was the nephew of the prophet Joseph Smith Jr., and was a later president of the church), I think he must have been a wonderful husband and father to all his umpteen wives and dozens of children. I think I would marry someone like him, even if I were his third wife or something. He was so gentle and loving.

Anyway, I think I'd in general be far more prone to consider polyandry than polygamy for my own self. If it became legal and was fine with the church, that is. Though I've never heard of any hint of any polyandrous doctrine in all my readings of church material.

But I suspect that in heaven things are fair. I don't know how they are, but I suspect however it is things are arranged, they are fair.
 

---

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 
Wow Beverly! I had no idea that that was the case. Very interesting! As I mentioned before, I have a couple of family members who are Mormon, born and raised, and they seem to be completely unaware of this. I've had a conversation or two about it, and they sincerely believed the story I mentioned previously. Interesting...

Thanks again!

Laura
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Well, that's sort of strange, it seems to me. Who would want to sleep alone? If I got married there's no WAY I would ever want to sleep alone again! Forget that idea! And anyway, why should the church rule on things like that? I mean, do they have a lot of rules telling you what parts of your spouse it's okay to kiss and stuff? The whole idea is just icky. I can't imagine the church laying down rules on what constituted acceptable relations between married people. They're married, for heaven's sake! They should do whatever they want!

I mean, love each other, respect each other's wishes, and do nothing without wholehearted agreement from all parties involved, but for heaven's sake, however you want to show your love is between you and God!

[ July 20, 2004, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
You know, ak, it is so funny but I have thought before that I would not mind entering a polygamous relationship nearly so much as I would sharing my currently monogamous husband with another wife.

Like, for example, let's just say that polygamy became legal and the LDS church reinstated the practice. Then, let's say my husband died leaving me with our three children to raise on our own. While I would prefer to find a single man to marry, I could see me being willing to enter into marriage with a man who already was married for his companionship and for his being a father to my children. This would assume, of course, that he could spare the time and resources and there was love and commitment involved.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Hold the phone!

quote:

---

That is correct, Amancer, which is why some of us view the country's changing views on marriage with some degree of anxiousness/anticipation.

---

No no no. It would not be okay just because it was legal. Mormons in Saudi Arabia may not have four wives.

If you read Jacob, in chapter 3, I think, of the book of Mormon he basically acknowlegdes that the natural tendency of man is to abuse polygamy

Edit:
Jacob 3:5

If polygamy were to become legal, and if the church decided it was necessary (it provided for the care of widows and orphans as much as providing more offspring) it would not be an open season license for folks to enter into polygamy. In the olden days, a man had to be found worthy by an apostle.

The backsliding I referred to earlier was overseen by two renegade apostles. They had to resign as a result.

[ July 20, 2004, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
ak, well, I guess if you are OK with a threesome.... I don't recall anyone saying it wasn't aloud....
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Perhaps, pooka, perhaps. I am not, however, convinced. I know that polygamy is perfectly legal in several parts of the world. But I don't see the church saying, "It's OK there, but not here." I can't come up with any good explainations on why I think that at the moment though.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
I just think it's cruel to make anyone sleep alone.

Again, I think I'd be much more likely to enter into a polyandrous marriage than a polygamous one, did the law and the church allow, but in any case the idea of leaving anyone out in the cold strikes me as wrong.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Polygamy is a sin unless entered into for the Lord's reasons and not our own.

P.S. Bev, we aren't to link to Nauvoo from here. Sorry to keep squishing you... we're all learning
P.P.S. The reason for that is that folks share things on Nauvoo assuming that only other church members read them. We can share stories that have an element of humor in them, for instance, which would cause most people to think we were insane.

[ July 20, 2004, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
You know, I still have to sleep alone when my hubby goes out of town.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh. I had no idea! Should I erase it then?
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 

quote:

---

Yeah, I'm sure all those poor men just suffered and suffered with all those wives.

---

I think it likely that they did.

Because men don't want multiple wives.
Multiple WOMEN, yes. WIVES, no.

Imagine your wife in her most hostile, nagging mood.
Then imagine you have two or three more just like that. All of them think you should fix the roof, paint the house, spend more time with the children, get a better job, bathe and shave regularly, and get your dirty feet off the sofa.

None of them think you should go out drinking with the boys.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Yeah
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

In the olden days, a man had to be found worthy by an apostle.

---

But is that *really* true? I know this is what we all would *like* to believe, but it seemed like when the church got bigger and more established, polygamy kinda got out of control. Like everyone was doing it. At least that is what the Fundamentalists would have you believe.

I secretly wonder if that was one of the reasons why God saw fit to cease the practice. It was getting out of hand. I mean, just look at the Fundamentalists today! I sure wouldn't want to be like that... thinking that polygamy is an essential part of exaltation, therefore a MUST.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Baaaaleted.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yeah, men. Wanting the sex without the commitment.
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 

quote:

---

Can't say that we have an equivalent doctrine on becoming Gods and Goddesses. Seems radical to me

---

I think Eastern Orthodoxy has something sort of similar, though they don't explicitly spell out the implications of what "becoming a god" would mean.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
I just read this entire thread in one sitting.. wow. Just a few things I want to comment on...

I'm surprised no one brought up Heinlein's concept of group marriages, although I'm sure they've been discussed to death in other threads. But particularly after someone mentioned what happens when one member of a marriage wants to marry someone else... Heinlein's line marriage in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, if people entered into it voluntarily, I can see working very well. They alternated adding men and women to the family, it was primarily a farming family and many of the members worked in traditional gender roles on the farm but at least one of each gender held down and outside job and brought $ in to the family as their contribution. The members of the family all voted on adding new members. In this particular fictional world women were scare, so only the women had an official vote, but they let their men vote as well because it was a well-run family. The children married out as they got to marrying age, but the older wives and husbands stayed in the family... so there were always younger spouses to support and care for them in their old age, plenty of people of working age to provide, and plenty of people to raise the children. Equal numbers of "wage earners" and "homemakers" avoid the problems listed above of one man and many wives. Officially, all the children were everybodies, but the main character admitted privately to being especially fond of one, who "maybe looked like me."

If it were legal, and if everyone went into it without our cultural biases about possession of our SOs and jealousy, I can see this working. Yeah, there would be squabbles that might be difficult to work out, but you'd do it the same way you do in a marriage of two people... talk it through and try to find a mutually agreeable solution.

I can't see one man/many wives working without some of the wives working outside the home. But if some of them felt fullfilled that way, and at least one felt fullfilled by staying home... or if all the wives worked and the man stayed home, for that matter, it might work...

But it would never work for me, not because I can't imagine sharing a spouse (I would consider the above described line marriage, if it were a viable option for me) but because my sex drive tends to be higher then most men's. I, like ak, would consider a marriage with two or more men. I could support one husband comfortably, two as a stretch, if neither of them were working outside the home. If one or more of my husbands wanted to work, that would be fine, and if they all wanted to work and it made sense to all of us for me to stay home, under certain circumstances I would be happy to do that. (When children are young & nursing, for instance.) But my preference would certainly be to remain employeed. In fact, with three husbands, a three bedroom + guest room house, and no children, I could be quite happy with all members of the household being employeed. The housework split between many hands would make light work, we could each do the tasks that suited us best and put the ones no one liked on rotation. If kids were involved, one person would probably stay home, and with three incomes, that would be no big deal. Ideally, we'd probably have to have three kids, so they each could father one.

Not only do I think I could be happy with this, I think the men could be, too, once they got over the initial jealousy problem. A wife is a lot less likely to get upset you want to go play poker with the guys and come home late, reeking of beer and cigars if she can just sleep with one of her other husbands that night, and not care what time you come in. You all talk about men not wanting to get married as much as women... I think for a lot of guys it's because they don't want a woman around all the time, thinking we talk to much. Split it by three and it's not such an "annoyance." A guy who might not want to commit to spending every night with a woman might be a lot happier about having a stable household where someone's cooking every night and the laundry gets done regularly without him having to do it every time and spending roughly a third of the nights "with" his wife.

Yeah, I know many guys would think that was awful, and they love and cherish their wife and can't imagine sharing them. I think a lot of that is cultural, and if we were in a culture where my proposed arrangement was accepted, there would be more people okay with it. I think you can love more than one person at once, and I think you can accept that your partner loves more than one, as long it's someone you respect, admire, and can get along with.

But even in our culture, I bet I could find three men who would make excellent husbands who would be open to the above relationship with me.

I'm not going to try, because between the legal difficulties and people throwing rocks through our windows once they realized what our relationship was it's just not worth it. Plus I think the truely best men in our culture would not be okay with it. But it would be kinda nice...

This is my longest post ever... thanks for reading, if you made it through.

Edit: Reference and author and spell his name wrong...

[ July 20, 2004, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I have to say that countenancing multiple husbands causes me to sympathize with those who say they can't see having multiple wives. I'm just not up for it.

I guess the main reason sharing a husband wouldn't bother me is my mom used to talk about it occasionally. This was long before I could understand why "no husband" wouldn't be a better plan.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Looking at the Official Declaration, where it states: "And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land." Am I to understand that Mormons currently have no issue with polygamy except that it against the law of the land? In other words, if the law were to change, then the church would again see polygamy as an acceptable and holy practice?

---

I agree with pooka's answer. The basic doctrine behind polygamy is that it's OK only when sanctioned by God. If you take it upon yourself, then that's not OK. If the laws of the land changed right now, the Church would not condone polygamy unless they specifically came out and sanctioned it first.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Anyone seen "Raise the Red Lantern"? A Chinese film that deals with Chinese polygamy. Fascinating movie.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
No, but can I substitute Pearl S. Buck's The Good Earth?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Haven't read it. What's it like?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Oh, and ElJay, if you liked his exploration of family and sexual dynamics in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, may I suggest reading his book Friday as well?
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I do recall the scene in "The Last Emporer" where both wives decide they want to snuggle with the emporer. My boyfriend said, sincerely, "poor guy". That ended with one running off and then things got really sad.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Beverly, as I recall:

SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS!





Poor Chinese peasant knows that owning land is the secret to wealth and all good things. Has one wife, terrible poverty and famine. Is happy with dream.

Gradually manages to buy more and more of rich (and then formerly rich) neighbor's land. Accumulates much wealth and another wife or two. Accumulates more land and wealth. Has much unhappiness from children and wives. No matter what, holds on to the land.

When he is old and dying (dead?), his quarreling children sell the land.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Interesting. Even from that short synopsis, it has a very Asian feel to it. That kind of semi-bitter, ponder-on-this-for-a-moment message. Cool.

I never saw "The Last Emporer". Maybe I should check it out.

[ July 20, 2004, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
mph - I've read Friday, and most of his other books as well. I used the Moon example because I think it's more, well, how I would want a family to be. They marry people in because they're good, stable people, they like them, and they think they'll be a valuable contributing member of the family. In Friday, yes everyone has to approve, but there's the money aspect added in. Friday has to buy in at least one "share" in order to join, and when there is a problem the money aspect (along with some lying) tears up the family. Maybe more realistic, frankly. The thing, of course, that's in short supply in these descriptions is love. There's certainly deep caring, and sexual attraction, but not the kind of romantic love that we tend to want to marry for in our society.

The marriage form of Heinlein's that I wouldn't hold up as an example is the one in all the Lazeras Long books. Basically, it seems like a big group marriage where everyone cool who comes into the books ends up in the marriage, or at least sleeping with everyone else. Including relatives, because of course their handy geneticist just makes sure no bad gene crosses result. Seems lazy, frankly,as well as not too viable. They do not put anywhere near the thought into who they invite into a marriage as you would need to to make things work. Ah, fiction.

I remember The Good Earth... and as I recall, his first wife was another peasant, who's feet hadn't been bound and was considered "ugly." The second wife was a courtesan who he went and bought, who thought he was beneath her since he was a peasant, even though he was rich now, and was never happy being his wife. Might have something to do with why she and the children proceeded to make his life miserable. But yeah, it was very weird and bitter, and I was way too young when I read it to appreciate it fully.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Anyone seen "Raise the Red Lantern"? A Chinese film that deals with Chinese polygamy. Fascinating movie.

---