Polygamy. Acceptable? Immoral? State your views here.

[ForeverAutumn]

I occasionally watch the show 'Sister Wives'. I find the whole Polygamy lifestyle fascinating. It's not something that I could personally participate in. But if all parties involved are willing participants and nobody is underage or being forced into anything then it's their business, not mine.

I find the family in 'Sister Wives' to be very emotionally healthy. These seem like women that I could be friends with and hang out with. The kids seem pretty grounded. Of course there is the other side of the coin...the polygamist cults such as the FLDS where women and children are abused and often held against their will. These are the extreme polygamists who are often in the press while, I suspect, more normal families like the ones in Sister Wives try to survive in anonymity. I don't know numbers of which is more prevalent.

There's an interesting article here (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/sister-wives-family-sues-prevent-prosecution-polygamy-224012388.html) about how the Sister Wives family is fighting for their rights to not be prosecuted in Utah for their lifestyle. They are not asking the State to recognize their arrangement as legal, they just want to be allowed to keep whatever goes on behind closed doors, behind closed doors.

We've had some interesting discussions lately about religion and different lifestyles. So what's your take on this? I'm curious.

[Feanor]

I occasionally watch the show 'Sister Wives'. I find the whole Polygamy lifestyle fascinating. It's not something that I could personally participate in. But if all parties involved are willing participants and nobody is underage or being forced into anything then it's their business, not mine.

I find the family in 'Sister Wives' to be very emotionally healthy. ....

There's an interesting article here (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/sister-wives-family-sues-prevent-prosecution-polygamy-224012388.html) about how the Sister Wives family is fighting for their rights to not be prosecuted in Utah for their lifestyle. They are not asking the State to recognize their arrangement as legal, they just want to be allowed to keep whatever goes on behind closed doors, behind closed doors.

We've had some interesting discussions lately about religion and different lifestyles. So what's your take on this? I'm curious.
Polygamy where it exists -- and that's lots of place today, notably Africa -- is the generally the purview of wealthy men. I don't think it's any different where it happens unofficially in the US.

I don't have a religious opinion nor do I consider that relevant. Most Muslims will tell you four wives are permitted but a few think more is OK provided they are all treated equally. Christianity has generally gone with one wife, (or none for R.Catholic priests). So are Mormons Christian? Humm.

It's often said that polygamy is abusive of women. I tend to agree but I insist that is is also abusive of men: another case of the rich exploiting the poor. In this case it's rich men hoarding the women. It seems there are polygamous communities in the US where young men are regular kicked out, ostensibly for religious transgressions but in fact because they are competition for the women.

[bobsticks]

Acceptable but stupid...

[GMichael]

I am married, and very happy with the wife I have. As such, I do not give a fig newton what others do sexually, providing that no one is abused in any way. If I were stil single and having trouble finding a mate, I'd be pretty p'd off if some guys were grabbing up all the extras, 5+ at a time.

[recoveryone]

Polygamy, can never really be discussed unless you bring religion into it. It is base on religious faith/customs and that is where you will find the hard points of the argument. In old testament times ( which covers Christan's/Jews/Muslims faiths) you can read that man was to have only one main wife, but as man see things for himself if that woman was barren rules/bylaws/religious exceptions made it that he could take another to keep the family name going. Which brought additional rules/bylaws/exceptions if the first wife birth no sons. Most of these women were slaves/handmaids of the wife, so it was not like bringing a stranger into the home.

The most important thing was to have sons to help with fields/flocks and so forth and continue on the family name at all cost. Arranged marriages, gave value to the female (still practice in many hindo and other Indian countries), as the family of the female paid a dairy to the other family to have their son marry her. I think it was the story of Jacob was the first form of actual polygamy, were he worked for 7 years to marry one of his bosses (really a uncle) daughter, but the Uncle tricked him by saying he had to marry the oldest daughter first (not the one he wanted). Jacob worked another 7 years for the right to marry the one he wanted, so now he had 2 wives (sisters).

Now with that brief history lesson, some faiths have used that story as the right for a man to have multiple wives. Since there was no case of the first wife not being able to bare children before he married the other (if you read the story the first wife did turn out to be barren and offer up her hand maid in her place). As the church grew in power, they condemned the notion of multiple wives, but still allowed men to father children by the wifes hand maid upon consent of the wife.

This mentality remains to this day, in our own history during slavery this was the mindset of several slave owners, but not with the consent of the wife or reasons of her being barren, just sexual gratification. The Mormons kept it more to the arrange marriage view and to keep their faith pure from outsiders. But from pressure from the Feds cause Joseph Smith to have a vision and rule that polygamy will no longer be apart of the Mormon faith. With that decision the Mormon church had a split on fundamental beliefs

[JohnMichael]

My first question I ask myself is will anyone be harmed by this lifestyle and I cannot see harm. Next has there ever been a precedent and throughout history there have been times of plural marriages.

On the other hand why should someone be allowed to marry multiple times when I am not allowed to marry once in my state.

I often wonder if we need some great minds to formulate a moral/ethical guide. I find many moral decisions based on the bible that is not fair to all. Any law designed force another's idea of morality should never become law. Of course their would be some duplication such as still wrong to kill.

A friend of mine has a wife that he would gladly give to a polygamist group.

[Hyfi]

Polygamy, can never really be discussed unless you bring religion into it. It is base on religious faith/customs and that is where you will find the hard points of the argument. In old testament times ( which covers Christan's/Jews/Muslims faiths) you can read that man was to have only one main wife, but as man see things for himself if that woman was barren rules/bylaws/religious exceptions made it that he could take another to keep the family name going. Which brought additional rules/bylaws/exceptions if the first wife birth no sons. Most of these women were slaves/handmaids of the wife, so it was not like bringing a stranger into the home.

The most important thing was to have sons to help with fields/flocks and so forth and continue on the family name at all cost. Arranged marriages, gave value to the female (still practice in many hindo and other Indian countries), as the family of the female paid a dairy to the other family to have their son marry her. I think it was the story of Jacob was the first form of actual polygamy, were he worked for 7 years to marry one of his bosses (really a uncle) daughter, but the Uncle tricked him by saying he had to marry the oldest daughter first (not the one he wanted). Jacob worked another 7 years for the right to marry the one he wanted, so now he had 2 wives (sisters).

Now with that brief history lesson, some faiths have used that story as the right for a man to have multiple wives. Since there was no case of the first wife not being able to bare children before he married the other (if you read the story the first wife did turn out to be barren and offer up her hand maid in her place). As the church grew in power, they condemned the notion of multiple wives, but still allowed men to father children by the wifes hand maid upon consent of the wife.

This mentality remains to this day, in our own history during slavery this was the mindset of several slave owners, but not with the consent of the wife or reasons of her being barren, just sexual gratification. The Mormons kept it more to the arrange marriage view and to keep their faith pure from outsiders. But from pressure from the Feds cause Joseph Smith to have a vision and rule that polygamy will no longer be apart of the Mormon faith. With that decision the Mormon church had a split on fundamental beliefs

I knew this would turn into another Religion thread somehow.
Good background and info but as you state, people today use the Religious reasons to justify their own selfish pleasures.

I don't really care what people do as long as nobody is harmed, physically or emotionally.

I'm not real sure how the insurance policy works:
Family
Husband and Wife
Husband and Wife and Wife and Wife.....

I do think that since the basis of marriage is that 2 become 1, people who want multiple partners should not bother getting married and just enjoy the group sex or leftovers as a few spouses end up with. (sloppy 4ths)

Now on the lighter side...

What is the worst part of being a Polygamist?
















Multiple Mother in Laws

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think it is acceptable just like I think gay marriage is acceptable. As long as the children of these marriages are emotionally and physically healthy, I cannot see a problem with letting consenting adults do what they desire.

[GMichael]

I think it is acceptable just like I think gay marriage is acceptable. As long as the children of these marriages are emotionally and physically healthy, I cannot see a problem with letting consenting adults do what they desire.

But no animals. Ducks should be protected from this kind of abuse.

[ForeverAutumn]

On the other hand why should someone be allowed to marry multiple times when I am not allowed to marry once in my state.

To be clear. Polygamists cannot legally marry multiple wives. The wives may be recognized as such by the religion, but not by the state. My understanding is that only the first wife is a legal union. Subsequent wives are ceremonial only and do not share the same 'legal' rights.

The ironic thing here John, I think, is that they are actually fighting to have the same rights that you do.


The case has the potential to force another reexamination of laws governing individuals' sexual choices and lifestyles. It comes after the US Surpeme Court in 2003 struck down a Texas antisodomy law as an unconstitutional intrusion into private conduct, and at a time when views about marriage are in flux.

Legal analysts say it is important for the public to understand what this latest lawsuit is not about.

“This is not about the Browns' attempt to get Utah to recognize polygamous marriage, but rather to ask the federal courts to tell them they cannot punish intimate conduct,” says Melissa Murray, assistant professor of law at the UC Berkeley School of Law. The Browns will argue that the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas should extend to the practice of having multiple wives, she says.

Adds Herma Hill Kay, a US Berkeley law professor: “They are not seeking to have their relationship validated as a marriage. They’re just trying to avoid criminal prosecution.”

Understandably, the State of Utah is very sensitive to Polygamy. There is a large Mormon Fundamentalist population there and there have been many reports of physical and mental abuse among this sect, with families broken up and children removed from homes for their safety.

But it doesn't seem to me that this family falls into that same category...or do they?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

But no animals. Ducks should be protected from this kind of abuse.

LOLOLOL. As long as they keep their butts in the water...they are safe

[GMichael]

Personally, I don't see how anyone could put up with more than one spouse. That would be a lot of stress. Anyone having more than one spouse should be aloud to smoke pot with no questions asked. They're gonna need it.

[ForeverAutumn]

I knew this would turn into another Religion thread somehow.

I don't think that you can completely keep religion out of this because the reason that people are polygamists has to do with their religious beliefs. What I think will keep this discussion civil (at least I hope so) is twofold. One,nobody here, that I am aware of, subscribes to this belief so it shouldn't get personal and, two, I see this more as a discussion about society and personal freedoms than I do a religious issue.

Is polygamy immoral and should it be punished if all of the people in the sexual relationship are consenting adults with the freedom to leave should they choose to do so and nobody (including the children) is getting hurt?

Does the State of Utah have the right to hold this family criminally accountable for their actions? If the husband lived with only one wife but had affairs with other women, no one would care. Even if those affairs resulted in children, no one would care. (...unless the man in question was a politician or a celebrity...then everyone would care. :D) So, is it better or worse that he openly lives with four women instead of just having affairs?

If this family chose to live as polygamists but it was not for religious reasons, would that make any difference?

Discuss....

[Hyfi]

I don't think that you can completely keep religion out of this because the reason that people are polygamists has to do with their religious beliefs. What I think will keep this discussion civil (at least I hope so) is twofold. One,nobody here, that I am aware of, subscribes to this belief so it shouldn't get personal and, two, I see this more as a discussion about society and personal freedoms than I do a religious issue.

Is polygamy immoral and should it be punished if all of the people in the sexual relationship are consenting adults with the freedom to leave should they choose to do so and nobody (including the children) is getting hurt?

Does the State of Utah have the right to hold this family criminally accountable for their actions? If the husband lived with only one wife but had affairs with other women, no one would care. Even if those affairs resulted in children, no one would care. (...unless the man in question was a politician or a celebrity...then everyone would care. :D) So, is it better or worse that he openly lives with four women instead of just having affairs?

If this family chose to live as polygamists but it was not for religious reasons, would that make any difference?

Discuss....

Nobody should be allowed to use religious beliefs to justify anything they do. I'm sure those same people will be picking and choosing the beliefs that work for them and not the rest.

I think you should be able to do anything you want as long as you handle the fallout and the cost of it all.

I should not have to pay more taxes or insurance premiums to support this just like I hate that I have to pay more for my insurance to offset single or divorced parents premiums. So I definitely do not want to start paying for all the children and divorced wives of polygamists.

[recoveryone]

I think what Autumn is getting at is, should the other wives have equal status as the first wife. And this is were man screwed it all up, by taking other women into the house hold with out proper justification. In biblical times a woman knew her main role was to bare children for her husband (sons if possible) and it was her call to offer up a hand maiden if she was unable to conceive a child, the husband had no say in the matter. Now the Mormons put a twist on it and said its a man right to father as many children as he can and the woman have no say in the matter.

This is where the abuse card gets played, if the decision of bringing another woman into the house is not shared by both, then you cannot help but have situations arise with envy, hate and distrust. And with most women that fear/feelings are placed upon her children and their status within the family. Every family, Human or animal has a hierarchy and everyone learns/knows their place like or not, and it is only natural to want to have your position secured within that family. A woman without children would still be consider the head of the house, but she would know that the love of the father would rest upon the woman the bore him sons. But if both women gave birth to children (sons) then much uprising would occur within the home. For each son would be jocking for position of the fathers favor (Jacob & Esau, and they were full blood brothers).

Our customs today still reflect those traditions in how parents divide up the family wealth in their time of death.

[RGA]

I LOVE GAY MEN.


No I am not gay but the eliminate my competition for women so the more gay men the better if you ask me.

Now for poly relationships - whatever floats your boat. I know some people who live this lifestyle and I am friendly with a couple who are both dominants - she likes to beat guys/girls and he likes spanking women - whatever - they've been married for over 20 years and it's probably the most stable relationship I know of. They run a bed and breakfast for kinky people with different rooms for whatever the desire. Frankly it's a DisneyLand for adults. If you like that sort of thing. Although they have moved now and had to close up.

Still what does anyone really care. We're supposed to be "adults" for a reason and in supposedly free countries we should all be allowed to do things that do not hurt other people (unless they want it :devil:

If you want 8 partners go for it. People with money already have this access - see Hugh Hefner

[recoveryone]

Does the State of Utah have the right to hold this family criminally accountable for their actions? If the husband lived with only one wife but had affairs with other women, no one would care. Even if those affairs resulted in children, no one would care. (...unless the man in question was a politician or a celebrity...then everyone would care. :D) So, is it better or worse that he openly lives with four women instead of just having affairs?

Discuss....

First off lets go back and look at what Utah really is:

The Utah territory as it once was called covered what we now call State of Utah, Part of Colorado, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona. And for the most part the State of Utah is the Mormon Church, not as much today as in the past, but nothing gets elected/laws or bills passed without some sort of approval from the church. As I stated above, Utah only became a state only after agreeing to denounce polygamy.

The United States was in no hurry to admit them into the union, until gold and silver was found in the Mountains of Nevada and California, Then old BYU himself (Governor of the Territory) cut a deal. So don't think the courts of Utah is turning over rocks and beating bushes to find these people, they normally let them go about their business, until some big story pops up and rocks the boat.

[JohnMichael]

My iPhone did something strange so I will try my post again. FA I do think a polygamist could legaly marry the first wife. In Ohio I can not marry even one man. As a gay man I have no rights. I can be denied housing. I have no protection from wrongful termination for being gay. Which explains why I walk and talk like John Wayne when looking for a new apartment or applying for a job. No protection from harassment. I remember the years of fear when I thought I might be discovered.

[ForeverAutumn]

My iPhone did something strange so I will try my post again. FA I do think a polygamist could legaly marry the first wife. In Ohio I can not marry even one man. As a gay man I have no rights. I can be denied housing. I have no protection from wrongful termination for being gay. Which explains why I walk and talk like John Wayne when looking for a new apartment or applying for a job. No protection from harassment. I remember the years of fear when I thought I might be discovered.

John, you are absolutely right and I apologize. Thanks for correcting me.

[ForeverAutumn]

I think what Autumn is getting at is, should the other wives have equal status as the first wife.

I'm not trying to get at anything really. I just thought that it would be an interesting topic for discussion and I was interested in what you all thought about it.

[GMichael]

I'm not trying to get at anything really. I just thought that it would be an interesting topic for discussion and I was interested in what you all thought about it.

I think that this thread should have pictures.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think that this thread should have pictures.

Have you been visiting that kinky bed and breakfast place RGA has been talking about?

[GMichael]

Have you been visiting that kinky bed and breakfast place RGA has been talking about?

Not yet.:devil:

[Worf101]

Well, my views on polygamy are kinda helter skelter. I think we should look at it from a level even DEEPER than religion... genetics. To me the fundamental question has always been IS MAN A MONOGAMOUS ANIMAL? I personally don't think so. I believe certain religions and cultures have claimed that this is man's natural state but I'm not convinced. There were always "exceptions" to the one wife rule for the rich and powerfull.

Solomon in the old testament didn't have all them wives and concubines fer nothin. However there are so many factors as to why a culture or tribe is polygamous or not. In Africa you can find both schools of thought, even among ancient tribal cultures (pre Judeo/Christian/Muslim influence). The idea of monogamy got a big shot in the arm when the idea of "property" and inheritence became formost in some cultures. The ability to prove one's progeny became paramount.

As for the Mormons, Brigham Young was a devout believer in polygamy until the threat of invasion by Federal Troops let to another "vision" wherein the Mormon's changed course. Mark Twain visited early Utah and wrote that he thought he was travelling to heaven on earth until he met the women of Utah.

Puddin' was fascinated by the HBO series "Big Love". I never got into it. I had enough headaches with one woman in my life why in god's good name would I want to double or triple my headaches? Silly.

Worf

[bobsticks]

This is where the abuse card gets played, if the decision of bringing another woman into the house is not shared by both, then you cannot help but have situations arise with envy, hate and distrust...

My experience is that these dynamics come into play regardless of whether the decision is mutual at the time. I don't recommend ployamory for anyone who is in and values a relationship greater than funkbuddies...

<object width="560" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/JGM3z4J4TuI?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/JGM3z4J4TuI?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[GMichael]

Well, my views on polygamy are kinda helter skelter. I think we should look at it from a level even DEEPER than religion... genetics. To me the fundamental question has always been IS MAN A MONOGAMOUS ANIMAL? I personally don't think so. I believe certain religions and cultures have claimed that this is man's natural state but I'm not convinced. There were always "exceptions" to the one wife rule for the rich and powerfull.

Solomon in the old testament didn't have all them wives and concubines fer nothin. However there are so many factors as to why a culture or tribe is polygamous or not. In Africa you can find both schools of thought, even among ancient tribal cultures (pre Judeo/Christian/Muslim influence). The idea of monogamy got a big shot in the arm when the idea of "property" and inheritence became formost in some cultures. The ability to prove one's progeny became paramount.

As for the Mormons, Brigham Young was a devout believer in polygamy until the threat of invasion by Federal Troops let to another "vision" wherein the Mormon's changed course. Mark Twain visited early Utah and wrote that he thought he was travelling to heaven on earth until he met the women of Utah.

Puddin' was fascinated by the HBO series "Big Love". I never got into it. I had enough headaches with one woman in my life why in god's good name would I want to double or triple my headaches? Silly.
Worf

Not THAT'S what I'm talkin' 'bout.:out:

[noddin0ff]

If a man can manage to have multiple stable, mutually pleasurable sexual relations with women I'm not gonna rain on that parade. But, that's not what polygamy is. Polygamy is an issue of family structure and includes the children of all those women and the parental love/power/control/responsibility issues that go with children. I think polygamy is horribly unfair to children. Especially in modern society.

Multiple wives and extended family probably made some sense in societies (largely past societies) where loss of a wife or child (or several) was common due to the hardships of obtaining food, disease, death from child birth, or where a 'strong man' was needed for protection. Today it's a regressive way to live and readily lends itself to justifying abuse or neglect of children and mothers. I would simply argue that it's no accident that, as society progressed to modern standards of living, monogamous relationships come to dominate. It's healthier for the society we now inhabit, thus it is the one we adopt for family structures.

Yeah, there might be a family in the world that can fuction as a polygamous one. But for the most of humanity I'm loath to confuse a male 'fantasy' with reality and responsibility.

I don't look at herd or pack animals and say to myself, "Gee, mankind should really adopt that social structure."

[RGA]

Have you been visiting that kinky bed and breakfast place RGA has been talking about?

I went to university on Vancouver Island (VIU) and Nanaimo is kind of the "pot" capital of Canada. I've met a lot of very different people going to that school - I suppose that's one of the points of going to University - not just what happens in the classroom. The instructors can be quite varied - we had one guy who taught at Harvard for 10 years but likes living in the quieter scenic area here.

I remember getting an A- on a paper and I said to him - "I guess this would be a C+ at Harvard. He said "No - it would be an A+ at Harvard." Interesting - the reasons are likely obvious but it was a lesson learned on how universities operate and how strong administration influence interferes.

[Ajani]

I LOVE GAY MEN.


No I am not gay but the eliminate my competition for women so the more gay men the better if you ask me.

:D

That's the exact thing I've said for years to my friends: More gay men means less competition...

As for polygamy:

I can't say it bothers me... Consenting adults and all... However, when I think about the amount of drama I've gone through just finding ONE woman who matches my personality and lifestyle, the thought of trying to find/put up with multiple women is a nightmare...

Having a wild sexual romp with several women at once is one thing, but living with them is a whole different issue...

[Feanor]

If a man can manage to have multiple stable, mutually pleasurable sexual relations with women I'm not gonna rain on that parade. But, that's not what polygamy is. Polygamy is an issue of family structure and includes the children of all those women and the parental love/power/control/responsibility issues that go with children. I think polygamy is horribly unfair to children. Especially in modern society.

Multiple wives and extended family probably made some sense in societies (largely past societies) where loss of a wife or child (or several) was common due to the hardships of obtaining food, disease, death from child birth, or where a 'strong man' was needed for protection. Today it's a regressive way to live and readily lends itself to justifying abuse or neglect of children and mothers. I would simply argue that it's no accident that, as society progressed to modern standards of living, monogamous relationships come to dominate. It's healthier for the society we now inhabit, thus it is the one we adopt for family structures.

Yeah, there might be a family in the world that can fuction as a polygamous one. But for the most of humanity I'm loath to confuse a male 'fantasy' with reality and responsibility.

I don't look at herd or pack animals and say to myself, "Gee, mankind should really adopt that social structure."
I think you and I are taking a more socio-economic perspective on polygamy while others here have put more emphasis on the moral / religious aspects.

I guess it can be argued that there are circumstances where polygamy -- and polyandry for that matter -- have benefit. However I generally see this as a rich man / poor man issue. Rich men hoarding "wealth" of whatever type is conducive to neither economic nor social fairness or progress.

[Woochifer]

Quite a variety of views here! I'm coming at this from a slightly different angle.

I think the issue with polygamist communities has been the prevalence of underaged girls getting matched up with much older men. But, so long as we're talking about consenting adults, I don't have an issue with polygamy when we're just focused on the interpersonal aspect of it.

However, from a societal standpoint, there are some huge imbalances that need to be considered. Let's face it, if we legalize polygamy, the vast majority of plural marriages will involve one male with multiple females. There are many reasons behind this, but there simply won't be a lot of households that have one female with multiple husbands.

If polygamy takes hold and becomes commonplace, this potentially leaves a lot of single males without a match. So, what are the societal consequences when you have larger numbers of men competing for a shrinking pool of women?

In polygamist communities, there's an insidious underside where boys are cast out when they reach their teen years because they are viewed as competition by the men. These are known as "lost boys" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_%28Mormon_fundamentalism%29). It just stands to reason that if you have equal numbers of men and women, and some men marry upwards of 10 or 20 women, that leaves a lot of guys out. So, rather than keeping them around to cause trouble or compete for brides, these "lost boys" get excommunicated or otherwise thrown out of the community.

And for society at large, polygamy would indeed raise the number of perpetually single men. A while ago, I read that societies with disproportionately high numbers of unmarried men are not very stable, and that social unrest and revolutions accompanied situations where the men began to significantly outnumber the women. The presumption here is that if they're not pairing up and raising families, they're raising hell. Of course, that's a generality, but the roots for this might already be taking shape in places like China and Korea, where selective abortion, infanticide, and overseas adoptions have created communities with ~120 males for every 100 females and rising. Around 2020 to 2030 is when a lot of academics have predicted major upheaval occurring in China -- an unintended consequence of their one-child policy.

So, while I have no issue with consenting adults marrying whoever they want, and however many they want, there remain a lot of unanswered questions about the societal consequences of allowing plural marriage. I think polygamy might be a bridge too far to cross. But then again, I used to think the same of same-sex marriage and now it looks almost certain that full legalization will occur in most states (if not nationally) within my lifetime -- the trends among people under age 35 are way too strong in favor of same-sex marriage for it to be held back.

[GMichael]

Quite a variety of views here! I'm coming at this from a slightly different angle.

I think the issue with polygamist communities has been the prevalence of underaged girls getting matched up with much older men. But, so long as we're talking about consenting adults, I don't have an issue with polygamy when we're just focused on the interpersonal aspect of it.

However, from a societal standpoint, there are some huge imbalances that need to be considered. Let's face it, if we legalize polygamy, the vast majority of plural marriages will involve one male with multiple females. There are many reasons behind this, but there simply won't be a lot of households that have one female with multiple husbands.

If polygamy takes hold and becomes commonplace, this potentially leaves a lot of single males without a match. So, what are the societal consequences when you have larger numbers of men competing for a shrinking pool of women?

In polygamist communities, there's an insidious underside where boys are cast out when they reach their teen years because they are viewed as competition by the men. These are known as "lost boys" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_%28Mormon_fundamentalism%29). It just stands to reason that if you have equal numbers of men and women, and some men marry upwards of 10 or 20 women, that leaves a lot of guys out. So, rather than keeping them around to cause trouble or compete for brides, these "lost boys" get excommunicated or otherwise thrown out of the community.

And for society at large, polygamy would indeed raise the number of perpetually single men. A while ago, I read that societies with disproportionately high numbers of unmarried men are not very stable, and that social unrest and revolutions accompanied situations where the men began to significantly outnumber the women. The presumption here is that if they're not pairing up and raising families, they're raising hell. Of course, that's a generality, but the roots for this might already be taking shape in places like China and Korea, where selective abortion, infanticide, and overseas adoptions have created communities with ~120 males for every 100 females and rising. Around 2020 to 2030 is when a lot of academics have predicted major upheaval occurring in China -- an unintended consequence of their one-child policy.

So, while I have no issue with consenting adults marrying whoever they want, and however many they want, there remain a lot of unanswered questions about the societal consequences of allowing plural marriage. I think polygamy might be a bridge too far to cross. But then again, I used to think the same of same-sex marriage and now it looks almost certain that full legalization will occur in most states (if not nationally) within my lifetime -- the trends among people under age 35 are way too strong in favor of same-sex marriage for it to be held back.

This just makes way too much sense to me.

[Feanor]

...

So, while I have no issue with consenting adults marrying whoever they want, and however many they want, there remain a lot of unanswered questions about the societal consequences of allowing plural marriage. I think polygamy might be a bridge too far to cross. But then again, I used to think the same of same-sex marriage and now it looks almost certain that full legalization will occur in most states (if not nationally) within my lifetime -- the trends among people under age 35 are way too strong in favor of same-sex marriage for it to be held back.
You make similar points to the ones I made, Wooch. Except I think most of the answers are forthcoming: plural marriage is bad because it deprives young people (mostly men in practice) of mates with social and political problems sure to ensue.

I don't think there are any such issues in case same-sex marriage. I've supported civil union for years but was willing to reserve the word "marriage" to the case of man+woman if that compromise would make the religious people happy. Here in Canada our Supreme Court ruled that anything less than same-marriage, so-named, was discriminatory. Afterall, I think they were right.

[noddin0ff]

I just find it wrong to talk about the 'pool' of females like they were some commodity that gets hoarded. This is why polygamy is wrong: if it were a truly respectful and equal to both genders this wouldn't be a concern. Are there women 'hoarding' men?

Truth is polygamy is not a lifestyle decision made between equals on fair footing. The wrongness of polygamy can be buried, rationalized or justified through religion or societal practice or brainwashing or indoctrination...but it's still an imbalance that is, at it's root in modern, society coercive and predatory. In some circumstances being coerced and preyed upon might be in your best interest; it may be better than starving to death. But, that doesn't make it right.

The fantasy of happy free love with multiple partners is a good gig if it exists. Again, that's not what polygamy is.

[JohnMichael]

I just find it wrong to talk about the 'pool' of females like they were some commodity that gets hoarded. This is why polygamy is wrong: if it were a truly respectful and equal to both genders this wouldn't be a concern. Are there women 'hoarding' men?

Truth is polygamy is not a lifestyle decision made between equals on fair footing. The wrongness of polygamy can be buried, rationalized or justified through religion or societal practice or brainwashing or indoctrination...but it's still an imbalance that is, at it's root in modern, society coercive and predatory. In some circumstances being coerced and preyed upon might be in your best interest; it may be better than starving to death. But, that doesn't make it right.

The fantasy of happy free love with multiple partners is a good gig if it exists. Again, that's not what polygamy is.



Very few relationships are truly equal. What is important is that if it works for all involved. I think normal is what you are used to in your daily life. My normal is I am sure different from your normal.

[GMichael]

Very few relationships are truly equal. What is important is that if it works for all involved. I think normal is what you are used to in your daily life. My normal is I am sure different from your normal.

Could be, Wabbit. Could be.

[Feanor]

Very few relationships are truly equal. What is important is that if it works for all involved. I think normal is what you are used to in your daily life. My normal is I am sure different from your normal.
JM, just so I'm clear: is this you feeble justification for polygamy? Or a back-handed plea for tolerance of something else?

I agree with Noddinoff, polygamy as typically practiced in this country and others such as in Africa is exploitive. And I have made the point that it is exploitive not only of the women who are involved but also men who aren't, i.e. who are excluded from finding mates. I dont' care what consenting adults do in terms of personal morality, but polygamy is matter of social injustice which I certainly do care about.

Personally I've said that I support same-sex marriage which I fundamentally view as not different from "normal" marriage.

[JohnMichael]

JM, just so I'm clear: is this you feeble justification for polygamy? Or a back-handed plea for tolerance of something else?

I agree with Noddinoff, polygamy as typically practiced in this country and others such as in Africa is exploitive. And I have made the point that it is exploitive not only of the women who are involved but also men who aren't, i.e. who are excluded from finding mates. I dont' care what consenting adults do in terms of personal morality, but polygamy is matter of social injustice which I certainly do care about.

Personally I've said that I support same-sex marriage which I fundamentally view as not different from "normal" marriage.



I do not have to justify anything to you. It is my opinion and as vailid as yours.


Keep in mind that my comments are based on FA's original post and not on a world study of polygamy. Much in life is not fair.

[GMichael]

Pretty much everyone here has added a disclaimer about, if everyone is consenting, and no one is being hurt or forced. Some have pointed out that in many cases, someone (or their feelings) are being hurt. A valid point, but no one here has supported hurting anyone.

Should the law assume that. Should it assume that anyone practicing multiple spouses is hurting someone?
If that's the case, then maybe marrage itself should be banned.

[Feanor]

I do not have to justify anything to you. It is my opinion and as vailid as yours.


Keep in mind that my comments are based on FA's original post and not on a world study of polygamy. Much in life is not fair.
I asked you to explain. You don't have to justify to me but if you can't explain how can you jusitfy even to yourself?

[JohnMichael]

I asked you to explain. You don't have to justify to me but if you can't explain how can you jusitfy even to yourself?


No you made an insulting remark. Which is your way.

[noddin0ff]

You're all good people (that's my operating assumption anyway). But I enjoy the sport of arguing more than I enjoy the sport of appeasing. We can all have opinions, but there's no fun in holding them if you can't defend or shoot 'em down.

Opinions, however, are not all equally valid; some opinions are well founded and some are asinine. I abhor the notion that conflicting opinions can be held equivalent with no attempt to challenge either. Holding an unsupported or unchallenged opinion is an act of 'faith' and 'faith' has no place in an argument. So, respectfully re-loading...


Very few relationships are truly equal. What is important is that if it works for all involved. I think normal is what you are used to in your daily life. My normal is I am sure different from your normal.
John, I should probably have used 'mutual' rather than 'equal'. Still I see your argument as rhetorical and a side step of the issue. I have a fairly broad view of normal, and prefer to describe a relationship as 'happy' or 'healthy' rather than 'normal' since I think 'normal' is so broad as to be non-descriptive. If a relationship involves mutually capable and consenting adults, I don't much care what gender or number or kinks are involved.

I hope one would argue that a 16 year old woman and 5th wife and mother to be of a 50 year old man likely represents an unequal relationship. Similarly, a couple of 40 year olds where one handles all the finances and owns the house could also be considered unequal. But to claim some sort of blanket equivalency by saying, "Well, relationships are inherently unequal so who am I to judge." doesn't cut it. And it shouldn't matter what one's view of 'normal' is to see the how wrong it is to equate them.

Polygamy is not the equivalent of plural relationships. polygamy is binding marriage, whereas relationships are non-binding and, for the sake of argument, consensual. That's a huge difference. You can walk away from a non-mutual relationship. Not so from a non-mutual polygamous marriage.

I'm sure you could have 14 year olds happily married to 30 year olds, but just because they're not hurting anyone doesn't make it right. In polygamous communities. Young women are brought up believing that their religion or culture requires submission to a man's desires. I'm not going to call this slavery, but it heads down that road. First you've enslaved the mind to accept the condition then you bind them to you in marriage. The harm may not always be apparent but the potential is. The purpose of the force of law is to protect those unable to protect themselves. That is why polygamy is wrong and why it should be illegal.

[ForeverAutumn]

I hope one would argue that a 16 year old woman and 5th wife and mother to be of a 50 year old man likely represents an unequal relationship. Similarly, a couple of 40 year olds where one handles all the finances and owns the house could also be considered unequal. But to claim some sort of blanket equivalency by saying, "Well, relationships are inherently unequal so who am I to judge." doesn't cut it. And it shouldn't matter what one's view of 'normal' is to see the how wrong it is to equate them.

Polygamy is not the equivalent of plural relationships. polygamy is binding marriage, whereas relationships are non-binding and, for the sake of argument, consensual. That's a huge difference. You can walk away from a non-mutual relationship. Not so from a non-mutual polygamous marriage.

It's not always easy to walk away from a non-mutual relationship either. I have known people in abusive relationships who were afraid to walk away. If someone does not have the freedom to walk away from a relationship or marriage that makes them unhappy, whether monogomous or polygamous, it is wrong.


I'm sure you could have 14 year olds happily married to 30 year olds, but just because they're not hurting anyone doesn't make it right. In polygamous communities. Young women are brought up believing that their religion or culture requires submission to a man's desires. I'm not going to call this slavery, but it heads down that road. First you've enslaved the mind to accept the condition then you bind them to you in marriage. The harm may not always be apparent but the potential is. The purpose of the force of law is to protect those unable to protect themselves. That is why polygamy is wrong and why it should be illegal.

I think that everyone here would agree that the marriage of a 14-yr-old girl is abhorent. And I would argue that that relationship IS hurting someone...whether the 14-yr-old is aware that she is being hurt or not. Ignorance may be bliss but it is no excuse for abuse.

My question was not in respect to polygamy where it involves child brides. Adult relationships with children are wrong regardless of the situation...polygamous monogomous, even consentual. My question was what you thought of polygamy when it is between consenting adults who have the freedom to choose to be in the relationship or not.

Marrying children and holding people against their will is wrong. Let's not confuse the discussion by equating polygamy with abuse. Although many polygamous relationships may be abusive (I believe this is why Utah is investigating the family in question in the first place...to ensure that it is not abusive), if you go back to my original posts, I believe that I make it clear that I'm wondering what people's opinions are when this abuse does not exist and everyone appears to be happy with their situation.

[GMichael]

You're all good people (that's my operating assumption anyway). But I enjoy the sport of arguing more than I enjoy the sport of appeasing. We can all have opinions, but there's no fun in holding them if you can't defend or shoot 'em down.

Opinions, however, are not all equally valid; some opinions are well founded and some are asinine. I abhor the notion that conflicting opinions can be held equivalent with no attempt to challenge either. Holding an unsupported or unchallenged opinion is an act of 'faith' and 'faith' has no place in an argument. So, respectfully re-loading....

I resemble that remark.



John, I should probably have used 'mutual' rather than 'equal'. Still I see your argument as rhetorical and a side step of the issue. I have a fairly broad view of normal, and prefer to describe a relationship as 'happy' or 'healthy' rather than 'normal' since I think 'normal' is so broad as to be non-descriptive. If a relationship involves mutually capable and consenting adults, I don't much care what gender or number or kinks are involved.

I hope one would argue that a 16 year old woman and 5th wife and mother to be of a 50 year old man likely represents an unequal relationship. Similarly, a couple of 40 year olds where one handles all the finances and owns the house could also be considered unequal. But to claim some sort of blanket equivalency by saying, "Well, relationships are inherently unequal so who am I to judge." doesn't cut it. And it shouldn't matter what one's view of 'normal' is to see the how wrong it is to equate them.

Polygamy is not the equivalent of plural relationships. polygamy is binding marriage, whereas relationships are non-binding and, for the sake of argument, consensual. That's a huge difference. You can walk away from a non-mutual relationship. Not so from a non-mutual polygamous marriage.

I'm sure you could have 14 year olds happily married to 30 year olds, but just because they're not hurting anyone doesn't make it right. In polygamous communities. Young women are brought up believing that their religion or culture requires submission to a man's desires. I'm not going to call this slavery, but it heads down that road. First you've enslaved the mind to accept the condition then you bind them to you in marriage. The harm may not always be apparent but the potential is. The purpose of the force of law is to protect those unable to protect themselves. That is why polygamy is wrong and why it should be illegal.

Couldn't an age minimum be used? What if there are people would would like to enter into multiple marriages who do have the best of intentions? Shouldn't that be their choice?

[Hyfi]

I resemble that remark.




Couldn't an age minimum be used? What if there are people would would like to enter into multiple marriages who do have the best of intentions? Shouldn't that be their choice?

Do you really think these young girls have or feel they have a choice?

First of all they are completely brainwashed with Religion which in the older members eyes justifies their actions which is another misuse of religion. Then because they were brought up brainwashed, they are trained to believe it is what is expected of them and they are made to feel guilty if they think otherwise.

Like I said in my original answer, none of the choices or decisions to do this should be based on or justified with religion. If people want to do it, it should be because they want to and have no religious backing or justification in any way.

I doubt that outside of these F'ed up religions that try to justify this cr@p you will find many 14 year old girls that want to marry 30 year old men who already have 5 wives.

It is only because they are brainwashed and made to feel that they have to, that they do it.

[JohnMichael]

You're all good people (that's my operating assumption anyway). But I enjoy the sport of arguing more than I enjoy the sport of appeasing. We can all have opinions, but there's no fun in holding them if you can't defend or shoot 'em down.

Opinions, however, are not all equally valid; some opinions are well founded and some are asinine. I abhor the notion that conflicting opinions can be held equivalent with no attempt to challenge either. Holding an unsupported or unchallenged opinion is an act of 'faith' and 'faith' has no place in an argument. So, respectfully re-loading...


John, I should probably have used 'mutual' rather than 'equal'. Still I see your argument as rhetorical and a side step of the issue. I have a fairly broad view of normal, and prefer to describe a relationship as 'happy' or 'healthy' rather than 'normal' since I think 'normal' is so broad as to be non-descriptive. If a relationship involves mutually capable and consenting adults, I don't much care what gender or number or kinks are involved.

I hope one would argue that a 16 year old woman and 5th wife and mother to be of a 50 year old man likely represents an unequal relationship. Similarly, a couple of 40 year olds where one handles all the finances and owns the house could also be considered unequal. But to claim some sort of blanket equivalency by saying, "Well, relationships are inherently unequal so who am I to judge." doesn't cut it. And it shouldn't matter what one's view of 'normal' is to see the how wrong it is to equate them.

Polygamy is not the equivalent of plural relationships. polygamy is binding marriage, whereas relationships are non-binding and, for the sake of argument, consensual. That's a huge difference. You can walk away from a non-mutual relationship. Not so from a non-mutual polygamous marriage.

I'm sure you could have 14 year olds happily married to 30 year olds, but just because they're not hurting anyone doesn't make it right. In polygamous communities. Young women are brought up believing that their religion or culture requires submission to a man's desires. I'm not going to call this slavery, but it heads down that road. First you've enslaved the mind to accept the condition then you bind them to you in marriage. The harm may not always be apparent but the potential is. The purpose of the force of law is to protect those unable to protect themselves. That is why polygamy is wrong and why it should be illegal.


Once again I am referencing the show FA posted about where everyone is a consenting adult. I am always against the exploitation of children. We could pick on monogamus marriages where one might be under the age of majority. We can find bad examoles of every type of relationship. As we all know there are bad and manipulative people in the world.

The relationship on the show is far different than what people thought was going on at the polygamist compound in Texas.

[JohnMichael]

Oh and by the way the sister wives and husband were on Oprah. The women, children and husband all seemed very happy.

When you grow up in a hetero household where there is not much love and the father is sexually, physically and verbally abusive and you see another type of family that is different but contains much love you tend not to judge.

[Feanor]

You're all good people (that's my operating assumption anyway). But I enjoy the sport of arguing more than I enjoy the sport of appeasing. We can all have opinions, but there's no fun in holding them if you can't defend or shoot 'em down.

...
Yes, this forum is for exchange of ideas and people are unlikely to agree about everything all the time. Yet some people get all hurt and offended when you disagree and ask them to explain themselves.

FA asked if we thought that polygamy was "Acceptable". Most people here have taken facile attitude that "if it's between consenting adults, it's OK". For them if that condition is met, then it's Acceptable.

You & I, (pretty much alone I think), have take the position that polygamy is so often a social abuse that it is therefore Unacceptable. (By which I suspect we both mean that it should continued to be unlawful.) Between us, we have explained this more than once, yet we still get the easy, "what ever floats your boat" line of non-reasoning.

[Feanor]

No you made an insulting remark. Which is your way.
That's really the easy way out, eh? Wha! Boohoo! You hurt my feallings :cryin:

[GMichael]

Yes, this forum is for exchange of ideas and people are unlikely to agree about everything all the time. Yet some people get all hurt and offended when you disagree and ask them to explain themselves.

FA asked if we thought that polygamy was "Acceptable". Most people here have taken facile attitude that "if it's between consenting adults, it's OK". For them if that condition is met, then it's Acceptable.

You & I, (pretty much alone I think), have take the position that polygamy is so often a social abuse that it is therefore Unacceptable. (By which I suspect we both mean that it should continued to be unlawful.) Between us, we have explained this more than once, yet we still get the easy, "what ever floats your boat" line of non-reasoning.


JM, just so I'm clear: is this you feeble justification for polygamy? Or a back-handed plea for tolerance of something else?

I agree with Noddinoff, polygamy as typically practiced in this country and others such as in Africa is exploitive. And I have made the point that it is exploitive not only of the women who are involved but also men who aren't, i.e. who are excluded from finding mates. I dont' care what consenting adults do in terms of personal morality, but polygamy is matter of social injustice which I certainly do care about.

Personally I've said that I support same-sex marriage which I fundamentally view as not different from "normal" marriage.

Are you sure it was just because you disagree and asked them to explain themselves?

[nobody]

I'm generally in favor of consenting adults doing whatever they want. And, in theory, I can see how this could be a perfectly fine scenario. And, I am completely willing to believe there are families out there can make this or pretty much any other configuration work just fine.

However, in practice things get a bit more tricky. There is an inherent imbalance in polygamy if for no other reason than we are talking about one male husband and multiple female wives. If we saw this work both ways with single women with multiple husbands balancing things out, perhaps it would be different. But that this is such the prevalent dynamic, there is certainly a large degree of inequality in regard to gender if nothing else. So, you take something unbalanced with giving males significantly more power than females and it is hard not to expect that in many cases the dis-empowered group will be taken advantage of or abused in some way. To me, it also smacks of looking at wives as possessions to be gathered up.

So yeah, I guess I can see this as being perfectly workable in theory. But, in practice I have to believe happy, truly mutually beneficial relationships of this sort are strongly in the minority and overall the a system that found this OK would be horribly rife with abuses. I guess before I felt the practice was actually practiced in a fair matter routinely, I'd have to see more than an occasional anecdotal example of a family that works well following this set-up.

To me, an interesting question would be...do you think the proponents of this, and let's be honest those will mostly be people who are religiously motivated, would be OK with women having multiple husbands? If not, I frankly call bullsht on their whole mutual consent argument.

[GMichael]

I was thinking 3+ wives with 3+ husbands. I know it sounds like an orgy, but those are not agaist the law.

[nobody]

Not against the law.......yet.

[GMichael]

Well, if they were smoking......:hand:

[JohnMichael]

I was thinking 3+ wives with 3+ husbands. I know it sounds like an orgy, but those are not agaist the law.




They were called communes in the 60's and 70's.

[GMichael]

They were called communes in the 60's and 70's.

And normal for the Doctor on the Star Trek series Enterprise.

[ForeverAutumn]

I absolutely think that this could go both ways. If it's okay for a man to have multiple wives then certainly a woman can have multiple husbands. However, this would be more unlikely to happen since, I think, the reason for multiple wives is procreation. That doesn't work so well with multiple husbands. :)

[JohnMichael]

I absolutely think that this could go both ways. If it's okay for a man to have multiple wives then certainly a woman can have multiple husbands. However, this would be more unlikely to happen since, I think, the reason for multiple wives is procreation. That doesn't work so well with multiple husbands. :)



Now I can really get behind the idea of multiple husbands. Or is it the other way around.

[Feanor]

Are you sure it was just because you disagree and asked them to explain themselves?
What are you implying? :sosp:

[ForeverAutumn]

What are you implying? :sosp:

I think that what GM is implying is that, although you may not have meant it to be, your tone was insulting. More specifically, the word "feeble" is insulting. Had you responded to me that way, I would have reacted to you the same way JohnMicheal did.

[Feanor]

I think that what GM is implying is that, although you may not have meant it to be, your tone was insulting. More specifically, the word "feeble" is insulting. Had you responded to me that way, I would have reacted to you the same way JohnMicheal did.
Mea culpa. I was insensitive and I apologize for that. I'm like that sometimes and it is a fault of mine.

The problem is that I can be just too candid. I really felt that JM was being intellectually vague and called him on it. Regardless, I should have been more tactful.

Also, I do participate in forums where people are considerably ruder to each other, but I should remember that those are different places.

[Feanor]

I absolutely think that this could go both ways. If it's okay for a man to have multiple wives then certainly a woman can have multiple husbands. However, this would be more unlikely to happen since, I think, the reason for multiple wives is procreation. That doesn't work so well with multiple husbands. :)
A group of women can produce just as many children or more if each has her own husband instead of sharing one. Hence the reason isn't biological procreation. I suggest it is a matter of acquisitiveness on the part of the polygamists (and lust, of course).

[Hyfi]

Oh and by the way the sister wives and husband were on Oprah. The women, children and husband all seemed very happy.



Oh well if it was on Oprah, then it must be true.

Is it at all possible that the family was told to behave and look happy by the dominating husband so that they could cash in on being on Oprah while promoting their brainwashing religion witch justifies the behavior for the rest of their team?

Just sayin.....

[JohnMichael]

Oh well if it was on Oprah, then it must be true.

Is it at all possible that the family was told to behave and look happy by the dominating husband so that they could cash in on being on Oprah while promoting their brainwashing religion witch justifies the behavior for the rest of their team?

Just sayin.....



I doubt they would have gone to the trouble. I watched the episode and they looked genuinely happy. Oh and by the way the women were strong independant women. If I remember correctly some of the women maintained their own homes. The situation was not a man in bed with four women. That would be a harem if they all shared the same bed. Of course then they would need a eunuch to guard the wives.

[Hyfi]

I doubt they would have gone to the trouble. I watched the episode and they looked genuinely happy. Oh and by the way the women were strong independant women. If I remember correctly some of the women maintained their own homes. The situation was not a man in bed with four women. That would be a harem if they all shared the same bed. Of course then they would need a eunuch to guard the wives.

Oh thats right, people on tv don't put on an act, not even Oprah.

It's possible that they are happy and if they are, great. But they should not be using religion to justify it all. If people want to do it, they should do it out of any faith because that is what they choose, not join a whacked religion so they can do it.

[GMichael]

What are you implying? :sosp:

That you can be rough around the edges sometimes.

(but we love you anyhow)

[ForeverAutumn]

Oh well if it was on Oprah, then it must be true.

Is it at all possible that the family was told to behave and look happy by the dominating husband so that they could cash in on being on Oprah while promoting their brainwashing religion witch justifies the behavior for the rest of their team?

Just sayin.....

Having watched 'Sister Wives' a few times. The family really does seem happy. The show started with three wives. The husband was courting a fourth woman who, after time, he wanted to bring into the family. A family meeting was held to discuss the possibility. The other wives and all of the kids liked this woman and her children so they were excited about including her in the family. I really believe that had the other wives objected the husband would not have asked the fourth to marry him.

Could the whole thing be a show for TV? Sure. But, like John, I don't think it is. I compare this to stories like Carolyn Jessop (read the book Escape. It's frightening!). And although both are polygamous families, the attitudes and values couldn't be more different.

I saw parts of that Oprah episode. From what I could tell, religion is less of an issue for this family than 'community' is. They did not preach or promote their religion on Oprah, nor do they do it on their TV show.

[JohnMichael]

Oh thats right, people on tv don't put on an act, not even Oprah.

It's possible that they are happy and if they are, great. But they should not be using religion to justify it all. If people want to do it, they should do it out of any faith because that is what they choose, not join a whacked religion so they can do it.



Should we list all the negative events that were justified with religion. Look at all the polygamy in the Old Testament. Oh and I think religion is whack.

[noddin0ff]

I guess before I felt the practice was actually practiced in a fair matter routinely, I'd have to see more than an occasional anecdotal example of a family that works well following this set-up.

Bingo. I was hoping to say the same thing but nobody puts it well, and in a good context.

[Feanor]

Bingo. I was hoping to say the same thing but nobody puts it well, and in a good context.
I've never watched Sister Wives, (just not my kind of show), but I have the feeling it presents polygamy in the best possible light, and thereby misrepresents the typical reality of it in North American and even more so the world in general.

With all due respect to ForeverAutumn and not deliberately being insulting, the whole topic does not merit serious discussion. Polygamy is a social evil and, without saying it is as bad necessarily, I liken it to slavery. I see no need to discuss the merits of slavery despite that there were slaveowners who treated their slaves well and slaves, no doubt, who would have preferred to stay with them than be set free -- blah, blah, blah.

[kexodusc]

Acceptable but stupid...

Sums up this subject for me. +1
:lol:

[ForeverAutumn]

With all due respect to ForeverAutumn and not deliberately being insulting, the whole topic does not merit serious discussion. Polygamy is a social evil and, without saying it is as bad necessarily, I liken it to slavery. I see no need to discuss the merits of slavery despite that there were slaveowners who treated their slaves well and slaves, no doubt, who would have preferred to stay with them than be set free -- blah, blah, blah.

And yet you go on to discuss it. :D

[blackraven]

I couldn't see having more than 1 wife. The WAF for my Magnepans would be much tougher!:2:

[Feanor]

And yet you go on to discuss it {Sister Wives}. :D
No, not at all. I was discussing polygamy as an institution, not the show.

To be sure, if a bunch of women want to live with each other and one man, that's their business. Acceptable but stupid as Bobsticks says.

I'm not exactly sure what 'Sticks was calling 'stupid', but I think it is potentially a big problem for a woman to live with a man without the legal protections of marriage or common law relationship. And of course, for reasons mentioned I'm throughly opposed to formally institutionalizing polygamy or polyandry.

[kexodusc]

Very good dress, swift delivery Everything came as described Good price too! Very satisfied

howcast com/users/hkpdkjsu
]Here

This some bride mail-order service? Glad you had a good experience.

[JohnMichael]

Now this is just plain wrong and was dealt with as it should be. A criminal offense.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44021900/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?gt1=43001


Polygamist leader found guilty in child-rape case

Warren Jeffs was accused of sexually assaulting 12- and 15-year-old girls he took as brides

Tony Gutierrez / AP
Warren Jeffs is accused of sexually assaulting two girls he took as brides during so-called "spiritual marriages."



SAN ANGELO, Texas — A jury on Thursday convicted polygamist church leader Warren Jeffs of sexually assaulting two girls he had taken as "spiritual wives."

The jury returned its verdict after about 3 1/2 hours of deliberations.

Jeffs stood stone-faced as the decision was read.

The penalty phase of the trial was to immediately follow. Jeff faces a sentence of up to life in prison.

During the trial, prosecutors used DNA evidence to show Jeffs fathered a child with a 15-year-old girl and played an audio recording of what they said was him sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl. They also played audio recordings in which Jeffs was heard instructing young women on how to please him sexually.

In closing arguments Thursday morning, Jeffs, who acted as his own attorney, stood mute during nearly all 30 minutes of his allotted time. He then mumbled a few words that sounded like "I am at peace" before sitting down.

Lead prosecutor Eric Nichols told jurors that the so-called religious persecution and freedom issues Jeffs raised are not a legitimate defense for the alleged crimes.
.
"This case is not about any people, not about any religion. This case is about Warren Steed Jeffs and what he has done," Nichols said, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.

Prosecutors finished presenting their case on Wednesday by playing a recording of his alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl for jurors.

In response, Jeffs entered the entire Book of Mormon into evidence and read parts of it into the record.

Jeffs has repeatedly said that his freedom of religion protects his right to practice polygamy, which has been condemned by the Mormon church.
.
Jeffs, 55, is charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child, for his relationship with the 12-year-old, and aggravated sexual assault for his relationship with a 15-year-old girl. Authorities allege that Jeffs had "spiritual" marriages with both the girls, and fathered a child with the older girl.

The self-proclaimed "prophet" and leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a banned offshoot of the Mormons that says men have to have three wives to be admitted into heaven, faces 119 years in prison if convicted on both charges.

Jeffs had argued that his religious freedoms were being trampled. The FLDS, which has at least 10,000 members nationwide, is a radical offshoot of mainstream Mormonism. The church believes polygamy is the key to heaven and that Jeffs is God's spokesman on earth.

Prosecutors said the case had nothing to do with his church or his beliefs.

"You have heard the defendant make repeated arguments about religious freedoms," said Nichols. "Make no mistake, this case is not about any people, this case is not about any religion. It is about one individual, Warren Steed Jeffs, and his actions."



Donna Mcwilliam / AP
Aerial view of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints compound under construction near Eldorado, Texas, in this March 2, 2005, photo.

Prosecutors used DNA evidence to show Jeffs fathered a child with a 15-year old, and played an audio recording of what they said was him sexually assaulting a 12-year-old.

"You might have asked yourselves," Nichols said, "a lot of people may ask, why would someone record sex? ... This individual considers himself to be the prophet. Everything he did, hour after hour, he was required to keep a record of that."

The recordings and Jeffs' personal journals were seized by police following an April 2008 raid on Yearning For Zion, a church compound in remote Eldorado, Texas, about 45 miles south of San Angelo. More than 400 children were placed in protective custody amid allegations that girls were being forced into polygamist marriages.
.
The anonymous call for help that sparked the raid turned out to be a hoax, and the children were returned to their families, but images of FLDS women wearing frontier-style dresses and hairdos out of the 19th century had made headlines nationwide.

The lone defense witness Jeffs called, church elder JD Roundy, spent about 10 minutes on the stand Thursday discussing FLDS history after 4˝ hours of testimony Wednesday evening.

Jeffs tried three times unsuccessfully to have State District Judge Barbara Walther removed and filed a brief based on what he said was a revelation from the Lord saying she will suffer a crippling sickness that will soon take her life.

The prosecution had no participation from either alleged victim, but Nichols said sexual assault of a child was "so unconscionable" that it wasn't legally required.

Nichols said Jeffs had entered into church marriages with the girls at the time he was already legally married.

Eleven other FLDS men were charged with crimes including sexual assault and bigamy. All seven of those who have been prosecuted were convicted, receiving prison sentences of between six and 75 years.

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this story.

[ForeverAutumn]

Absolutely. Child abuse and sexual abuse is always wrong no matter the circumstances. I hope he rots in jail for a long, long time.

[JohnMichael]

Absolutely. Child abuse and sexual abuse is always wrong no matter the circumstances. I hope he rots in jail for a long, long time.



Yes he needs to rot as long as it takes the young girls to heal and maybe one day to be able to have a loving relationship. When you are abused as a child you suffer more years than the sentence given to your abuser.

[Jamalun]

If women agree to live with a man who has wealth, then that is their choice. Forced polygamy is of course immoral.

[Lavarda]

Good evening, I recently read a review on bestsugardaddydate.com/elitesingles-com-review (https://www.bestsugardaddydate.com/elitesingles-com-review.html) and was pleasantly surprised that there are such cool sites. I really liked this site because it has a very nice interface and a lot of those who want to meet you. I checked it on myself, in 1 day 5 people met me.