homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Decriminalizing polygamy? (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Decriminalizing polygamy?
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, polygyny, really, but anyway, an article appeared in today's Washington Post about the push by some 40,000 polygamists to have multiple marriage decriminalized (it is a felony in many states, though not prosecuted much in Utah).

Polygamists Fight To Be Seen As Part of Mainstream Society

I don't like it, but I can't really see how we can continue to criminalize an arguably free-will relationship between adults. (in the absence of forced marriage of children as with the FLDS communities). Anyone?

[ 08. May 2007, 01:47: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jonathan Strange
Shipmate
# 11001

 - Posted      Profile for Jonathan Strange   Email Jonathan Strange   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It certainly poses interesting questions about freedom if it came into the mainstream: what if a man marries a number of wives, and then one of them wants to marry another man? Would she be allowed to, or would her freedom be denied?
Could four men marry each of four women? Would they be inlaws of each other?
Could you have matriarchal(?) polygamy in Western society?

Sounds like a lawyer's headache to me.

--------------------
"Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bears his teeth, winter meets its death,
When he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again"

Posts: 1327 | From: Wessex | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If you support the uncoupling of marriage as we know it into a civil contract and a religious union, then nontraditional arrangements, such as polygamy/gyny/amoury, become more or less nonissues. There's no reason to forbid them as a civil matter and there's no need for any particular religious group to affirm them. This seems reasonable and desirable to me.

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is the nightmare the homophobes warned about, isn't it?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175

 - Posted      Profile for Shadowhund   Author's homepage   Email Shadowhund   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm more sympathetic to polygamy insofar as I am towards same-sex marriage insofar as polygamy, unlike same-sex marriage, is ordered to the propagation of children. I am in favor of decriminalizing bigamy on the same basis that adultury, sodomy, fornication, cohabitation ought to be decriminalize I am, however, not inclined to legalize it. Legalization will gradually result in the top-tier wealthy men hoarding women that would otherwise be married to middle- and lower-class men. The result will be larger numbers of single men running loose, with more rapes, more violence, causing more mayhem than we had previously. There will be a larger demand for prostitutes, which will mean even more trafficking of women than previously. We will also see an uptick in pederasty, with pretty adolescent boys serving as a substitute for unavailable women. This, I think, is in contrast to same-sex marriage (which from the traditional standpoint is not a marriage at all, but (at best) a caricature). The social effects of SSM itself - and not considering the slippery slope effects as well as the overal effect on the social understanding of marriage by formally abandoning the progeny rationale for marriage - are less drastic than polygamy because the demand for SSM is empirically quite small, won't take many men out of the marriage/procreation pool that were realistically in it to begin with, etc.


I also foresee an alliance between the religious right and leftist feminists in fighting the legalization of polygamy, as happened in the pornography wars of the 1980s and early 90s. Polygamy almost always results in depriving women of any sense of independence or a life outside of the marriage/family unit itself - something that the sharper feminists will recognize.

[ 21. November 2006, 15:21: Message edited by: JArthurCrank ]

--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"

A.N. Wilson

Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
If you support the uncoupling of marriage as we know it into a civil contract and a religious union, then nontraditional arrangements, such as polygamy/gyny/amoury, become more or less nonissues. There's no reason to forbid them as a civil matter and there's no need for any particular religious group to affirm them.

I don't think that's entirely true. I agree that religions can then recognize whatever they want, of course. But I think Peacefeet's post illustrates the possibilities of legal nightmares over inheiritance, insurance, hospital visitation rights, etc. That is, all of the civil issues involved in marriage become horribly complex.

These issues might be able to be resolved, but would need a lot of careful legislative thought beyond simply 'legalizing polygamy'.

I wonder, however, what the situation would be if a polygamous family moved from a nation where polygamy is legal to one where it is not, e.g. Nigeria or Saudi Arabia to the U.S. Does the U.S. recognize a man's (in this case) multiple wives? How does the health insurance work?

Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Choirboy, I don't believe anyone's suggesting legalising polygamy. The inheritance nightmares would remain.

The reason I heard in favour of decriminalising polygamy is that would allow women in such relationships who were being abused to seek legal redress without fear of prosecution for being in the relationship in the first place.

Decriminalisation would remove that concern, but it would not mean that such relationships were legally recognised, and I suspect that the legal messiness in terms of property and so on would continue to be an issue.

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jonathan Strange
Shipmate
# 11001

 - Posted      Profile for Jonathan Strange   Email Jonathan Strange   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
The result will be larger numbers of single men running loose...

(Not that I agree with it but) nearly all the churches I have ever attended have had loads more single women in than men because of the lack of eligible guys. Perhaps polygamy might provide a controversial solution to this? [Biased]

--------------------
"Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bears his teeth, winter meets its death,
When he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again"

Posts: 1327 | From: Wessex | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry - I hadn't caught the distinction.

[ETA crossposted with PeaceFeet]

[ 21. November 2006, 15:40: Message edited by: Choirboy ]

Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175

 - Posted      Profile for Shadowhund   Author's homepage   Email Shadowhund   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PeaceFeet:
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
The result will be larger numbers of single men running loose...

(Not that I agree with it but) nearly all the churches I have ever attended have had loads more single women in than men because of the lack of eligible guys. Perhaps polygamy might provide a controversial solution to this? [Biased]
Only if they are rich and have bags over their heads. [Big Grin]

--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"

A.N. Wilson

Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PeaceFeet:
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
Perhaps polygamy might provide a controversial solution to this? [Biased]


Lord knows, one wife is enough.I'm sure many women would agree with the converse [or perhaps believe 'at most one husband' is enough].


[code]

[ 21. November 2006, 15:47: Message edited by: Choirboy ]

Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Drat. Messed up the code again, and the clock has expired.

Sorry for the misattributions.

Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175

 - Posted      Profile for Shadowhund   Author's homepage   Email Shadowhund   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not if you're Mae West.

--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"

A.N. Wilson

Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37

 - Posted      Profile for Paul.   Author's homepage   Email Paul.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
The result will be larger numbers of single men running loose, with more rapes,

Bollocks.

If there are men who are prepared to commit rape because they aren't getting enough sex then they'd be equally likely to rape their wives - probably more so because there's more opportunity and arguably it'd be easier to get away with.

You might get more reported rapes...

Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Who was it who said that he believes in disappointing one woman at a time? That certainly seems to me to be the way that God intended...

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The main beneficiaries will be those men who hold power in FLDS dominated areas and, possibly, the more reactionary vintage of Arab sheikh's and those who will lose out will be women and younger, less powerful men.

So you can all guess where I stand on the issue.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Again, South Africa leads the way. Polygamy is already legal for those from cultural backgrounds with a tradition of it.

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zoey

Broken idealist
# 11152

 - Posted      Profile for Zoey   Email Zoey   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wondered about this when the tv show 'Big Love' (about a polygamous family) was shown in the UK.

Most churches believe that, if push comes to shove, God's laws are more important than laws made by earthly authorities (ideally you follow both, but if the two conflict then you follow God). Therefore, why can't Mormons in the US have religious marriages without any civil arrangement attached? No-one gets prosecuted for being promiscuous, or cohabiting without being married, so the Mormons could be married in their God's eyes, but not in the eyes of the state authorities - surely there would be no crime? Of course, that doesn't solve the issue of all the civil and legislative stuff connected to 'normal' marriages - but that's not solved by decriminalisation either is it? ( - surely that stuff would only become a headache with legalisation).

Presumably LDS on this thread = Latter Day Saints. Could someone enlighten me as to what the 'F' stands for?

Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
But I think Peacefeet's post illustrates the possibilities of legal nightmares over inheiritance, insurance, hospital visitation rights, etc. That is, all of the civil issues involved in marriage become horribly complex.

All of those issues can be addressed through private contracts. Appropriate limitations for such contracts can, as necessary, be imposed by legislation. There is nothing about this that is particularly complex from a contractual standpoint.

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
All of those issues can be addressed through private contracts. Appropriate limitations for such contracts can, as necessary, be imposed by legislation. There is nothing about this that is particularly complex from a contractual standpoint.

This is absolutely right. Inheritance isn't a nightmare -- you just have to set up your prenuptial agreements and wills so that your desires are clear. I can think of several different ways to do it.

I suspect that decriminalization will simply allow people who are already going to do these arrangements to do so without having to live secret lives.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Autenrieth Road

Shipmate
# 10509

 - Posted      Profile for Autenrieth Road   Email Autenrieth Road   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
Presumably LDS on this thread = Latter Day Saints. Could someone enlighten me as to what the 'F' stands for?

Presumably, Fundamentalist. The ones who still practice polygamy. (Google is your friend).

--------------------
Truth

Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Small tangent. I've known two white missionaries to Africa, at a time when polygamy was rife. (Two different African states). In one, the women had enormous influence - the Mothers' Union wore uniforms and were regarded almost as pastors (which, effectively they were). They were slowly persuading their men to accept monogamy.

In the other place, nothing like that had even started. The evangelists were careful not to go too fast against the prevailing culture. This produced an interesting dilemma when children were baptised, and a form was sent out to establish how many relatives would attend.

In the slot labelled "Mother" one or two children had entered more than one name. Interviewed by the pastor, the conversation went something like this:

Pastor: "But Kati, which of these is your REAL mother?"

Kati (totally mystified): "All of them, of course. Why?"

--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)

Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Zoey

Broken idealist
# 11152

 - Posted      Profile for Zoey   Email Zoey   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I suspect that decriminalization will simply allow people who are already going to do these arrangements to do so without having to live secret lives.

(I don't know whether I expressed myself clearly enough in my previous post.)

Why can't they already do so, by just engaging in their own version of a religious marriage ceremony, without trying to be legally or civily married? At which point, in the eyes of their state authorities, surely they are just people who are co-habiting with multiple partners and can't be prosecuted anyway? Am I being obtuse? Where is the flaw in my suggestion as to how LDS people can practise polygamy without engaging in any crime?

[Confused]

--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.

Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373

 - Posted      Profile for Rat   Email Rat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is polygamy actually illegal here, in itself? How is it differentiated from bigamy (or is it prosecuted as bigamy)?

Like MountainSnowTiger I can't see anything stopping a person from cohabiting with more than one partner, instead of or in addition to their wife\husband. The only illegal part would be if they tried to legally register a second or subsequent marriage. Any personal contract made between them would be valid, surely?

In fact, doesn't the Duke of somewhere, the one with the beard and the lions, openly do that? I've seen him talking on TV about his 'wifelets'.

So if anybody who wants to can do it that way, surely the people who lose out at the moment are the 'wifelets' and any children they have, since they don't benefit from the financial protections of marriage if the relationship ends, and won't be treated as spouses for inheritance purposes.

--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]

Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
trebuchet
Shipmate
# 11970

 - Posted      Profile for trebuchet   Author's homepage   Email trebuchet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I didn't know polygamy was illegal. I always thought the first (senior?) marriage was recognized by the law and the rest of them weren't, but I didn't realize it was actually against the law. How is this prosecuted? Where?

I'm against it being illegal; what a waste of legal resources. I'd be fine with it being legal, even (provided, of course, everybody is of age). I am amused at the nightmare projection of rich men hoarding women and rapists running rampant, which seems pretty silly to me.

The legal difficulties do seem pretty major, but as my husband is studying to be a lawyer, perhaps that's just another reason to be in favour!

Posts: 60 | From: Concord, NH, USA | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trebuchet:
The legal difficulties do seem pretty major, but as my husband is studying to be a lawyer, perhaps that's just another reason to be in favour!

A colleague describes any law that is difficult to enforce as a "___ Lawyers' Relief Act", where the blank is whatever practice area implicated by the law. So new tax legislation is the Tax Lawyers' Relief Act. Polygamy legislation would be the Family Lawyers' Relief Act.
[Big Grin]

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034

 - Posted      Profile for nurks   Email nurks   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And then the shrill, whining voice began, "O bless his little heart, his dear little Majesty needn't mind about the White Lady - that's what we call her - being dead. The Worshipful Master Doctor is only making game of a poor old woman like me when he says that. Sweet Master Doctor, learned Master Doctor, whoever heard of a witch that really died? You can always get them back."

"Call her up," said the grey voice. "We are all ready. Draw the circle. Prepare the blue fire."

--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."

Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
C.S. Lewis, one of the Aslan books but I'm not sure I see the relevance. Perhaps I'm beign dull?

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's from Prince Caspian, Gwai. Just before the fight inside Aslan's How. But I'm not sure I see the point, either.

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Raspberry Rabbit

Will preach for food
# 3080

 - Posted      Profile for Raspberry Rabbit   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mousethief asked

quote:
This is the nightmare the homophobes warned about, isn't it?

Yep. Although I remember hearing convincing arguments in response as to why this nightmare was nonsense.

RR

--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))

Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373

 - Posted      Profile for Rat   Email Rat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
Legalization will gradually result in the top-tier wealthy men hoarding women that would otherwise be married to middle- and lower-class men. The result will be larger numbers of single men running loose[...]

I don't see why. The number of women who would consent to be 'hoarded' by rich men would be similar to the number who consent to enter into non-marriage polyamourous relationships now - vanishingly small. We aren't a polygamous\polyamorous society, except for a few fringe elements, and wouldn't become so just because multiple marriage became legally possible. That would take a seismic shift in our cultural mores, and probably also in the status and self-determination of women.

Unless we think that polyamory is so enticing that, unless prevented by law, we just wouldn't be able to resist?

Although I agree that a polygamous society is likely to become unstable over time, unless the polygamy is addressing a serious gender imbalance.

(BTW on reflection I think it is the Marquis of Bath who has the wifelets. I think he's the one who's dad was a Nazi and walked a panther on a lead.)

--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]

Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
chive

Ship's nude
# 208

 - Posted      Profile for chive   Email chive   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
Legalization will gradually result in the top-tier wealthy men hoarding women that would otherwise be married to middle- and lower-class men. The result will be larger numbers of single men running loose, with more rapes, more violence, causing more mayhem than we had previously. There will be a larger demand for prostitutes, which will mean even more trafficking of women than previously. We will also see an uptick in pederasty, with pretty adolescent boys serving as a substitute for unavailable women.

That seems to be a rather negative view of men - if they don't have rings on their fingers they'll degenerate swiftly into rape and pillage.

Does being single remove one's morals and self control? Is this something that only happens to men or should I, being single, maybe warn the neighbours to keep the doors locked at night?

--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost

Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034

 - Posted      Profile for nurks   Email nurks   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
C.S. Lewis, one of the Aslan books but I'm not sure I see the relevance. Perhaps I'm beign dull?

Polygamy was an evil long dead and buried. But with all evils, you can always call them back.

--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."

Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
C.S. Lewis, one of the Aslan books but I'm not sure I see the relevance. Perhaps I'm beign dull?

Polygamy was an evil long dead and buried. But with all evils, you can always call them back.
How does this affect your view of the biblical account of the origin of the twelve tribes of Israel?

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034

 - Posted      Profile for nurks   Email nurks   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
C.S. Lewis, one of the Aslan books but I'm not sure I see the relevance. Perhaps I'm beign dull?

Polygamy was an evil long dead and buried. But with all evils, you can always call them back.
How does this affect your view of the biblical account of the origin of the twelve tribes of Israel?

T.

Like divorce, it was allowed because of our hard hearts.

I'm not going to get embroiled in another debate on sexuality. [Ultra confused]

A point tho. Because I can't resist.

For every man who has 10 wives, 9 men have none. Polygamy is about power, not about love.

--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."

Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Your concept of marriage appears to reduce women to chattel. In a society more enlightened than the one you envision, the ten women would have the power to accept or decline marriage, or perhaps to pursue several of them.

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Beautiful Dreamer
Shipmate
# 10880

 - Posted      Profile for Beautiful Dreamer   Author's homepage   Email Beautiful Dreamer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To me it seems a bit unfair because I don't believe for one moment that a man who marries multiple wives would be okay with one of his wives marrying someone else. Well, maybe some people would, but this view of marriage takes the institution back to a time that I really do not want to go to-when women were seen as chattel and not equal partners. And I have not heard anything about polyandry (multiple husbands), only polygyny (multiple wives). Seems patently unfair to women to me, but what do I know?

--------------------
More where that came from
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

Posts: 6028 | From: Outside Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034

 - Posted      Profile for nurks   Email nurks   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful_Dreamer:
Seems patently unfair to women to me

It is patently unfair. To keep control, the man will play each wife off against the other. And the wifes will bitch something chronic.

I propose a new arrangement: Polygamandy. A bloke can have 10 wives simultaneously, and each wife can also have 10 husbands simultaneously.

Or ever better: Omnipolygamandry. Everyone is married to everyone else automaticlly at birth. That way, we'll all be one big happy family.

--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."

Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, I'm not raising my daughter to be in some doofus's harem. But there's no way to stop adult people voluntarily entering into such relationships, unless you prosecute people for living with more than one woman. Even when Utah was occasionally enforcing the law on polygamy, this still didn't stamp it out.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
To keep control, the man will play each wife off against the other. And the wifes will bitch something chronic.

Because men are smart and manipulative while women are stupid and gullible. Riiiiight. [Roll Eyes]

Beautiful_Dreamer, I don't think anyone other than nurks was suggesting that this would be an asymmetrical arrangement. I haven't done a survey, but I would guess that a roughly similar percentage from each gender would be open to various types of non-traditional marriages.

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034

 - Posted      Profile for nurks   Email nurks   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Because men are smart and manipulative while women are stupid and gullible.

A man who wanted five wives would have to be smart and manipulative, certainly. And a woman who married a man with four other wives would be both stupid and gullible. Yes indeed.

Unless she had no choice.

It's no accident that societies that use wife-number as a token of status and wealth also treat women as private property.

I have to smile, tho. Non-traditional marriage indeed. What a glorious euphamism for immoral unions.

[ 22. November 2006, 01:45: Message edited by: nurks ]

--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."

Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, much as "immoral unions" is a euphemism for "things I chose to judge other people for."

Can you substantiate our claim that no woman would willingly participate in a plural marriage? While you're at it, maybe you could explain your fixation on "wife-count". I don't see anything in the OP that would lead us to a world where men are hoarding women. I think you are just setting up a straw man

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034

 - Posted      Profile for nurks   Email nurks   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Yes, much as "immoral unions" is a euphemism for "things I chose to judge other people for."

I don't choose. No more than I choose the sky's blue. I'm an ordinary, old fashioned Christian who believes in revelation. It's you lot who think to revise the rules at every whim of a lobby. Hey. Let's make the Pawn slide like a Bishop. I mean, why shouldn't it? All those Grand Masters who've gone before us. That cloud of witnesses. What would they know about chess?

Marriage: One man, one woman, to have and to hold, until death us part.

quote:
Can you substantiate our claim that no woman would willingly participate in a plural marriage? While you're at it, maybe you could explain your fixation on "wife-count". I don't see anything in the OP that would lead us to a world where men are hoarding women. I think you are just setting up a straw man

Of course you'll find women willing to do most things. Men too. Doesn't mean you let them. The greatest good for the greatest number, and that's a judgement call. One man for one woman sounds good to me. Call it sexual distributivism. If polygamy is made lawful, however, give two shakes of Itchy Dick, and you'd have women being treated as property. Not in those words of course. That would come later.

--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."

Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
WatersOfBabylon
Shipmate
# 11893

 - Posted      Profile for WatersOfBabylon   Email WatersOfBabylon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From a completely anthropological perspective, polygamy would make sense for a society with a high woman to man ratio (for example, a society recently stricken by war). It makes sure all the women are cared for.
Posts: 515 | From: I'm a nomad. | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WatersOfBabylon:
From a completely anthropological perspective, polygamy would make sense for a society with a high woman to man ratio (for example, a society recently stricken by war). It makes sure all the women are cared for.

Then again so would a situation in which they were able to earn a living wage and support themselves and any dependents they might have.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
WatersOfBabylon
Shipmate
# 11893

 - Posted      Profile for WatersOfBabylon   Email WatersOfBabylon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by WatersOfBabylon:
From a completely anthropological perspective, polygamy would make sense for a society with a high woman to man ratio (for example, a society recently stricken by war). It makes sure all the women are cared for.

Then again so would a situation in which they were able to earn a living wage and support themselves and any dependents they might have.
ouch.
[Hot and Hormonal] I should be ashamed of meself...

Posts: 515 | From: I'm a nomad. | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well in a pre-modern society where that's just not an option for most women, your way makes a great deal of sense.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Yes, much as "immoral unions" is a euphemism for "things I chose to judge other people for."

I don't choose. No more than I choose the sky's blue.
Yeah, you do. Even if you believe that you are living in a manner ordained by God, you still chose whether to pass judgment on others. Hence that pesky bit about judging not. You do yourself no favors by abdicating responsiblity for your actions.

quote:
Marriage: One man, one woman, to have and to hold, until death us part.
Thank you, Mr. Santorum.

quote:
quote:
Can you substantiate [y]our claim that no woman would willingly participate in a plural marriage? [snip]
Of course you'll find women willing to do most things. Men too. Doesn't mean you let them.
Yes, in a free country it goddamned well does mean just that. Are you proposing that what we need is a good old-fashioned theocracy? For the good of us all, of course.

So far you have failed to offer a single reason, based on something other than unsupported assertions, straw men, or your personal beliefs, why the decriminalization of plural marriage would be detrimental to society. Is that the best you've got?

[ 22. November 2006, 04:05: Message edited by: Scot ]

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034

 - Posted      Profile for nurks   Email nurks   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Yeah, you do. Even if you believe that you are living in a manner ordained by God, you still chose whether to pass judgment on others.

Well, you're passing judgement. Right now. See how easy it is? If you take a position on any conceivable dispute, you immediately judge the opposition as wrong in some way. They probably won't like it, of course, and call you rude names. Like judgemental and bigotted and phobic. All the usual smoke and mirrors.

It'd be so nice if everyone could be always right, whatever they thought and did. But they can't. Not this side of heaven.

The craven need to let everyone do exactly what they want is nothing but a collective loss of nerve. The rule of a minority over the majority, all in the name of tolerance.

quote:
Thank you, Mr. Santorum.
Thank you Jesus.

quote:
Yes, in a free country it goddamned well does mean just that.
No. It means the majority rules, or have you forgotten? For the moment, at least, we can safely say the majority in your country don't want polygamous marriages. But yeah. A few years of massaging by the press would change that quick enough. So much for democracy.

quote:
So far you have failed to offer a single reason, based on something other than unsupported assertions, straw men, or your personal beliefs, why the decriminalization of plural marriage would be detrimental to society. Is that the best you've got?

I look at polygamous societies and say: No.

A man has 10 wives. He sends them out to work. Household income: $400000 a year. Nine men have no wives. Bad luck. The children born into the rich house need servants. Hey. Those 9 unmarried men will do. Pay them $5000 a year. They have no family. They have no great need for income. Project forward a few generations.

Let each man have one woman, for God's sake. Make a law of it. The dribbling letch who wants more, buy him an Inflatable. Then he can bounce about to his heart's content.

--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."

Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
ananke
Shipmate
# 10059

 - Posted      Profile for ananke   Email ananke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:

A man has 10 wives. He sends them out to work. Household income: $400000 a year. Nine men have no wives. Bad luck. The children born into the rich house need servants. Hey. Those 9 unmarried men will do. Pay them $5000 a year. They have no family. They have no great need for income. Project forward a few generations.

You do realise that genders are not balanced now right? And that not all that many people would choose polyamoury, the same as not everyone would choose homosexuality? It would simply offer those who already live in those relationships a legal standing.

As far as feminism and polyamoury goes - I'm all for women not be chattel. Part of that is not designating marriage as a financial contract (either as unpaid/unrecognised labour or slave labour) and part of it is not exploiting women. Polyamoury has the ability to do that, but also has the ability to NOT do that. Much like marriage.

As far as things go - this is something the husband and I have talked over. Not our cup of tea, even though emotionally and mentally it would suit us. It just hasn't come up as an option. To have legal sanction would offer a level of protection denied at the moment.

--------------------
...and I bear witness, this grace, this prayer so long forgotten.

A Perfect Circle - Magdalena

Posts: 617 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools