Rational justification for Polygamy?

[_beastie]

Also remember that half the gay population is female. If lesbians tend to have "open" relationships, I haven't heard of it.

[_Yoda]

I see the disagreement on this issue being largely a matter of emphasis. Those who view marriage mostly in terms of "family", may be less troubled by the notion of plural marriage. Whereas those who view marriage mostly in terms of "spousal intimacy", will more likley find plural marriage (concurrent, not serial) objectionable.

And, given the strong narcissistic tendancy of today's modern culture, it is not surprising which of the two emphasis above is most prevalent.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade--

How do you see spousal intimacy and narcissism tying into one another? The type of spousal intimacy I was referring to, at least, involves completely caring about the other spouse...emotionally, physically, spiritually.....How is that narcissistic?

The best type of leadership is done by example. If children see a model of parents who truly respect each other and care for each other, that is the kind of behavior they will want to model, and expect to have in their own homes.

Again, I don't understand how this would be viewed as narcissistic. Care to explain?

[_harmony]

gramps,

With all due respect, the story you seem to be suggesting as factual (that these three young women had no prior knowledge of, nor gave their consent to being married to this man, and then had no subsequent power or opportunity to "escape" from the virtual dungeon of their "forced" marriages) is patently ridiculous. In other words, I'm proclaiming the whole story (or at least the version you are attempting to pawn off on us) as b***s***.

As a student of church history, you should know the history of the Saints' journey into the Salt Lake valley, Will, and the aftermath after they got there. You know they arrived in 1847. You know the Saints were desperately poor, desperately unprepared for the winter to come, desperate beyond anything imaginable. They'd lost family members, lost their possessions, lost homes they had owned.

You also know that Sec 132 was introduced in conference in 1852. There was no polygamy for the rank and file of the church when they entered the valley in 1847. The general rank and file of the church still believed the lies that Joseph and his inner circle had told them.

The practice was publicly announced in Utah in 1852, some five years after the Mormons arrived in Utah, and eight years after Smith's death. The doctrine authorizing plural marriage was published in the 1876 version of Doctrine and Covenants.[17]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_polygamy

That announcement in conference didn't come until 5 years later, when they could not return home to the States (because they had no homes to return to), when they could not escape. It was accept it or die in the attempt to return home.

Gramps' family history is as valid as any other pioneer family history. You have no right to label his family history as bull crap, and you know it. You're grasping for straws, because the historical record substantiates his family's experience. They were all trapped, not just Gramps' ancestors, but my husband's family as well as hundreds of others.

That you can't find any plural marriages in your family history says something about your ancestors' faithfulness. Obviously, the men were smarter and truer to the covenants made to their wives than you. They managed to escape the abomination; my husband's family was not so smart.

[_asbestosman]

Well it's good to know that some gays are monogamous and therefore might be able to experience true love as defined by some here. However, this does not appear to be the norm.

From smac:

A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.

A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.
...
The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.

Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.
...
A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."

The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern."

In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years: "Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships."
...
In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.

Brad Hayton provides insight into the attitudes of many homosexuals towards commitment and marriage: "Homosexuals...are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship."

[_beastie]

Well it's good to know that some gays are monogamous and therefore might be able to experience true love as defined by some here. However, this does not appear to be the norm.

I hesitate to participate in what might become a full-blown derailment, but isn't it possible that a society that sanctioned your monogamous relationship as a "marriage" might actually encourage monogamy within that same group?

by the way, I don't think most heterosexual marriages attain true love as defined by some here, either. I think that those who experience deep and satisfying intimacy with their partner on every level are the lucky few. I consider myself to be among those lucky few.

[_asbestosman]

However, if you look at heterosexual dating outside of the Mormon paradigm, couples in their 20's date, often sleep together, and move on to a different relationship before finally settling down with one person.

Do you see anything wrong with this from an intimacy perspective? I mean, there those men are out spreading their seed screwing multiple women. At the very least it appears that true intimacy is generally divorced from sex in this world. If polygamy is wrong because it lacks this true intimacy, then I would think that fornication is wrong for the same reason.

[_harmony]

I don't know what was funnier... that you cited smac as an expert on same sex relationships, or that you have somehow managed to ignore all the heterosexual bedhopping that goes on around the world. Or maybe it's that you and smac think comparing 1997 (and worse yet... 1985!) data from the US, where gay marriage was not then and is for the most part now, not a possibility, with the Dutch in a series of unnamed and undated studies, where the living conditions are far different.

I think I'll go with the "smac as a expert reference regarding homosexuals". That really made me laugh.

[_Yoda]

From smac:

I can't really speak to the studies. I can only speak to personal experience, as far as friends I have who are gay.

When I was very involved in the Northern California theater community in the mid- '80's, I noticed quite a bit of promiscuity among my gay friends. However, there was a lot of promiscuity that I noticed among my non-Mormon heterosexual friends as well.

It really seemed to be an age-related thing, though. The "try anything" attitude of those in their 20's "mellowed" by the time they were in their 30's, had graduated from college, had careers, etc. At that point, the paradigm seemed to shift, and my friends of this era were more interested in "settling down and having a family".

[_Yoda]

If polygamy is wrong because it lacks this true intimacy, then I would think that fornication is wrong for the same reason.

I agree.

[_Jason Bourne]

I see the disagreement on this issue being largely a matter of emphasis. Those who view marriage mostly in terms of "family", may be less troubled by the notion of plural marriage. Whereas those who view marriage mostly in terms of "spousal intimacy", will more likley find plural marriage (concurrent, not serial) objectionable.

And, given the strong narcissistic tendancy of today's modern culture, it is not surprising which of the two emphasis above is most prevalent.

Interestingly the monogamous population of the US in the 19th century abhorred polygamy as well and for many of the same reasons many do today. I guess they were also a bunch of narcissistic slobs as well. But of course the two are not mutually exclusive so this is a major flaw in your comments. One can have spousal intimacy and have a family. How many kids does one need to produce? Two, three, five, ten? Really it is up to the couple. Polygamy however prevents spousal intimacy and lets the man produce perhaps more than he can with one woman. I guess those who are ok with polygamy prefer to view woman ans breeding stock good for one thing, popping our kids. It seems to me though that reduces both the man and the women he breeds to not much more than a herd of cows that is serviced by one bull.

I find such an approach rather abhorrent. Wanting spousal intimacy is not narcissistic at all. What a silly thing to say. Most caring humans desire a close intimate relationship with another person.