DiscussMormonism.com

A lot of people have commented that the Republican nomination process is turning into a two man race between Newt Gingritch and Mitt Romney. Romney's principal disadvantage might be that he belongs to a wierd religion whose most infamous characteristic is possibly that it once actively practiced polygamy. Nevermind that Romney has only been married to one wife his entire life; the LDS Church never removed polygamy from its scriptures, so it's easy to believe polygamous urges must be boiling just beneath Romney's surface.

On the other hand, Gingritch is an ardent supporter of more traditional family values, which apparently includes the idea of open marriage, and if one of his two ex-wives is to be believed, he personally practiced the principle of open marriage, with her.

The thing I don't understand is, why is polygamy wrong but open marriage not wrong?

And, in case my message at this point isn't clear, let me just declare that if by some miracle Gingritch does get the Republican nomination for president, I'm going to have no qualms at all voting for Obama in the general election.

KevinSim wrote:
The thing I don't understand is, why is polygamy wrong but open marriage not wrong?

.

This is exactly what I asked my wife the other day.

My black eye is almost healed.


Oh and I am with you on Gringich vs Obama.

KevinSim wrote:
The thing I don't understand is, why is polygamy wrong but open marriage not wrong?

Well polygamy is (generally) harmful to women and children. Religious polygamy is the main problem because (generally) people accept their religious faith based beliefs irrationally, particularly if they've been raised from cradle up exposed to that religious belief. So religious polygamy is not a rational choice made by women in most cases and they generally enter into an unequal relationship..much akin to slavery..in which they are the slaves obviously.

And why would a democratic society accept a practice culturally which would cause greater problems/costs than benefits for that society? If polygamy was practiced pervasively, there would be excess males to women available for marriage which leads to problems.

In an open marriage situation there is no authority encouraging anyone to practice it based on irrational faith based beliefs. So it is much more likely to be a rational choice made without undue influence. And if someone is in a legal marital relationship and rejects an open marriage...they have legal financial recourse protecting them to some degree.

marg wrote:

KevinSim wrote:
The thing I don't understand is, why is polygamy wrong but open marriage not wrong?

Well polygamy is (generally) harmful to women and children. Religious polygamy is the main problem because (generally) people accept their religious faith based beliefs irrationally, particularly if they've been raised from cradle up exposed to that religious belief. So religious polygamy is not a rational choice made by women in most cases and they generally enter into an unequal relationship..much akin to slavery..in which they are the slaves obviously.

And why would a democratic society accept a practice culturally which would cause greater problems/costs than benefits for that society? If polygamy was practiced pervasively, there would be excess males to women available for marriage which leads to problems.

In an open marriage situation there is no authority encouraging anyone to practice it based on irrational faith based beliefs. So it is much more likely to be a rational choice made without undue influence. And if someone is in a legal marital relationship and rejects an open marriage...they have legal financial recourse protecting them to some degree.

I am sorry, but I don't really buy this argument.

What about a situation where people want a polygamous marriage for non-religious reasons? Or, how about a marriage where there are three guys with one girl?

This is another situation where, again, I think the government needs to let people exercise personal liberty.

KevinSim wrote:A lot of people have commented that the Republican nomination process is turning into a two man race between Newt Gingritch and Mitt Romney. Romney's principal disadvantage might be that he belongs to a wierd religion whose most infamous characteristic is possibly that it once actively practiced polygamy. Nevermind that Romney has only been married to one wife his entire life; the LDS Church never removed polygamy from its scriptures, so it's easy to believe polygamous urges must be boiling just beneath Romney's surface.

At this point I think it's a one man race between Mitt and the other two losers. Polygamy is not the major problem in Mormonism for most evangelicals. It's all the other weird stuff that they still believe and practice.

The Republicans are kind of stuck between a poor choice and two unacceptable choices.

keithb wrote:
I am sorry, but I don't really buy this argument.

Everything I wrote?

What about a situation where people want a polygamous marriage for non-religious reasons? Or, how about a marriage where there are three guys with one girl?

I addressed this. I said it's religious polygamy which is problematic because it uses authority that leads individuals to practice polygamy based on faith and not as a rational decision. You don't agree with that either?

This is another situation where, again, I think the government needs to let people exercise personal liberty.

If you'd like an in depth critical examination of this issue..you might find this of interest.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ ... SC1588.htm

Here is one part:

"[1315] In any event, to the extent that particular individuals sincerely believe that polygamy is a religious obligation, the impact of s. 293 on their religious freedom is outweighed by its countervailing salutary effects.

[1316] The evidence demonstrates that polygamy is associated with very substantial harms. The prevention of these harms is salutary. Some of the beneficial effects of the ongoing prohibition of polygamy include:

a) Increased per-child parental investment, with the expected increase in the mental and physical wellbeing of children overall;

b) Reduced social strife, conflict and crime expected from more uneven distribution of the opportunity to marry;

c) Reduced average age gaps between husbands and wives, increasing equality in marriages;

d) Reduction in sexual predation on young girls;

e) Reducing incentives for male control over women and their reproductive capacity; and

f) Consistency with Canada’s international treaty and legal obligations."

marg wrote:
Everything I wrote?

I disagreed with several unsupported statements you made in there, and I disagreed with the overall thrust of the argument, but I am sure that I could find at least something to agree with you about in your comment.

I addressed this. I said it's religious polygamy which is problematic because it uses authority that leads individuals to practice polygamy based on faith and not as a rational decision. You don't agree with that either?

So, is it really the fact that people are married to more than one person for religious reasons that you don't like or institutions extraneous to that marriage situation? I am specifically addressing the narrow topic of whether people should be able to marry more than one person at the same time, not whether those marriages carry baggage or are even particularly healthy for the people involved.

As for why people do things in life ... I am not sure that you can really exclude polygamy on the basis of that. People get into bad monogamous marriages all of the time for religious reasons, and I don't see anyone rushing to outlaw those types of marriages.

If you'd like an in depth critical examination of this issue..you might find this of interest.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ ... SC1588.htm

Here is one part:

"[1315] In any event, to the extent that particular individuals sincerely believe that polygamy is a religious obligation, the impact of s. 293 on their religious freedom is outweighed by its countervailing salutary effects.

[1316] The evidence demonstrates that polygamy is associated with very substantial harms. The prevention of these harms is salutary. Some of the beneficial effects of the ongoing prohibition of polygamy include:

a) Increased per-child parental investment, with the expected increase in the mental and physical wellbeing of children overall;

Here, though I am not a lawyer by profession, I could find reasons why I would personally disagree with the decision of the court. From what I read of the decision, I really don't find anything that couldn't equally well be assessed to parents, children, and adults living in other situations.

For example, a) could be equally well said of women who choose to have children out of wedlock or with an absentee father -- resulting in a decrease in parenting per child.

b) Reduced social strife, conflict and crime expected from more uneven distribution of the opportunity to marry;

I don't personally know too many people that are willing to create "social strife" over not having anyone to date. However, even assuming there are some, how is this substantially different than having a class of single guys who date multiple girls at the same time, effectively removing said girls from the marriage market?

c) Reduced average age gaps between husbands and wives, increasing equality in marriages;

Again ... it's not a crime or even the government's business if a man or woman wants to marry someone 20 years younger than them. Otherwise, the cougars and sugar daddys of the world would despair.

d) Reduction in sexual predation on young girls;

I mean ... how can you possibly even know this scientifically? And besides, is this substantially different than a bunch of divorced middle-aged men hitting bars in college towns in order to try and score a young wife?

e) Reducing incentives for male control over women and their reproductive capacity; and

Again, I know many men -- both religious and not -- that have an unhealthy level of control over when their wife decides to have kids.

f) Consistency with Canada’s international treaty and legal obligations."

And the final rule -- it's the law because it's the law.

So, while I am sure that there are some reasons why people would try to differentiate between religious-based polygamy and general polygamy, I am not personally convinced by those rules. I think that after the gay marriage ban is shot down in the U.S., I wouldn't be surprised to see a ban on polygamy go next.

Also, it seems to me that you are arguing from the position of not opposing polygamy but that there is some difference between polygamy for religious reasons and general polygamy. I am correct in this assertion?

keithb wrote:So, is it really the fact that people are married to more than one person for religious reasons that you don't like or institutions extraneous to that marriage situation? I am specifically addressing the narrow topic of whether people should be able to marry more than one person at the same time, not whether those marriages carry baggage or are even particularly healthy for the people involved.

I think there can be occasions when polygamy is truly a rational decision such that those entering the relationship are not put under undue influence..and they've been able to weigh the various factors with an appreciation of potential benefits and costs involved. I don't think individuals raised up from cradle with a religious belief system which uses authority to impose polygamy are in that position to make a rational decision. I also don't think ..that if religion did not promote polygamy in democratic societies, that this would be an issue for governments because I think few individuals in society would opt for polygamy.

When I look at the finding in the B.C. supreme court case..it seems the judge is interested in protecting individuals from religious polygamy.

As for why people do things in life ... I am not sure that you can really exclude polygamy on the basis of that. People get into bad monogamous marriages all of the time for religious reasons, and I don't see anyone rushing to outlaw those types of marriages.

Sure religious authority may encourage early monogamous marriage for example as the LDS church seems to do..but it's not in conflict with the culture of the society. Monogamous marriage is established in our society and it promotes equality of the sexes whereas polygamy does not promote equality in the relationship.

If you'd like an in depth critical examination of this issue..you might find this of interest.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ ... SC1588.htm

Here is one part:

"[1315] In any event, to the extent that particular individuals sincerely believe that polygamy is a religious obligation, the impact of s. 293 on their religious freedom is outweighed by its countervailing salutary effects.

[1316] The evidence demonstrates that polygamy is associated with very substantial harms. The prevention of these harms is salutary. Some of the beneficial effects of the ongoing prohibition of polygamy include:

a) Increased per-child parental investment, with the expected increase in the mental and physical wellbeing of children overall;

Here, though I am not a lawyer by profession, I could find reasons why I would personally disagree with the decision of the court. From what I read of the decision, I really don't find anything that couldn't equally well be assessed to parents, children, and adults living in other situations.

For example, a) could be equally well said of women who choose to have children out of wedlock or with an absentee father -- resulting in a decrease in parenting per child.

That wasn't the only factor why the court found polygamy generally abusive to women and children it was one factor of others..plus it found individuals entering polygamy for religious reasons were not doing so because it was a rational choice but rather doing so based on religious authority. It found on the whole polygamy as a result of religion was abusive to women and children. Of course there will be cases in which individuals in monogamous relationship will also be abused...but that doesn't mean that overall monogamous marriages are abusive to women and children.

b) Reduced social strife, conflict and crime expected from more uneven distribution of the opportunity to marry;

I don't personally know too many people that are willing to create "social strife" over not having anyone to date. However, even assuming there are some, how is this substantially different than having a class of single guys who date multiple girls at the same time, effectively removing said girls from the marriage market?

Is this really prevalent that there are some single guys dating so many girls that there is a shortage of datable girls available in the country? They must be good in bed huh?

c) Reduced average age gaps between husbands and wives, increasing equality in marriages;

Again ... it's not a crime or even the government's business if a man or woman wants to marry someone 20 years younger than them. Otherwise, the cougars and sugar daddys of the world would despair. [/quote]

It is a problem if the individuals in the relationship are there as a result of undue influence ..in the case of religious polygamy..religious authority. What you are effectively suggesting is that it is okay to take advantage of young girls using religious authority.

d) Reduction in sexual predation on young girls;

I mean ... how can you possibly even know this scientifically? And besides, is this substantially different than a bunch of divorced middle-aged men hitting bars in college towns in order to try and score a young wife?

You just have to look at polygamy in the early days of Mormonism or the FLDS today to appreciate young girls were taken advantage of by sexual predators...including J. Smith being one.

e) Reducing incentives for male control over women and their reproductive capacity; and

Again, I know many men -- both religious and not -- that have an unhealthy level of control over when their wife decides to have kids.

This is not a significant problem in our culture's monogamous marriages, but it is a significant problem in religious polygamy currently practiced for example by the FLDS.

f) Consistency with Canada’s international treaty and legal obligations."

And the final rule -- it's the law because it's the law.

So, while I am sure that there are some reasons why people would try to differentiate between religious-based polygamy and general polygamy, I am not personally convinced by those rules. I think that after the gay marriage ban is shot down in the U.S., I wouldn't be surprised to see a ban on polygamy go next.[/quote]

Gay marriage is very different from religious polygamy. There is no undue influence on people to enter into gay marriage as there is with for example FLDS polygamy. As I said the problem is with religious polygamy.

Also, it seems to me that you are arguing from the position of not opposing polygamy but that there is some difference between polygamy for religious reasons and general polygamy. I am correct in this assertion?

Right, see my comment above.

I was going to respond to your post point-by-point, but I think that I can sum up my thoughts in a few more general paragraphs. I think that there are two issues here.

1) Whether people should have the right to enter into a polygamous marriage, even if the causes of them wanting to enter the marriage are religiously based.

2) Whether polygamous relationships entered into because of religious reasons are ultimately harmful to the individual.

For point 1, I would argue that they do. As I stated previously, I really don't see any reason to bar a polygamous relationship -- of any type -- that couldn't also be used to argue against other types of unhealthy or unconventional types of relationships, all of which are perfectly legal.

As for point 2, in my personal philosophy, I don't care so much if it's harmful to any individual. Once a person is 18, they can choose to do myriad things that are potentially harmful, including smoking, excessive drinking, unsafe sexual practices, and entering into polygamous relationships. For me, that's it. I say that they're adults, and they can do whatever they want -- as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, even if they didn't get full information going into the situation or were lead into the situation under false pretenses. I am sure that I could find exceptions to this general statement, but I would still maintain that this is my personal approach to things in life, and I am under the opinion that the world would be a better place.

As for the children of polygamous couples ... I have to say "eh" there too. Don't get me wrong -- I am pretty certain that most polygamous situations aren't ideal for children. However, there are a lot of parental situations that aren't ideal for kids that are still perfectly legal. For example, a parent can chain smoke cigarettes, habitually cheat on his/her spouse, openly practice swinging, and a plethora of other things that, while probably harmful, are still legal and in which the government won't interfere.

KevinSim wrote:... let me just declare that if by some miracle Gingritch does get the Republican nomination for president, I'm going to have no qualms at all voting for Obama in the general election.

While this runs counter to that which some LDS consider the most holy consideration (Obama is a Democrat), such a vote would show Newt a thing or two. Heck, if Newt is persists in taking Mitt's rightful spot, we might even consider letting our daughters marry a Democrat!