Does anyone here really think polygamy should be illegal?

[_bcspace]

Homosexuals have complete freedom to marry so why not? Actually the best reason why plural marriage should not be illegal is because of consent between adults. I would not enshrine any of these relationships in law, but I would not make laws against them either.

[Guest]

A little off topic, here.

I have a problem with the "consenting adults" argument (I think this is the first time I've disagreed with TD, too).

Name me an instance where this argument doesn't hurt/injure at least one of the parties affected by the consent. "Consenting adults" is a load of crap.

There is virtue in placing traditional family values as a standard for civilization. People may sow their wild oats before marriage if they will (which I would discourage), but marriage (common law or otherwise) is a commitment of fidelity (among other things).

Remove the fidelity and there will be a non-consenting someone getting hurt/injured - spouses, children, in laws, parents, siblings, friends - there are few exeptions, if any.


Polygamy is just another deception in the long list of infidelities that ultimately destroy traditional family values.

I think whoever wrote Jacob 2 knew what he was talking about (fictitious story or not).

[_bcspace]

Consent is the only way to go. I never said the potential for hurt isn't there, but we see from the scriptures that God values agency over not suffering and no death. Typically, God is not going to come down and intervene everytime you are about to make a bad choice. Let consenting adults lie (multiple level pun intended).

Polygamy is just another deception in the long list of infidelities that ultimately destroy traditional family values.

You seem to believe in Jacob of the Book of Mormon. Are you then saying that God never authorized plural marriage at any time?

[_Inconceivable]

.. I never said the potential for hurt isn't there..
..Let consenting adults lie (multiple level pun intended).

My point is:

The adults in the physical "consentual" relationship are rarely the only ones affected. It is in many instances that those most affected are not aware of the infidelity. When they are apprised of the relationship, they are offended that their voices were not considered more valuable to those doing the consenting.

Traditional family values have evolved to encourage us to be loyal to our commitment to our spouses/children. Even when you remove God from the equation, it is right reason to establish cultures on such foundations.

The deciept that polygamy is a sacred institution is just another reason why it should never become legal or accepted in any culture.

It hurts, it destroys. Not everyone consents that is affected by it.

[_Tal Bachman]

Inconceivable

I'm not sure there is "one ideal form of marriage", despite what the early Republican Party said, and despite also what early Mormon leaders said; and I'm not sure, then, that the state should pick sides on the question, any more than they should pick a "one true church". I'm not even sure what the "one ideal form of human relationship" is. I know what I want; but is what I want equivalent to what everyone else should want?

Also, you write that "non-consenting" individuals will get hurt if polygyny is legalized. I don't see why that would be true. I've talked to dozens upon dozens of guys (cabdrivers) who've grown up in polygamous families (in Africa) and they said it seemed totally normal to them, and that everyone seemed to be happy. It might not be what we pick, but who cares if they pick that, even if they live here? Besides, I know of loads of people who have been totally traumatized within their family's one man-one woman marriages - like my wife.

One other thought. In ghettos there already is a dysfunctional form of polygyny, in which there is no cultural expectation that the father will formally acknowledge paternity, form a commitment to the mother, or care for the children. The illegitimacy rate in these neighborhoods is upwards of 100% (it is upwards of 70% overall for the African-American community). Wouldn't trying to reconfigure the incentive structure for sticking around, making commitments, etc., leave all the parties better off? It sounds horrible, but if it's a choice between "the notches on a guy's belt" being wives and children cared for - even, in the mind of the dude, "owned" - OR "hos and bitches f****", wouldn't we choose the former?

What I'm saying is that maybe in the case of the ghettos, the law facilitating a possible normalization - solidification - of currently fairly anarchic sexual relationships would actually help preserve "traditional family values" (like keeping commitments, working together, etc.), more than the zero tolerance policy you're suggesting.

I don't know, maybe that's crazy, but it was just a thought.

[_Inconceivable]

Polygamy is just another deception in the long list of infidelities that ultimately destroy traditional family values.

You seem to believe in Jacob of the Book of Mormon. Are you then saying that God never authorized plural marriage at any time?

I do not believe in Jacob, but I think that whoever wrote that portion was endowed with a gift of reason and compassion for those that had no voice in the "consent" we speak of.

The God that I thought I knew would not have done such things. The God of the Old Testament and the God of the Mormons will never be my God. If He is, I reject Him. I would prefer to make a peaceful place in Hell for myself than to ally with such a cold soul.

He is neither moral, charitable nor a respecter of persons. He is a God of confusion. I would propose that He is not a God at all but a group of mortals that have justified abominations by claiming there is a God that would approve of such behavior.

(So to answer your question BC, no. At least not a God I would bet my eternal soul on.)

[_bcspace]

I do not believe in Jacob, but I think that whoever wrote that portion was endowed with a gift of reason and compassion for those that had no voice in the "consent" we speak of.

Allow me to disabuse you of that notion by calling Jacob 2:30 to your attention. Of course I still believe that Jacob was endowed with reason and compassion, but I would like your faith in that work to be based on something real (like what was actually said) rather than something that doesn't exist (common in countermo and exmo circles).

The God that I thought I knew would not have done such things. The God of the Old Testament and the God of the Mormons will never be my God.

That God is the same as the God of the New Testament and all other works of scripture.

If He is, I reject Him. I would prefer to make a peaceful place in Hell for myself than to ally with such a cold soul.

He is neither moral, charitable nor a respecter of persons. He is a God of confusion. I would propose that He is not a God at all but a group of mortals that have justified abominations by claiming there is a God that would approve of such behavior.

(So to answer your question BC, no. At least not a God I would bet my eternal soul on.)

No one is preventing you from believing what you will.

[_Inconceivable]

Tal,

As you may recall, the Republicans called it "family values". Quite the nebulous term. Everyone had/has their own idea of it. I've included the word "traditional". Perhaps we could replace the word with "currently accepted Western Judeo/Christian values". Maybe you could help me pin it down.

So far as the African cab driver goes, what was his view of the role of a woman? Was he taught that she was less than a man? I would imagine that she was treated as such in most instances. Have you ever met a female African cab driver? Me neither. Probably not in her own country either.

Certainly, the ghettos are a clustered mess. The traditional family structure is broken and it's destruction is encouraged by the beaurocracies that would conspire to remain their adopted parents. Unless it is repaired, there will be generations that will never break free from such decadent culture. I've been impressed by much of what Bill Cosby has said on the subject. It takes more than just a village to raise a child. I seems it really does take committed and moral parents as the primary caregivers - at least in the most ideal circumstances.

Shouldn't the ideal be considered the standard?

[_Inconceivable]

BC,

That poorly worded "raise up seed" argument is all that you have. Whoever wrote it was aware of the crap in the old testament. He was weak to have attempted such a feeble justification without even one specific example.

Look at what the Mormons did with that one seemingly insignificant verse. Pathetic.

[_truth dancer]

I'm not so sure why the piece of paper called a "marriage certificate" should suddenly change everything and activate law enforcement.

The law doesn't much care about a married guy who has sex with other women on the side.

It DOES care about a man raping children. It is against the law in this country to rape or abuse children. Civilized citizens have determined that we will not allow men to harm children sexually or otherwise hence it is against the law.

And, it is against the law for women who are not legally married to a man to claim rights as if she were married. It is called fraud. This is a punishable crime for any woman who does such a thing, in the FLDS cult or not.

And I'm not sure that legalizing polygamy would appreciably change most marital arrangements.

It would create a legal mess unlike anything we have seen.

so why not stop harassing adults in "alternative marriages"?

Who is being harassed for an alternative marriage? I know of no such event.

Again, the problem is men raping children.

~dancer~