Rational justification for Polygamy?

[_gramps]

Will wrote:

Who were this man and women of whom you speak?

Sorry. Not on this board. It is in my family history. If it is a lie, then my ancestors were lying and passed it down the generations.

But, I am truly sorry it blows your theory. What else could you do but call it b.s.?

Some time when I visit the Valley again, I will stop in and we can read it together. Until then, I don't really care what you think about it.

I am really tempted to drop some hints, but I just don't think it is wise, at the time.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

We already know you've never been married. I'm going to assume that, since you're LDS, that you've also never been in a long-term, intimate relationship, either. I don't know if this is why you have such a distorted view of marriage, but, believe me, anyone who thinks seeing marriage primarily in terms of spousal intimacy indicates narcissism has a very distorted view of marriage and, likely, intimate relationships over-all. I would have thought all those years of watching Dr. Phil may have made a dent, but apparently not.

Believe me when I say that all the dissmisively sterotypical smoke you just blew simply confirms your cluelessness.

The fact is that marriage must be primarily about spousal intimacy in order to create a loving, thriving home in which the children can thrive as well. Marriages that are not primarily about spousal intimacy do not provide healthy environments for children. Since you've never had children, either, you may not realize this, but all children want to know that their parents love each other deeply, and value their intimacy as the primary core of their marriage.

I understand how, in the narrow confines of your closed mind, and in your mono-dimensional, binary way of thinking, that this is how you see things.

But, again, this simply evinces that you haven't a clue.

You ought to stick to subjects you know something about, and marriage isn't one of them.

Yet, more evidence.

I would bother to help you get more of a clue, but that would take you openning your mind, and we both know that ain't going to happen.

So, I will just leave it at that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Yet, more evidence.

I would bother to help you get more of a clue, but that would take you openning your mind, and we both know that ain't going to happen.

So, I will just leave it at that.

Of course. Even you must realize that your assertion was patently ridiculous, and would prefer to just claim I'm clueless.

Hey, weren't you once taking courses in human psychology? Why don't you ask one of your professors if viewing spousal intimacy as the primary core of marriage indicates narcissism?

[_Morrissey]

And here is no better demonstrated your blind devotion to the Mormon tribe and your willingness to overlook/rationalize clear moral failings of LDS Inc and its leaders so as to defend the faith.

One comes away with the impression that there's no behavior, no doctrine, no moral failing of LDS Inc., its leaders, or its God that you won't rationalize in defense of the faith.

I'm actually quite disappointed.

Happy to disappoint!

You presented no argument, no historical data. Only assertions, tricked out with the occasional expression of contempt.

If I'd immediately genuflected before such insubstantial stuff, it would have been shameful to me.

I have no obligation to cite chapter and verse to satisfy you. This is not an academic journal but an internet discussion board. Is this a difficult concept for you to grasp?

While you may have time to drop over 4,000 posts here, plus thousands elsewhere, and to take time to post links, do research, write long posts with high-sounding rhetoric, I (like many others and, apparently, unlike you) have a job that requires constant time. I can spare a few minutes here and there to post at most.

My conclusions are drawn from several books and articles I've read over time, plus my own observations about the nature of power and its use. You are free to accept or reject. Still, I maintain that the sexist, demeaning, and dehumanizing nature of Mormon 19th century polygamy is so obvious as to be self-evident. Your refusal or inability to recognize its sexist, demeaning, and dehumanizing nature is evidence of your self-delusion. Sorry to be frank, but there it is.

(While we're at it, you make your own share of unsubstantiated assertions. I'm trying to figure out whether you are completely clueless as to your inconsistency or whether you are being willfully obtuse.)

No Dan, what's shameful is you schilling for polygamy.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have no obligation to cite chapter and verse to satisfy you.

Quite true. Just as I have no obligation to pay any attention to you.

This is not an academic journal but an internet discussion board. Is this a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Not at all!

(Contemptuous put-down duly noted.)

Is it difficult for you to understand that, when you offer only assertion, without either evidence or argument, it's more than enough for your opponent to simply deny your assertion?

While you may have time to drop over 4,000 posts here, plus thousands elsewhere, and to take time to post links, do research, write long posts with high-sounding rhetoric, I (like many others and, apparently, unlike you) have a job that requires constant time.

I note your expression of personal contempt, and appreciate it fully.

The fact remains, however, that if you offer nothing of substance, you can't really blame me for the insubstantial character of the exchange.

I can spare a few minutes here and there to post at most.

That's fine.

My conclusions are drawn from several books and articles I've read over time, plus my own observations about the nature of power and its use.

As are mine.

You are free to accept or reject.

And yet, when I reject, you absolutely hate it, and grow insulting.

Still, I maintain that the sexist, demeaning, and dehumanizing nature of Mormon 19th century polygamy is so obvious as to be self-evident.

A proposition that I deny.

Your refusal or inability to recognize its sexist, demeaning, and dehumanizing nature is evidence of your self-delusion. . . . No Dan, what's shameful is you schilling for polygamy.

See above.

Sorry to be frank, but there it is.

Oh, not at all! I appreciate your willingness to illustrate my point, that when I disagree with you, you absolutely hate it and resort to insults.

Have a great day.

[_Morrissey]

I have no obligation to cite chapter and verse to satisfy you.

Quite true. Just as I have no obligation to pay any attention to you.

And yet you are

This is not an academic journal but an internet discussion board. Is this a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Not at all!

(Contemptuous put-down duly noted.)

Not a put-down but rather serious question as in repeated posts you seem to indicate that we have a responsibility, plus the free time, to document each and every assertion we make (whereas you make numerous undocumented assertions).

Is it difficult for you to understand that, when you offer only assertion, without either evidence or argument, it's more than enough for your opponent to simply deny your assertion?

I recognize that my opponent can do whatever he/she likes. I have no expectations. In fact, I tend to think that they are being unwise if they take time to offer documentary evidence, as this is too unimportant to warrant such an investment of time.

While you may have time to drop over 4,000 posts here, plus thousands elsewhere, and to take time to post links, do research, write long posts with high-sounding rhetoric, I (like many others and, apparently, unlike you) have a job that requires constant time.

I note your expression of personal contempt, and appreciate it fully.

It's not personal contempt. I don't feel contempt for you. I am merely noting that at over 4,000 posts here (and probably a higher number at MAD board), plus numerous posts who knows where else, along with the frequent lengthy nature of the posts, you appear to have an abundance of time to spend debating on internet discussion boards. I, and many others, don't have the luxury of time that you obviously have (as judging from the above stated evidence). That said, you ought not have expectations that others take the time to document carefully their arguments. You should try to avoid projecting your abundance of time to engage in internet debates onto others.

The fact remains, however, that if you offer nothing of substance, you can't really blame me for the insubstantial character of the exchange.

Ah yes, the ol' 'lack of substance' chestnut. If I had a nickel every time you resorted to this, I'd be rich by now. You may want to try a new line. This one has been repeated enough that I think everyone can see through it.

I can spare a few minutes here and there to post at most.

That's fine.

Indeed.

My conclusions are drawn from several books and articles I've read over time, plus my own observations about the nature of power and its use.

As are mine.

And they're wrong. Sorry, but I think you've amply demonstrated that you lack capacity to objectively assess criticisms of Mormonism. For you, it's all about defending the tribe.

You are free to accept or reject.

And yet, when I reject, you absolutely hate it, and grow insulting.

???? Questioning the judgment of someone who defends 19th Century Mormon polygamy is no less insulting than questioning the judgment of someone who defends racism. If you want to come down on the side of a dehumanizing, demeaning practice, you ought not be surprised that some people question your moral grounding on this issue.

Still, I maintain that the sexist, demeaning, and dehumanizing nature of Mormon 19th century polygamy is so obvious as to be self-evident.

A proposition that I deny.

Of course you do. Who would have even dared to assume anything different? It's all about defending the tribe with you Dan. As I said, you've shown that there's nothing you won't excuse away if the interests of Mormon Inc. are at stake.

Your refusal or inability to recognize its sexist, demeaning, and dehumanizing nature is evidence of your self-delusion. . . . No Dan, what's shameful is you schilling for polygamy.

See above.

Seen, noted, and responded to.

Sorry to be frank, but there it is.

Oh, not at all! I appreciate your willingness to illustrate my point, that when I disagree with you, you absolutely hate it and resort to insults.

I suspect also that a racist finds it insulting to be called a racist. Homophobes find it insulting to be called a homophobe (see Nehor and Wade). So it's no surprise that someone who pimps for demeaning and dehumanizing women feels insulted for being called out.

Have a great day.

Thanks. You too.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And you can read minds!

Still, no substance. And simply pointing out that I say that pretty often isn't much of a response. And certainly isn't substantial.

Supplying evidence and analysis would refute me. Whining that you don't have time to provide evidence and analysis won't.

[_Morrissey]

And you can read minds!

Nope, but you're anything but opaque as regards your tendencies on these issues. It's not like I'm reading into a blank slate.

Still, no substance. And simply pointing out that I say that pretty often isn't much of a response. And certainly isn't substantial.

Aw shucks, I guess I'll have to live with this on my conscience.

Supplying evidence and analysis would refute me. Whining that you don't have time to provide evidence and analysis won't.

There's nothing I could ever do to refute you, as you'd never reach any other conclusion than the one you've already reached.

In any case, it's a waste of time to try to do so on this or any other board.

I'm fully confident that on subjecting the evidence to impartial observers (made up of those who accept modern notions viz human rights, liberties, etc.), that you'd be on the losing end. Do you really doubt this?

It's all about the tribe with you Dan. All about the tribe.

[_asbestosman]

You know, all this talk about how monogamy is vital for deep intimate relationships makes me wonder: what about the generally open relationships of gays? From what smac and C.I. have said elsewhere, it appears that even ones who get married in scandinavian countries still tend to have open relationships. What does this imply about their relationships?

[_Yoda]

You know, all this talk about how monogamy is vital for deep intimate relationships makes me wonder: what about the generally open relationships of gays? From what smac and C.I. have said elsewhere, it appears that even ones who get married in scandinavian countries still tend to have open relationships. What does this imply about their relationships?

One of my students is gay, and he and his partner are monogamous. He wears a wedding ring. They just recently bought a home together.

Another good friend of mine who I grew up with in California is gay. He has lived with the same partner, monogamously, for 15 years.

Now, my student is in his early 30's, and my other friend is my age, 45, so I don't know if age factors into any of this.

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.