Polygamy closer to legal ?
LINK :
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html?_r=0
A Utah Law Prohibiting Polygamy Is Weakened
Tags
Who is online
65 visitors
It's been almost 1.5 years since this ruling . Why is there so little interest in this topic on NT ? It doesn't fit into a clear left vs right category ?
Next thing we may see is legal marriage between a human and an animal.
Are you aware that the term polygamy composes 2 structures within it ?
1] Polygyny : which is what you are referring to .
2] Polyandry : in which a woman has more than one husband . Do you find that more interesting? ?
Probably because no one cares who or how many people you consider your family. This is a good thing, in my estimation.
I'm surprised . If anyone here could handle that arrangement I would expect she would be you ...
OK , that's your opinion . I'm not confident that your view is shared all that widely ... Would you like to hear some of the other considerations ?
Very interesting article . Thanks for posting the link . That is not the 1st time I've heard of a woman with a thing for dolphins . The other time was a woman I met at an aquatic theme park on the Keys ... I won't bore you with the details .
Perhaps that is not the "space" you are concerned about ?
Sorry I brought it up !
Because I don't want to get into "what else matters" . Some people here might think it it would be sexist ...
I didn't say it was something that I would do, but I can see no real or moral reason against the practice. I can think of logistical, legal and fiscal reasons why it may be impractical or even impracticable, but no clear strictures beyond the arbitrary and capricious.
That would be animal cruelty.
The number of people that would engage in this has to be really, really small. Women and men are simply too jealous and emotional to accept these arrangements.
From my POV you are always maneuvering for political position . If you wanted a polyandrous arrangement you would not reveal it for at least 2 reasons , one of which is that you would lose the strategic position of being free to attack males who might want polygyny .
There is nothing arbitrary about passing on STDs ...
Have you ever watched the show "Sister Wives" ? That might give you a different perspective .
I have, that's why I said that. The "sisters" clearly have jealousy issues. And once an interviewer asked Cody (the hubby) what he thought if the situation was reversed (multiple husbands) and the wide-eyed expression on his face priceless, he choked on that question.
"Shoulds" are based on moral precepts which are usually unrealistic and idealistic .
Watching that show turned me off to any thoughts I might have had about polygyny . But the women in that show manage to deal with their difficulties ...
For now they do but I think that's a pot about to boil over.
Pots of women are always that way ... even if the pot contains just one woman !
Feronia from here :
Perhaps that's why I still have peace of mind ...
Exactly, but freedoms still fight on, anyway.
Petey said:
And there is nothing that says you must have STD's if you have multiple sexual partners.
That depends upon the animal as well. There could be masochisitic animals as well as humans.
You seem to speak in liberal code words ; Freedom etc . What does it mean in the real world ? Not your problem apparently .
That was funny ...
It's all a matter of probabilities . The more sexual partners you have , the greater are your odds of receiving STDs .
In France, most people cheat on their spouse but no one really cares
Unless, of course, one makes sure they are STD free before hand.
Before I knew what "animal husbandry" meant, I thought it meant women who wanted animals to be their husbands. With the direction marriage is taking now, I may have been right in the first place.
Did you know that there is no test for HPV ? There is a vaccine but it has problems ... and it is useless for adults .
Do you have an opinion of which system is better for society : the mistress system or polygamy ?
this I think would go for polyANDRY as well where the woman has more than one man.......
One of my best friends has an older brother who lives in Utah. He has one wife and two other women that live together as man and wives. They've been together for 40 years or more.
Let's see, if I'm 60, then he is about 72. Always has been different, but is a nice guy. I've never met his wives or children. He's written a couple of books that enjoyed some commercial success.
Do you have an opinion of which system is better for society : the mistress system or polygamy ?
Do you have an opinion of which system is better for society : the mistress system or polygamy ?
I suppose you could be totally celibate, but outside of the minescule proportion of people who do that by choice, I do not really think that people would accept that as a viable alternative.
You are not being at all realistic if you intend to reduce the risk to zero. There is always some element of risk, even in breathing, taking a walk....
Kinda' takes the romance out when you have to look at their medical test reports . But that's social life these days . The other problem is that these infections don't show up on tests immediately .
The incidence of Herpes is about 1 in 6 these days . Some people have it but don't know it ...
If Shania Twain can't keep her man what chance does the average woman have ? Also would that couple have faired better as polygamists than just separated/divorced .
...
Shania Twain opens up about losing her husband to her bestfriend
Where does it stop ? How about group marriage between any unspecified number of participants ?
It seems to me that SCOTUS has not considered the consequences of "the inevitable next step" as society reacts to this unchaining of behaviors from traditional morals . The next step after polygamy is "no limits marriage" involving complex combinations of partners with various preferences . With polygamy there is a limit of one on one side of the gender count . But why stop there ? Legally there is now no reason .
This is a problem?
As long as consenting adults are the ones involved the only problems I foresee are the legal ones that pertain to how the rights and responsibilities are parceled out in any complicated, legal marriage arraignment.
But then I've been comfortable with the ideal of complexmarriage arraignments since the late 60's, after reading how Heinlein described his "Line Marriage" concept in, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
Heck, if good King Solomon could make his family of 700 wives and 300 mistresseswork, then I'm sure we modernAmericans can work through the problems of any legal unions that might involve more than two adults.
You seem to be missing my point . The number of combinations in polygamy is limited by the lone partner on one side of the gender equation . Talking about science fiction is not going to help what happens in the real world when you have 2 husbands and 2 wives [or even higher counts of each ] . And we haven't even gotten into what happens when some of the adults are bisexual ...
Still not felling your apparentconcerns with how many ways people might co-join their private parts, in some future, potential legal marriage arraignments.
My wife and I were friends for decades withone couple that had an open marriage, and they were both bi.
Never even dawned on me to worry about the kind of "Combinations" theymight be gettingup to. I'm sure I would have had the same lack of concern if theirs had been some sort of multiple marriage arraingment.
Sorry Petey, still not seeing the horror you seem to be worriedmight becoming down the track.
I always wanted to spread my seed around, so maybe this will work out just fine. Of course it would have been better a few years ago and easier too.
Wouldn't a Scott's walk behind broadcast seeder cover more area in a shorter period of time with less effort for you?????
Probably so, but it wouldn't be near as much fun.
That is exactly my point . There are already 1 out of 6 adults who have been proven to have herpes . There are many more who have the disease but are not aware of it but they can spread it to others . And we still haven't mentioned the many other incurable viruses spread as STDs .
I am bringing this thread back to the top of the FP since one of the participants in a stupid ongoing argument refuses to read it . Just because he won't read it doesn't mean it isn't valid . Facts : 1] polygamy is starting to become fully legalized in the current permissive environment of SCOTUS .
2] After it does become fully legalized what is to prevent the next step : the open marriage with no limits on the count of participants of both genders
Here is a fictional video account based on that polyamorous concept :
You lost.
Oh and it won't lead to polygamy either.
bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.
There's something illegal about masturbation? 99% of the population would be in jail in that case. Same with Obscenity. Adultery and fornication would be right up there with sending people to prison too!
So your primary argument is based on posting smileys ? What a nimrod !
Do you have a problem with focusing on the topic ? Just FYI is is about polygamy , not prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity etc . But thanks for once again ignoring the seeded material . Pretending it did not happen and putting up smileys does NOT negate what is happening in the real world , only in your confused mind ...
My primary argument is that you lost and that gay marriage is not going to lead to polygamy and you have presented zero evidence of a connection. None. Nada. It simply is not there. Oh and did I say that you lost?
That's not an argument . That's a 3 year olds temper tantrum .
It already has . But there is nothing that shows your command of the facts like NOT reading the embedded seed . Read the seed . Then get back to me . {insert smiley here}
The case you are talking about, all of the cases of multiple marriage in some sects of the Mormon Church have absolutely nothing to do with the ruling of the supreme court the other day legalizing gay marriage and to say it did is clearly a bald faced lie. There is no connection between cases in court concerning multiple member marriage among some Mormons and what happened at the supreme court the other day. They are not connected and you have not shown otherwise. Period.
Sure they are connected . They both reflect a more "liberal" atmosphere for interpreting the laws on marriage in SCOTUS . And having already gone this far there is NOTHING stopping even more extreme interpretations in the future ...
You have shown no connection whatsoever and your weak attempt to is pathetic. Again, you have shown no connection at all. None. Nada. Nothing between polygamy and the Supreme Court ruling the other day. No connection at all. Not even a little one.And as far as I am concerned I am not going to continue arguing with someone who has blinded himself into thinking there is a connection. There is no there, there and as I said, this conversation is over because you have shown your arguments to be nothing more then a waste of time.
So your "argument" consists of posting smileys and slinging around the word pathetic . I don't see who wouldn't be convinced by those ... Are you ?
In what ways does Polygamy hurt anyone?
It looks to be another unjust law thrust upon those that want to dump a bunch or religious dung into the US Constitution.
Besides..... is there any reason why a woman can't have two or more husbands?
I give up . Why was it illegal for so long a time ? My point for seeding this thread is to point out a trend . The liberalizing of the rules for marriage are becoming obvious . Are those a good thing ? Where does it stop ? Today it's polygamy . Tomorrow it will be unlimited group marriage with any number of husbands and wives . Who sleeps with who in such an arrangement or maybe the important question becomes who does NOT .
If you don't see a slippery slope happening , what is there to stop it ?
That is included under the definition of polygamy .
Has anyone watched the classic Alec Guiness movie "Captain's Paradise"? It would give you a picture of what having two different (in fact VERY different) wives can be like. However, the wives are in separate places, which does prevent some possible conflict.
I just like the movie Paint Your Wagon.....
Monogamy has been around for a much shorter period of time in history than Polygamy has. As such it is no better or no worse than any other form of relationship. It just happens to be the flavor of the month sort of speak.
I don't think Abraham was married to Hagar, but she did bear his child before Sarah gave birth to hers - and look at the mess the world is in today because of those two kids.
While that may have been accurate a few years back , the proliferation of incurable STDs has made that statement highly misleading today .
I understand that in the Arab middle east you can get yourself a bride of as young as 9 . Are you sure you want to "go young" ?
The talking problem due to a sensory motor deficit or due to being extra-national ?
I would think the extra-national thing could present problems if she had friends to translate ...
I think you need to investigate the "Denture Factor" Fish. This feature might be something you could put to use.
Montana man seeks license for second wife
HELENA, Mont. - A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.
Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy - holding multiple marriage licenses - but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.
....
A federal judge struck down parts of Utah's anti-polygamy law two years ago, saying the law violated religious freedom by prohibiting cohabitation. Bigamy is still illegal.
The state has appealed the ruling, and the case is pending in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hey, Petey!
My best friend from 3rd grade's older brother, lives in Utah, and has since the early 1970s. He lives in a commune with 3 women-- I think they consider themselves his wives, even if they legally aren't. They've been together for years and years, all 4 of them. They each have one or two children, and they seem to get along fine, and make it work.
All the kids have graduated from college by now and I don't know where they are. I haven't seen him in 40 years or so, but I always thought he was nice. He is an author and writes fiction based on Western KY. One of his wives is a doctor of some kind...
My only comment about polygamy is: No man can serve two masters. Or three, as the case may be...
Personally, it doesn't bother me, but I'm not interested in partaking of it, right now. I guess if my husband wanted to, I'd have to think about it. I've always told him that if he really wants to have an affair-- go have one. Just don't bother me with the details, and come home to me every night.
It seems to me that it would be easier for a woman to be the "vertex" in a love pyramid than for a man to accomplish that . If you've ever watched the show "Sister Wives" you will see how difficult it is to be the husband to multiple women .
I think it would be next to impossible!
Being the "vertex" AND holding onto a career would be very difficult for anyone unless she is charming to a fault as well as beautiful ...
Dear Friend Petey Coober: Interesting article.
Multiple partners in marriage is in Scripture.
I think in this country (USA) the laws against it may have more to do with prejudice against Mormons than morality.
Prejudice against any religious group would be the opposite of morality and the best of religion anyway.
Thanks for posting this.
Peace and Abundant Blessings.
Enoch