Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic - Polygamy: What's wrong with it?

Bingo.

So what is so inherently wrong with polygamy? Why is it against the law? What's the difference between sleeping with 9 women at the same time and marrying them all?

So what is so inherently wrong with polygamy? Why is it against the law? What's the difference between sleeping with 9 women at the same time and marrying them all?

My guess would be because of the role of women. In polygamy, women are considered to be property.

In polygamy, women are considered to be property.

Didymus wrote:

Actually, I remember Scripture does say that, if your spouse dies, you are free to remarry. Men and women both. I can't recall right off the top of my head, but when I get a chance, I'll do some more research. (1 Cor 7:8 says that widows can remarry, but that's not the passage I was looking for).

Jesus also said that, if you divorce your spouse on account of their adultery, you are also free to remarry.

EDIT: Romans 7:1-4.

I understand all of this, but there's still something that puzzles me.

If the "Untill death do you part" is true. Then when a couple meets in heaven, does that mean they're no longer married?

Beyond the Grave wrote:

In polygamy, women are considered to be property.

That's total prejudice.

In polygamy, women are considered to be property.

So what is so inherently wrong with polygamy? Why is it against the law? What's the difference between sleeping with 9 women at the same time and marrying them all?

The public revelation of the Church's practice of polygamy led to persecution. Many novelists began to write books and pamphlets condemning polygamy, portraying it as a legalized form of slavery. The outcry against polygamy eventually led to the federal government's involvement and the enacting of anti-polygamy laws.

Beyond the Grave wrote:

In polygamy, women are considered to be property.

That's total prejudice. I'm not saying that there aren't people who would act and feel that way, but to say that all polygamists see women as property completely neglects the people who actually devote themselves to all the multiple spouses and truly love them and respect them, as a regular couple would in a monogamous marriage.

Currently, an LDS (Mormon) man can be "sealed" for "time and all eternity" to another wife if his first wife dies. An LDS woman can only be sealed to one man - so if her husband dies, she can not remarry in a temple.

PianoManGidley wrote:

Beyond the Grave wrote:

In polygamy, women are considered to be property.

Hmmm, possibly. However, the Wiki has something interesting to say here:

Wikipedia wrote:

Kinda sounds like the husband is a free man in this situation, and the woman is bound for an eternity to her lord and master.

(Yeah okay, I'm being a smartarse. But that rule - and that whole "one rule for men, another for women" dynamic - strikes me as very unsavoury).

But realize that this is only within the LDS social structure. Polygamy can be and is also practiced by people who were sociolized outside of the LDS church and way of thinking. These are the people that your statement ignores--the people who would practice polyandry or a version of polygamy that contains many people of both genders....or just people practicing polygyny where the one man is truly in love with all his wives and earnestly respects them all equally.

(When I'm talking about polygamy, I mean its "one man - many wives" definition - which is the technically correct one).

I reckon that the only way that you can get an untainted picture of polygamy is by meeting polygamists themselves. But that'll probably never happen for me.

What's Her Face wrote:

(When I'm talking about polygamy, I mean its "one man - many wives" definition - which is the technically correct one).

No it's not. You're thinking of polygyny.

What's Her Face wrote:

I reckon that the only way that you can get an untainted picture of polygamy is by meeting polygamists themselves. But that'll probably never happen for me.

It already has, believe it or not.

PianoManGidley wrote:

What's Her Face wrote:

I reckon that the only way that you can get an untainted picture of polygamy is by meeting polygamists themselves. But that'll probably never happen for me.

It already has, believe it or not.

:

O rly? Care to elaborate?

I happen to be in love with two completely wonderful men, and we're all three comfortable with the idea of being in a polygamous relationship with one another. My love them is not any sort of rivalry--I love them both equally, and I could never choose between the two of them. They both mean so much to me and enrich my life in ways I could have never previously imagined. And yes, I realize that there will be unique challenges that I wouldn't find in a monogamous relationship--but I'm prepared to face any such challenges as they arise.

Wow, you should consider yourself very lucky to have such a great relationship with two people. I wish the three of you the best.

Nevertheless, just because you are in a three way relationship, it does not mean that such relationships are appropriate or moral. I know of someone who was in a three-way relationship that did not work, and I would think his experience would be equally valid.

What I mean to say is, I don't think, "I'm doing it and enjoying it, so that makes it okay," constitutes a valid justification. After all, what if that argument was used by those Homeland Security guys?

So a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one body (Genesis 2:24).

And he must have only one wife (1 Timothy 3:2).

Ah, but if God did in fact say these things and intended for people to live by them, then regardless of what you say you believe, the standard would still be in place.

All I'm saying is that it's going to take more than, "It works okay for me," to convince me that it is indeed good, right, and salutary.

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:12 am ]
Post subject:
lahimatoa wrote: Bingo. So what is so inherently wrong with polygamy? Why is it against the law? What's the difference between sleeping with 9 women at the same time and marrying them all? I think that is the difference between lust and love. But the general consensus of hard-core monogamists is that it is impossible for a person to be totally in love with more than one person at a time, or for that person to totally commit themselves to more than one person in an institution such as marriage. I think that sort of thinking is fundamentally flawed, because it is unfair and impossible to tell someone else what that person is feeling when the person knows that they are feeling something different. You can't dictate love to other people--it's not fair, it's not right, and it's not possible. I think that the hard-core monogamists believe this way because it's how THEY feel inside, and it's what works for THEM, and of course they see it in practice so much, so they believe it to be true for absolutely everyone. The thing is, though, everyone's different in different ways, so not everyone is going to want or need a monogamist fit in their love lives.

Author:	Beyond the Grave [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:23 am ]
Post subject:
lahimatoa wrote: So what is so inherently wrong with polygamy? Why is it against the law? What's the difference between sleeping with 9 women at the same time and marrying them all? My guess would be because of the role of women. In polygamy, women are considered to be property. Not to mention, the people who made this law were non-Mormons who viewed marriage as being between a man and a woman. These were the same people who had forced the Mormons to go West. Edit: This may help.

Author:	Alexander [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:38 am ]
Post subject:
Beyond the Grave wrote: My guess would be because of the role of women. In polygamy, women are considered to be property. Because it is only a guess I can't take that as complete fact. I've seen people who support it and they don't seem to think like that at first. But if it is... Then I would never support it. People are God's creation, not objects. P.S. I'm sorry, but could someone please answer my question? Thank you very much.

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:50 am ]
Post subject:
Beyond the Grave wrote: In polygamy, women are considered to be property. That's total prejudice. I'm not saying that there aren't people who would act and feel that way, but to say that all polygamists see women as property completely neglects the people who actually devote themselves to all the multiple spouses and truly love them and respect them, as a regular couple would in a monogamous marriage. Moreover, it shows further prejudice to believe that polygamy always equals one man+many wives. That's the dictionary definition of polygyny, while the opposite (one woman+many husbands) is the definition of polyandry (or polyamory), but polygamy encompasses all group marriages, despite the number of each sex involved.

Author:	Smorky [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:56 am ]
Post subject:
Alexander wrote: Didymus wrote: Actually, I remember Scripture does say that, if your spouse dies, you are free to remarry. Men and women both. I can't recall right off the top of my head, but when I get a chance, I'll do some more research. (1 Cor 7:8 says that widows can remarry, but that's not the passage I was looking for). Jesus also said that, if you divorce your spouse on account of their adultery, you are also free to remarry. EDIT: Romans 7:1-4. I understand all of this, but there's still something that puzzles me. If the "Untill death do you part" is true. Then when a couple meets in heaven, does that mean they're no longer married? Hey, I actually know the answer to a question on here! Matthew 22:23-32

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Polygamy: What's wrong with it? http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8780	Page 2 of 4

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:12 am ]
Post subject:
Great Jorb, Smorky!

Author:	lahimatoa [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:14 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: In polygamy, women are considered to be property. As PianoMan said, you can't say that because it means that ALL polygamists view women as property, as though that is inherent in the definition. And it's not. So you're saying that as long as women are respected as women and no property, polygamy is fine with you?

Author:	Alexander [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:56 am ]
Post subject:
Thank you Smorky! This now gives me two ideas. Perhaps marriage isn't as important as people say it is. Because if it's forgotten, then what is it's purpose beyond our earthly state? And the other is, what is the purpose of a boy and girl falling in love then?

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:04 am ]
Post subject:
To create children, and to fulfill those emotional and physical needs that all men and women have. Genesis 2 all over again. Marriage, then, is the means by which we are to carry out that calling, and, in giving ourselves to each other, engage in this act of self-giving. It is a reflection of Christ's relationship to his Church. As he gave himself for us and to us (in the Sacraments), so too are a man and a woman to give each other for and to their spouse (Ephesians 5).

Author:	What's Her Face [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:15 am ]
Post subject:
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, if it takes place between consenting adults..... blah blah blah..... then it's no one's business. On the other hand, there's a sinister patriarchal (and possibly mysogynous) structure to polygamous marriages that is hard to ignore. In that, a polygamous marriage is like a pyramid - the Supreme Patriarch on top, and his wives beneath him in status. Since there's several of them and only one of him, there would be very little chance that these wives could become equal partners with their husband. I'm not saying that the monogamous tradition has insured the equality of women in marriage - it hasn't - but there is a much better chance for two people to be equal partners than for several people. EDIT: Found something of interest - the Utah Attorney General's report on polygamy. I only skimmed through it, but it does say that polygamy exasparates child abuse and domestic violence in Mormon splinter-groups - partly because of the patrarchal dynamic, and partly because of some their religious beliefs. ------- lahimatoa wrote: So what is so inherently wrong with polygamy? Why is it against the law? What's the difference between sleeping with 9 women at the same time and marrying them all? On the legal note, I couldn't seem to find any info on how polygamy is damaging as a criminal behavior - unless it involves minors, of course. The Wiki says that since splinter-groups of Mormonism are often not married formally, the only way that they can be prosecuted is by adultery laws, and "unlawful co-habitation" laws. Good grief - laws like this still exist, outside of Sharia? In terms of the backlash against Mormon polygamy, Wiki also says: Wikipedia wrote: The public revelation of the Church's practice of polygamy led to persecution. Many novelists began to write books and pamphlets condemning polygamy, portraying it as a legalized form of slavery. The outcry against polygamy eventually led to the federal government's involvement and the enacting of anti-polygamy laws. What the real root of this outcry was...... who knows. My reckoning: people probably saw monogamy as the accepted norm - and that accepted norm may have its roots in the Christian rules on marriage - and any deviation to that was seen as a threat to the fundemental values of society. ---------- PianoManGidley wrote: Beyond the Grave wrote: In polygamy, women are considered to be property. That's total prejudice. I'm not saying that there aren't people who would act and feel that way, but to say that all polygamists see women as property completely neglects the people who actually devote themselves to all the multiple spouses and truly love them and respect them, as a regular couple would in a monogamous marriage. Hmmm, possibly. However, the Wiki has something interesting to say here: Wikipedia wrote: Currently, an LDS (Mormon) man can be "sealed" for "time and all eternity" to another wife if his first wife dies. An LDS woman can only be sealed to one man - so if her husband dies, she can not remarry in a temple. Kinda sounds like the husband is a free man in this situation, and the woman is bound for an eternity to her lord and master. (Yeah okay, I'm being a smartarse. But that rule - and that whole "one rule for men, another for women" dynamic - strikes me as very unsavoury).

Author:	What's Her Face [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:14 am ]
Post subject:
PianoManGidley wrote: But realize that this is only within the LDS social structure. Polygamy can be and is also practiced by people who were sociolized outside of the LDS church and way of thinking. These are the people that your statement ignores--the people who would practice polyandry or a version of polygamy that contains many people of both genders....or just people practicing polygyny where the one man is truly in love with all his wives and earnestly respects them all equally. Certainly, if such happy polygamous marriages actually exist, then more power to them. Though I'd still be very wary of polygamy, for the reasons that I outlined in the first part of my last post - very wary. (When I'm talking about polygamy, I mean its "one man - many wives" definition - which is the technically correct one). But I guess ignorance of the practice might have coloured my opinion in places. Because you'd won't hear about polygamy's virtues from the media or even from government/NGO reports - only largely the negative points. I reckon that the only way that you can get an untainted picture of polygamy is by meeting polygamists themselves. But that'll probably never happen for me.

Author:	Schmelen [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:25 am ]
Post subject:
I read a book called the Silver Brumby... Or maybe it was a sequal, whatever. The main character, a horse, had multiple mates. Now, I know it was a horse, but it really seemed like he loved each of them evenly. So polygamy doesn't really bother me that much. I am very glad I read that book. It taught me life lessons.

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:
What's Her Face wrote: (When I'm talking about polygamy, I mean its "one man - many wives" definition - which is the technically correct one). No it's not. You're thinking of polygyny. What's Her Face wrote: I reckon that the only way that you can get an untainted picture of polygamy is by meeting polygamists themselves. But that'll probably never happen for me. It already has, believe it or not.

Author:	What's Her Face [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:
PianoManGidley wrote: What's Her Face wrote: (When I'm talking about polygamy, I mean its "one man - many wives" definition - which is the technically correct one). No it's not. You're thinking of polygyny. ARGH! Yes, of course! Sorry, my head's not screwed on properly today. Quote: What's Her Face wrote: I reckon that the only way that you can get an untainted picture of polygamy is by meeting polygamists themselves. But that'll probably never happen for me. It already has, believe it or not. : O rly? Care to elaborate?

Page 2 of 4	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:
What's Her Face wrote: PianoManGidley wrote: What's Her Face wrote: I reckon that the only way that you can get an untainted picture of polygamy is by meeting polygamists themselves. But that'll probably never happen for me. It already has, believe it or not. : O rly? Care to elaborate? I happen to be in love with two completely wonderful men, and we're all three comfortable with the idea of being in a polygamous relationship with one another. My love them is not any sort of rivalry--I love them both equally, and I could never choose between the two of them. They both mean so much to me and enrich my life in ways I could have never previously imagined. And yes, I realize that there will be unique challenges that I wouldn't find in a monogamous relationship--but I'm prepared to face any such challenges as they arise.

Author:	What's Her Face [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:02 pm ]
Post subject:
Cool. Definately, if any polygamous relationship is in the spirit of mutual respect and love, I can't see a problem in it. I wish you and your beaux all the best, PMG.

Author:	extremejon09 [ Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:47 am ]
Post subject:
I see nothing wrong with polygamy other than that others do.

Author:	Chekt [ Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:
It all depends on if you believe that you can love more than one person.

Author:	Dark Grapefruit [ Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:
PianoManGidley wrote: I happen to be in love with two completely wonderful men, and we're all three comfortable with the idea of being in a polygamous relationship with one another. My love them is not any sort of rivalry--I love them both equally, and I could never choose between the two of them. They both mean so much to me and enrich my life in ways I could have never previously imagined. And yes, I realize that there will be unique challenges that I wouldn't find in a monogamous relationship--but I'm prepared to face any such challenges as they arise. Wow, you should consider yourself very lucky to have such a great relationship with two people. I wish the three of you the best.

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:23 pm ]
Post subject:
Dark Grapefruit wrote: Wow, you should consider yourself very lucky to have such a great relationship with two people. I wish the three of you the best. I consider myself very lucky for many reasons (living in a more advanced society, education, wealth, etc.), this relationship being one of the chief reasons.

Author:	Didymus [ Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:06 pm ]
Post subject:
Nevertheless, just because you are in a three way relationship, it does not mean that such relationships are appropriate or moral. I know of someone who was in a three-way relationship that did not work, and I would think his experience would be equally valid. What I mean to say is, I don't think, "I'm doing it and enjoying it, so that makes it okay," constitutes a valid justification. After all, what if that argument was used by those Homeland Security guys?

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:43 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: Nevertheless, just because you are in a three way relationship, it does not mean that such relationships are appropriate or moral. I know of someone who was in a three-way relationship that did not work, and I would think his experience would be equally valid. What I mean to say is, I don't think, "I'm doing it and enjoying it, so that makes it okay," constitutes a valid justification. After all, what if that argument was used by those Homeland Security guys? How about, "I'm doing it, enjoying it, and it's not hurting anyone"?

Author:	Didymus [ Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:17 am ]
Post subject:
It still doesn't make it right.

Author:	Jello B. [ Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:24 am ]
Post subject:
Then what makes it wrong?

Author:	Didymus [ Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:31 am ]
Post subject:
So a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one body (Genesis 2:24). And he must have only one wife (1 Timothy 3:2).

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:41 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: So a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one body (Genesis 2:24). And he must have only one wife (1 Timothy 3:2). But that would require me to be Christian and believe as you believe in religion for you to convince me with such an argument.

Author:	Didymus [ Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:54 am ]
Post subject:
Ah, but if God did in fact say these things and intended for people to live by them, then regardless of what you say you believe, the standard would still be in place. All I'm saying is that it's going to take more than, "It works okay for me," to convince me that it is indeed good, right, and salutary.

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:05 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: Ah, but if God did in fact say these things and intended for people to live by them, then regardless of what you say you believe, the standard would still be in place. All I'm saying is that it's going to take more than, "It works okay for me," to convince me that it is indeed good, right, and salutary. And all I'M saying is that it's going to take more than "My Christian version of God prohibits it!" to convince me that you (or anyone else, for that matter) have any authority to dictate love to me. Since when is it wrong to love?