Jump to content

Suburban Polygamy


juliann

Recommended Posts

I don't understand what the big deal is about. What do opponents to this lifestyle ACTUALLY worry about? Those women were not underage brides, they freely chose this lifestyle, they don't live in complete isolation, everyone is well-fed and taken care of. So what is the problem, exactly?

Link to comment

I don't understand what the big deal is about.

You don't what the big deal is about polygamy or this family being singled out?

What do opponents to this lifestyle ACTUALLY worry about?

Polygamy in general or this families' version of it?

Those women were not underage brides...

Thank goodness.

...they freely chose this lifestyle...

Did they really? All of them are descended from polygamists.

...they don't live in complete isolation...

Oh good...polygamists with Tivo and Guitar Hero.

everyone is well-fed and taken care of.

Wonderful...now if they would just switch to a lifestyle that's legal.

So what't is the problem, exactly?

With polygamy or this family's version of it?

BTW: When are they going to give awards to those muckraking creators of Big Love who blew the lid off

polygamy? :P

Link to comment

Did they really? All of them are descended from polygamists.

You are kidding. Are you doing exactly what your parents did? Do you think exactly the same? So we are back to the brainwashed idiot theory. Unfortunately, these women aren't.

BTW: When are they going to give awards to those muckraking creators of Big Love who blew the lid off

polygamy? :P

I guess I missed that pivotal moment when it blew. <_<

Link to comment

The problem is that other women are threatened by the possibility of polygamy, and other men are jealous and envious of the men who are getting "more than their fair share" of the chicks.

Considering that we're talking about committed marriages, I don't think I agree, SP.

If that were the issue, we'd see tighter laws on adultery and downtown bars and clubs.

Men act like hound dogs every day- without being committed to the women they are pursuing.

Besides, if a woman's jealousy were that potent a force, we'd have laws outlawing blondes.

Link to comment

I don't understand what the big deal is about. What do opponents to this lifestyle ACTUALLY worry about? Those women were not underage brides, they freely chose this lifestyle, they don't live in complete isolation, everyone is well-fed and taken care of. So what is the problem, exactly?

I am not sure. If you remove the religious fundamentalism that seeks to control its members like the sect of Warren Jeffs, that utilizes punitive punishments, banishment and exclessiastical authority to enforce their religious dogma and beliefs, then you have an ugly and detrimental situation.

When you have consenting adults, you probably don't have any more to worry about than what you find in any conventional relationship. The big question is the why? Why do women want to be homemakers for a large brood of 20-30 offspring, cooking, cleaning and generally spending every waking hour serving bloodsucking...er, I mean, rambuctious children?

Link to comment

I am not sure. If you remove the religious fundamentalism that seeks to control its members like the sect of Warren Jeffs, that utilizes punitive punishments, banishment and exclessiastical authority to enforce their religious dogma and beliefs, then you have an ugly and detrimental situation.

When you have consenting adults, you probably don't have any more to worry about than what you find in any conventional relationship. The big question is the why? Why do women want to be homemakers for a large brood of 20-30 offspring, cooking, cleaning and generally spending every waking hour serving bloodsucking...er, I mean, rambuctious children?

Hyperbole aside, TChild, single mothers do the same for their own children, whether it's one child or twelve.

I rather suspect they are motivated in precisely the same way they would be in a conventional relationship.

Be careful in your criticism- you're using a pushbroom when an acid brush will do.

Link to comment

You are kidding. Are you doing exactly what your parents did? Do you think exactly the same? So we are back to the brainwashed idiot theory. Unfortunately, these women aren't.

No they're not brainwashed idiots (or maybe they are :P ) but the way our parents live usually shapes us in some way. Don't you think that coming from a polygamist family suggests a much higher chance of becoming polygamist than someone who isn't polygamist?

I guess I missed that pivotal moment when it blew. :unsure:

I was just joking....because every polygamist news story that comes out seems to mention Big Love for some reason or another. I guess they are tied together forever (not unlike Bill Gates and computers or Paris Hilton and sextape).

You are kidding. Are you doing exactly what your parents did? Do you think exactly the same? So we are back to the brainwashed idiot theory. Unfortunately, these women aren't.

No they're not brainwashed idiots (or maybe they are <_< ) but the way our parents live usually shapes us in some way. Don't you think that coming from a polygamist family suggests a much higher chance of becoming polygamist than someone who isn't polygamist?

I guess I missed that pivotal moment when it blew. :ph34r:

I was just joking....because every polygamist news story that comes out seems to mention Big Love for some reason or another. I guess they are tied together forever (not unlike Bill Gates and computers or Paris Hilton and sextape).

Link to comment

Regardless of the legality of their lifestyle, we have to respect their belief that it is the right way. We once believed in it, until Heavenly Father granted us to cease the practice.

My opinion? They'll gripe and complain and lobby for the rights of their religion to practice polygamy, that the government will eventually give in and claim it is protected under freedom of religion.

Then if the Lord ever reinstated the practice of polygamy, it'd be simpler to ease into. :P

Now only time will tell if He will call us once more to live that law.

Link to comment

I honestly don't think they're that big of a deal. No their lives aren't your average american...then again who's is exactly? They chose it, their children aren't in terrible amounts of suffering, and they're pretty well off. I don't have a problem with them. Who knows, maybe I should work up my angst towards all forms of people who don't live up to how I view people should through my moral judgements. But I don't really think it's worth it. They're not harming the children more so than most parents do.

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
You don't what the big deal is about polygamy or this family being singled out?

This family, mainly, but also polygamy in their style. I have no problem understanding what the problem is with polygamy a la Warren Jeffs, but what is wrong with polygamy such as this family says they practice it?

Did they really? All of them are descended from polygamists.

Actually, this is precisely why they COULD choose to be polygamists themselves or not. Us people who come from monogamist families do not have that CHOICE, because we are taught from our youngest age that we will one day be with our ONE true love, period. Only people who have been taught from childhood that both polygamy and monogamy can lead to happiness can TRULY choose between the two. And the article does mention that most of those people's siblings actually chose monogamy: so those people did choose polygamy, they didn't get into it out of facility or habit.

Wonderful...now if they would just switch to a lifestyle that's legal.

Should they switch to a lifestyle that's legal, or should the law recognise their lifestyle as valid?

***

When you have consenting adults, you probably don't have any more to worry about than what you find in any conventional relationship.

Then what is the big fuss about?

The big question is the why? Why do women want to be homemakers for a large brood of 20-30 offspring, cooking, cleaning and generally spending every waking hour serving bloodsucking...er, I mean, rambuctious children?

Why not?? How is it any worse than being a teacher, for example?

Moreover, does it even matter why they would want that kind of life? Unless it can be shown that such desire indicates some kind of mental or emotional illness that would be detrimental to themselves or their family members, I don't see what business it is of ours to know why they would want to live that way?

Link to comment

This family, mainly, but also polygamy in their style. I have no problem understanding what the problem is with polygamy a la Warren Jeffs, but what is wrong with polygamy such as this family says they practice it?

Nothing is wrong with what this group is doing, except that what they're doing is against the law.

Actually, this is precisely why they COULD choose to be polygamists themselves or not. Us people who come from monogamist families do not have that CHOICE, because we are taught from our youngest age that we will one day be with our ONE true love, period.

Actually you do have a choice to become a polygamists. It's easy. Just find some more partners that you and your spouse both agree upon and have them move in. The reason you don't is that you've known since you can remember that monogamy was right because that's what your parents did, right?

Only people who have been taught from childhood that both polygamy and monogamy can lead to happiness can TRULY choose between the two.

Do you really think anyone can be taught a fair and balanced view of both polygamy and monogamy? I don't think it's possible due to the fact that our parents were one or the other (or something else) and we learn alot of things in life from imitating our parents.

And the article does mention that most of those people's siblings actually chose monogamy: so those people did choose polygamy, they didn't get into it out of facility or habit.

Malarkey. You don't think polygamy is a habit going back to Joseph Smith and the gang? He cooked it up, but his followers and their descendents are among those who continued (and continue) the practice. You don't think that factors in to polygamy continuing down family lines?

Should they switch to a lifestyle that's legal, or should the law recognise their lifestyle as valid?

They should switch to a lifestyle that's legal. If polygamy is legalized (not bloody likely in America) then they can do their thing....but for now America says no polygamy, and they obey the law.

Link to comment
Malarkey. You don't think polygamy is a habit going back to Joseph Smith and the gang?

The gang?

He cooked it up,

Did he? So Abraham and his family lived post Joseph Smith, did they? Who knew?

You don't think that factors in to polygamy continuing down family lines?

Perhaps it does; and so does monogamy. Maybe you're the brainwashed idiot.

They should switch to a lifestyle that's legal. If polygamy is legalized (not bloody likely in America) then they can do their thing....but for now America says no polygamy, and they obey the law.

Would you say that to black people in the sixties wanting to sit at the front of the bus?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Nothing is wrong with what this group is doing, except that what they're doing is against the law.

:P<_<:unsure:

Yes, that makes complete sense.

Let's pick out a few more things for which "nothing is wrong", and make them against the law, too. After all, that's what government is for, isn't it?

Link to comment

Did he? So Abraham and his family lived post Joseph Smith, did they? Who knew?

Of course he did. He's an Immortal. The movie Highlander was based on the true life story of Abraham.

Maybe you're the brainwashed idiot.

I know you are but what am I?

Screw it....you got me. I'm a brainwashed idiot. :P

Would you say that to black people in the sixties wanting to sit at the front of the bus?

Oh so they're practicing civil disobiedience right? Funny that they're doing it through fake names in the article. If the polygamy laws are so unjust why aren't they open about thumbing their noses at it?

Link to comment

:P<_<:unsure:

Yes, that makes complete sense.

Let's pick out a few more things for which "nothing is wrong", and make them against the law, too. After all, that's what government is for, isn't it?

I meant nothing appears seriously wrong with that particular family. I guess they're making it work. Sorry for the confusion.

I see many things wrong with polygamy in general though.

Link to comment

Nothing is wrong with what this group is doing, except that what they're doing is against the law.

There's nothing illegal about a married man also shacking up with a couple other women. If he tried to actually marry the other women it would be different, but since it's technically just adultery there's absolutely nothing illegal about it. Could they really go on national television to tell their story if they were practicing their lifestyle illegally?

Link to comment
Of course he did. He's an Immortal. The movie Highlander was based on the true life story of Abraham.

Cool, I'll take it.

Screw it....you got me. I'm a brainwashed idiot. :P

I'm not actually saying that you are either brainwashed or an idiot; I'm just applying your own argument to your situation. Weren't you raised in monogamy? Isn't that all you know? Doesn't your upbringing constrain your choices just as much as you suppose it does theirs, and if not, why not?

Oh so they're practicing civil disobiedience right? Funny that they're doing it through fake names in the article. If the polygamy laws are so unjust why aren't they open about thumbing their noses at it?

Perhaps because they think the safety of their family is more important than making a "statement."

As far as the legality question is concerned, it is apparent to me that America's antipolygamy laws are highly questionable. Almost every "enlightened" western government has decriminalised adultery which, unlike polygamy, is morally reprehensible. There is a certain hypocrisy evident in actively enforcing laws against activities that are clearly more moral than other comparable activities that are legal.

Note that I am not suggesting that their family structure should get state sanction. Governments routinely decriminalise all sorts of things that they don't actively sanction. Nor am I suggesting (or expecting) that the Church will or should bring back polygamy. The Church is quite comfortable enforcing a moral code that forbids adultery and fornication, despite their long-standing status as the first world's two most popular indoor sports.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment
I prefer Bond myself. Does this mean I get banned now Dunamis?

By that, do you mean to tell us that you are the poster formerly known as Bond...James Bond? If so, then I don't see that getting you banned. Sockpuppets, AFAICT, are illegal in two situations: (1) when a poster uses them to carry on bogus conversations and/or debates with herself, and (2) when the sockpuppet is created to avoid or subvert moderator actions. Since you left the board voluntarily as Bond back in February, opening a new account as Wes doesn't violate any moderator ruling, and probably isn't a sockpuppet at all.

Speculating about any overlap between poster accounts and moderator accounts is considered poor form, though. Not done. Not cricket.

But in any case, people who post anonymously or pseudonymously have generally not got a lot to say about others doing essentially the same thing, but in a different venue. Which seems to be Juliann's point.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

How is this different from those marriages where the wives know their husbands have mistresses, or long strings of girl friends.

Maybe that isn't illegal, either. But it sure is immoral.

Link to comment

By that, do you mean to tell us that you are the poster formerly known as Bond...James Bond? If so, then I don't see that getting you banned. Sockpuppets, AFAICT, are illegal in two situations: (1) when a poster uses them to carry on bogus conversations and/or debates with herself, and (2) when the sockpuppet is created to avoid or subvert moderator actions. Since you left the board voluntarily as Bond back in February, opening a new account as Wes doesn't violate any moderator ruling, and probably isn't a sockpuppet at all.

Speculating about any overlap between poster accounts and moderator accounts is considered poor form, though. Not done. Not cricket.

But in any case, people who post anonymously or pseudonymously have generally not got a lot to say about others doing essentially the same thing, but in a different venue. Which seems to be Juliann's point.

Regards,

Pahoran

Oh I've been back many times before this. I just created this sockpuppet to make the point to Zakuska (or the mods or whoever) that Captain Zinger is not spelled "Captian Zinger" (it just irritates me). After that I'm just kinda going along for the ride a bit and playing the lovable jack *** for awhile. Maybe I need a disclaimer (here goes): "This is Bond...James Bond. He's sarcastic and doesn't make much sense from time to time. Don't take anything he says very seriously." (How's I do?)

As to polygamy, I really don't care if this family is going to live together officially or unofficially. My only arguments against polygamy occurs if it creates some sort of elitist culture (ala Warren Jeffs' group or some other compound type deal) where women (or men for that matter) are assigned to men (or women) against their will at young age, or if it creates a bad situation for children. How people define bad situation differs from person to person, so I'll leave it at that. I also don't like to see the fraudulent type stuff that happens with welfare and govt support. If a guy is going to have 4 wives or girlfriends or whatever he should have to support them. I'd say more but I'm going to sleep now.

By that, do you mean to tell us that you are the poster formerly known as Bond...James Bond? If so, then I don't see that getting you banned. Sockpuppets, AFAICT, are illegal in two situations: (1) when a poster uses them to carry on bogus conversations and/or debates with herself, and (2) when the sockpuppet is created to avoid or subvert moderator actions. Since you left the board voluntarily as Bond back in February, opening a new account as Wes doesn't violate any moderator ruling, and probably isn't a sockpuppet at all.

Speculating about any overlap between poster accounts and moderator accounts is considered poor form, though. Not done. Not cricket.

But in any case, people who post anonymously or pseudonymously have generally not got a lot to say about others doing essentially the same thing, but in a different venue. Which seems to be Juliann's point.

Regards,

Pahoran

Oh I've been back many times before this. I just created this sockpuppet to make the point to Zakuska (or the mods or whoever) that Captain Zinger is not spelled "Captian Zinger" (it just irritates me). After that I'm just kinda going along for the ride a bit and playing the lovable jack *** for awhile. Maybe I need a disclaimer (here goes): "This is Bond...James Bond. He's sarcastic and doesn't make much sense from time to time. Don't take anything he says very seriously." (How's I do?)

As to polygamy, I really don't care if this family is going to live together officially or unofficially. My only arguments against polygamy occurs if it creates some sort of elitist culture (ala Warren Jeffs' group or some other compound type deal) where women (or men for that matter) are assigned to men (or women) against their will at young age, or if it creates a bad situation for children. How people define bad situation differs from person to person, so I'll leave it at that. I also don't like to see the fraudulent type stuff that happens with welfare and govt support. If a guy is going to have 4 wives or girlfriends or whatever he should have to support them. I'd say more but I'm going to sleep now.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...