In The Aftermath...

[bluebell]

I don't think it is a sympathy for polygamists but rather a dislike for government intervention.

I grew up in an area that was settled by members of the church (in wyoming) and many members in the area have ancestors who were prosecuted for the practice so, from those i've talked to, there does seem to be a level of sympathy for families that might have to go through the same thing to live their religion.

[ERayR]

I grew up in an area that was settled by members of the church (in wyoming) and many members in the area have ancestors who were prosecuted for the practice so, from those i've talked to, there does seem to be a level of sympathy for families that might have to go through the same thing to live their religion.

That is kinda what I meant but I think it is dislike of interference from the government entities rather than sympathy for polygamy.

[bluebell]

That is kinda what I meant but I think it is dislike of interference from the government entities rather than sympathy for polygamy.

Could be.

[california boy]

Polygamy is immoral first for the same reason it's always been immoral. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

Second, yes, it's also immoral when not authorized, because as the first, without authorization, any other action is immoral.

Polygamy is only moral when authorized of God. However, to be clear, if there are cultures in which Polygamy is the standard, then those practicing it wouldn't necessarily be under the same condemnation, as long of course as it was done righteously. But, those who have access to know better, it is immoral.

Interesting point of view. I am a bit confused why you said it's always been immoral. And was it just God allowing polygamy? My understanding was that God COMMANDED Joseph Smith to practice polygamy. I thought that Joseph Smith struggled with telling the saints about this to the point that the Lord told him he would be replaced if he didn't practice polygamy. To me there is a big difference between God allowing something and commanding His followers to practice it.

Or is your answer just a way of conforming to the current church position of one man one woman marriage?

[LeSellers]

Polygamy is immoral first for the same reason it's always been immoral. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

Polygyny and the broader "polygamy" are not "immoral", per se.

That God has installed a restriction in its practice from time to time is evidence that it is moral because God does not condone immorality, and he not only does not restrict it universally—He commands it for some.

Polygyny is the best marriage arrangement for women (as a whole) because under it, every woman who wants to can marry, which is quite unlike the system of monogyny we (pretend to) honor today.

Lehi

[Calm]

Would you agree that polyandry is the best system for men as a whole?

[cdowis]

The lawsuit holds that bigamy laws breach the family's right to religious freedom,

I think that was already decided by the Supreme Court when polygamy was outlawed. Basically, as I understand it, the protection of society is superior to the practice of religious beliefs. I believe this was re-visited in the use of peote in religious rites.

[LeSellers]

Would you agree that polyandry is the best system for men as a whole?

Not necessarily.

Most men want to marry, but a sizable portion do not. Most women want to marry, with a much smaller fraction who do not. So it is not required that more women are available as mates to accommodate all the men who want to marry, while it is necessary for some system (formal or informal) to make more men who are already married available for the "extra" women who would like to wed. Further, women and men marry for different reasons. Well, the same reasons, but in different orders.

Men marry for

1. sex,
   
2. companionship,
   
3. children.
   

Women marry for

1. companionship,
   
2. children,
   
3. sex.
   

(We Saints also marry because it is a commandment, but that's a different issue and does not apply to this conversation.)

Since a larger proportion of women do desire to marry, and want to marry "well", it makes it necessary to have more men available as husbands so a women can choose the best man (by which she means one who will take care of her and her/their children), not just one who is not already taken.

There is a spectrum of women and another of men, that runs from "most desirable" to "least desirable". Desirable men are those who can provide well for a wife (or wives) and children: food clothing shelter, and a few (or many) luxuries, along with healthy children. Desirable women are those who can provide adequate-or-better sexual stimulation, healthy children, and assistance in providing for their family. Both want healthy children because raising any child is "expensive" (in terms of resources: time, money, etc.), but raising a sickly child is even more so, and the payoff is less: fewer grandchildren. (These lists are not exhaustive.)

In any case, both the most desirable women and men will marry (if they choose to do so), and probably the most desirable men will marry the most desirable women, leaving less desirable women for the less desirable men, until, at the bottom of the spectra, the least desirable men will be left for slightly more desirable women (many more desirable men than women having eliminated themselves from the pool by their choosing not to wed). The least desirable women will have no options for permanent mates.

It's one reason we have an informal system (mistresses) right now. This phenomenon, mistresses, proves the claim that women do not reject polygyny, ipso facto. They may reject it once they're married, but, in principle, a very great many women prefer to be plurally married (even informally) to being single, and even if their arrangement does not include children, a very high priority for most women.

Under polygyny, every woman who desires to marry will find a good husband (even if she must "share" him with other wives), but under monogyny, the least desirable women will either not marry at all or take a husband who is less desirable still. These "less desirable" women are still "desirable" to some extent (almost any man will mate with almost any woman, absent a moral code that makes it unacceptable: "in the dark, everyone's beautiful"). Ergo, those women who are least desirable benefit the most under polygyny, and those men who are least desirable benefit the most under polyandry. The opposites are true, too: the most desirable women are harmed, slightly, by polygyny, and the most desirable men by polyandry.

There is another reason that polygny is a "good" mating strategy and polyandry "not so good" that relates specifically and more directly to the "mating" part of the strategy.

Men are aggressive and tend to harm children who are not their own (lions, for instance, kill cubs they did not sire; men may not be so overt, but the theory is the same). If a woman bears children in a polyandrous system, none of her husbands know whose child he is. They are less likely to care for the child than if they were more secure in his paternity. So, because a woman's primary goal in choosing a mate is to ensure her children receive good care from her mate, having multiple partners may reduce her child's support, not enhance it. Thus, having several husbands is not a good strategy for her.

As an aside, I did a study many years ago (~1999) showing

• that children of a "single, never-married" mother were some eight-to-ten times more likely to be seriously harmed by their mother's current live-in boyfriend than by their own biological fathers, whether he was married to the mother or not.
  
• that married women's children not fathered by their (current) husbands were still nearly as endangered (unless the man adopted them, when the danger fell to nearly the same rate as for the man's own children—these cases were nearly all from widows, not divorcées).
  
• that women whose children were fathered by the man she shacked up with still had far greater chances of being harmed by their father than if their parents were married to each other.
  
• that marriage after the child was born did not greatly change the degree of danger he faced from his father compared to if the child was legitimate.
  

The same holds true for the women themselves: live-in boyfriends are more likely to hurt their mates than the married. The more men a woman had had sex with, the greater danger she was in from her current mate.

Finally, it is also true that women hurt their unmarried partners, and those partners' children, more often and much worse than wives do. All of these stats came from the federal government in USmerica. They were not easy to track down, and the computer on which that research was stored is no longer with us, so re-creating it will be a very time-consuming job, one I am loathe to undertake any time soon.

I titled the study "Iz Wimunz Stoopid?" (with that spelling).

Marriage may be a "patriarchal institution" (a position I vehemently reject), but it does serve a very useful, species-enhancing function: It protects children.

Plural marriage does not reduce this benefit, and it may enhance it. A man's multiple wives are very likely (depending on the living arrangements) to help each other raise their children, each one retaining responsibility for her own family, but providing "specialized services" for her sister-wives. And, again based on the living system in place, no child is out of sight of a mother/aunt for very long, resulting in fewer catastrophes and accidents.

This all said, I do not advocate plural marriage, especially for Saints, just as I do not advocate that Saints (although for others, however, I do) not apply for a "license" to marry or register their marriages under current law. The law sucks channel water, and I'd change it in a heartbeat, but we endure what we have, however loathsome it may be.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Basically, as I understand it, the protection of society is superior to the practice of religious beliefs.

The opinion of the court was something like that, but the logic was specious. Society is much better protected with plural marriage (and even with polygyny) than with official monogyny and informal polygyny. It was not about "protecting society" it was about "controlling society". There's a huge differnece.

Government should get out of the marriage business altogether, and stop defining how religions may act when there is no demonstrable harm in their actions, beliefs and practices. If it were not for government, there would be no "same-sex 'marriage' issue" today. The only thing married people need from government is a resort to enforce the provisions of their marriage contract.

Lehi

[Log]

The only thing married people need from government is a resort to enforce the provisions of their marriage contract.

That cannot be reconciled with this:

Government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

[TAO]

That cannot be reconciled with this:

Lehi meant that it is the only thing 'they want it for', I believe. I'm pretty sure he thinks it is un-needed himself. But the other people want it for that reason.

[LeSellers]

Government should get out of the marriage business altogether, and stop defining how religions may act when there is no demonstrable harm in their actions, beliefs and practices.

That cannot be reconciled with this:

The only thing married people need from government is a resort to enforce the provisions of their marriage contract.

Actually, it can be—and easily so.

Government's being "in the marriage business" is not the same as its being "in the contract enforcement business".

If any two entities have a contract, and one of the parties feels that the other has reneged on any of the provisions of the contract, he has resort to, and may (assuming the contract does not require something else, and they frequently do, since government is an ineffective arbiter of such things, but it does exist for that purpose, see Ch Justice Marshall on the matter) go to, the state (via the courts) for redress. It doesn't matter what the subject of the contract was, and, in particular, it does not matter if the contract was on a matter legislated on, as marriage is. So, the government is not "in that business" (whatever it may be), yet it will, on request, enforce the provisions of the contract because it is "in the contract enforcement business".

Government is "in the marriage business" because it has arrogated unto itself the power to define marriage, and even coerces a specific marriage contract (which it regularly modifies without the consent of the other parties, and may even ignore the provisions of its own contract in the case of, e.g., divorce). If it was not "in the marriage business", this state-mandated contract would not exist, and people would define their own marriages, and write their own marriage contracts. These contracts would be like other contracts, and the state would be available to enforce their provisions, just as it would do for those others.

Lehi

[frankenstein]

This is a reply to post 35 not post 37

Although "marriage" meets the conditions for a contract, marriage is not treated as a contract. And the only part of a marriage that is treated as a contract is a prenup aggrement. Courts do not/will not and venture to say society would not permit the law to treat marriage like all other contracts.

So in reference to what lehi stated people need the courts to end their marriages, otherwise I agree the gov has no business profiteering from marriage via marriage license and the sort.

[LeSellers]

Although "marriage" meets the conditions for a contract, marriage is not treated as a contract. And the only part of a marriage that is treated as a contract is a prenup aggrement. Courts do not/will not and venture to say society would not permit the law to treat marriage like all other contracts.

Courts regularly ignore or modify pre-nups.

On the other hand, courts treat marriage like any other contract in many ways (although divorce is the one we are most familiar with, alas!). Women can take their husbands to court for "rape" (a concept that was not even imaginable fifty years ago, the Rideout case in Oregon, I believe, was the first, based on a law that substantially changed the contract of marriages established prior to that law and without the parties' consent in all Oregonian marriages, and eventually across USmerica), and since any court involvement typically ends the contract (i.e., the marriage ends in divorce), there may not be any significant difference.

That notwithstanding, marriage is a contract, ab initio, whether the contract is written, "traditional", "customary", or merely "statutory", as all are, eventually, even in "Common Law" marriages.

Lehi

[Log]

1st, what is the marriage contract? Think well on this. Then, ask yourself how such a contract can be enforced.

That is why Lehi's position is incoherent.

[frankenstein]

Lehi, marriage is not treated as a contract by the law. Marriage can end at the beheast of either party for any reason...that is not how contract law treats contract. And marriage in almost all other ways is not treated like other contracts, so although condirions for a contract exist, courts will not treat a marriage as the court treats other contracts.

Log, lehis position is unteniable as marriage "contract" is currently understood. However if two or more wrote out their own terms and conditions for marriage - this would a true contract, of which the courts would treat like any othwr contract - then lehis position is not unteniable

[LeSellers]

1st, what is the marriage contract? Think well on this. Then, ask yourself how such a contract can be enforced.

The "marriage contract" now in place in USmerica (or, rather in each of the fifty states, as they are all distinct, although for the most part they are very much similar) is the one in force at any given time. (Most countries have a similar approach, but I don't know as much about them.)

The contract probably does include provisions of expectations of mutual sexual exclusivity, mutual responsibility for each other's health and safety, the rearing of any children, and so on, along with an economic and political unity (the new family is considered a single entity in the eyes of the rest of the world).

Its enforcement is largely a matter of the parties' discretion. Some women won't go to court over infidelity, others will. Some men won't demand their marital rights (in the face of the marital rape laws, they wouldn't be part of the contract anyway). Only when one of the parties chooses to use the courts (or any other means, e.g., counseling) to enforce any of the provisions of the contract does the state get re-involved in the marriage—just as with any other contract. The courts decide how and what resolutions are to be established, and the police power of the state forces compliance, just as with any other contract.

The problem is that the state wrote the contract we all are forced to use, and the state changes the contract, and the courts (i.e., the state) interprets the contract, and if the parties have come to alternative agreements, like a pre-nup, the state can arbitrarily override any or all of those provisions.

If the state were not in the marriage business, none of these things would be a concern: we'd all write a (or use an existing) contract, one written by our churches a lawyer, a drunk sailor in a bar. But it would have the provisions we, as spouses want. And the courts could not ignore any part of it because they have no authority to do so.

Keep in mind that "wedding vows" are of no effect or force in a divorce court. The only thing that matters is what the judge decides "marriage" means at the time he renders his decision.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

marriage is not treated as a contract by the law. Marriage can end at the beheast of either party for any reason...that is not how contract law treats contract.

Yes they are.

If I have a lease (a contract), and I choose to break it, for any reason, I can, but I must pay a penalty, just as a marriage can end at the behest of either party, with a penalty (sometimes alimony, or child support, or a house, or whatever).

And marriage in almost all other ways is not treated like other contracts, so although condirions for a contract exist, courts will not treat a marriage as the court treats other contracts.

But it is. Both parties sign an agreement (part of the licensing procedure), and that makes it a contract. There are conditions and requirements for each party (except the state, the third party), and there are (through legislation) penalties for non-compliance.

In what ways are marriages treated differently form other contracts? Or, at least how would they be different if the state did not change the provisions without the consent of the other two parties? (Recall, that legislatures can and do change other contracts, as well. For instance, labor law changes employment contracts all the time. Insurance contracts are subject to legal manipulation in the state houses of the land.)

Lehi

[frankenstein]

Yes they are.

If I have a lease (a contract), and I choose to break it, for any reason, I can, but I must pay a penalty, just as a marriage can end at the behest of either party, with a penalty (sometimes alimony, or child support, or a house, or whatever).

Lehi

If you break a lease you owe what you agreed too. In a divorce, breaking the contract means - in california and texas - that all property acquired during the marriage is community property subject too what could be best described as an even split or in Texas a fair and equitable distribution. What other contract is subject to an even split, when one party to the contract breaches the contract? Or what other contract automatically regardless of fault of who breached is subject to fair and equitable distribution? Are parties subject too mitigating their damages in a divorce?

Is alimony automatically assigned to the party who breached the contract? Is child support automatically assigned to the party who breaches the contract? Marriage is not subject to the same legal analysis as another non-marriage contract; the marriage contract is only a contract by name, which is given special status in courts, which means, that if a person walks in to a divorce proceeding and begins to bring contract law as said applies to non-marriage contracts, that person will told said laws, understandings, applications and so forth do not apply to divorce.

Though this is a fruitless discussion as I well understand that you will apply you own world view to any given subject matter and will twist and turn what you need to make it all fit. suffice it to say, the UCC does not apply to marriage, a different legal approach is taken for breach of marriage than is applied to breach in non-marriage contracts.

[LeSellers]

If you break a lease you owe what you agreed too. In a divorce, breaking the contract means that all property acquired during the marriage is community property subject too what could be best described as an even split or fair and equitable distribution. What other contract is subject to an even split, when one party to the contract breaches the contract?

It depends on what the contract specifies. If it requires an even split, then even it is. We look at a General Partnership Agreement (a bad idea, btw), and we see that anything is possible. A partner may be liable for all the losses, but only receive a third of the gains, or that he may be entitled to ninety-percent of the property when the partnership dissolves, but only twenty-five percent of any profits before the tenth year of operation. Contracts can define things in a lot of seemingly illogical ways. A marriage contract, in many states does that, too.

What the state-written contract for marriage requires in many places ("community property states") does divide all property equally between the spouses in case of divorce. This recognizes that the wife's role of child-rearer-in-chief is important, and contributes to the well-being of the family as much as the income of the husband does. Nowadays, however, this traditional division of labor is mostly obsolete, and a different contract should be written. But for those families where with a primary raiser-of-chldren, it would still apply as well as it ever did, so the changing current law would be a major disservice to the wives (or husbands, depending on how it was written) in those families. One size does not fit all. That's why the state ought to get out of the marriage business.

Is alimony automatically assigned to the party who breached the contract? Is child support automatically assigned to the party who breaches the contract? Marriage is not subject to the same legal analysis as another non-marriage contract; the marriage contract is only a contract by name, which is given special status in courts, which means, that if a person walks in to a divorce proceeding and begins to bring contract law as said applies to non-marriage contracts, that person will told said laws, understandings, applications and so forth do not apply to divorce.

The reason for all of these "exceptions" is that the contract supplied by the state requires them (where it does). The contract, written, controlled, modified, enforced, and interpreted as it is by the state, is applied just as the judge sees it to be.

Your insistence on marriage's not being a contract, although perhaps common ("marriage" is, after all, supposed to be about love, not law and economics) is cause for concern because the courts do treat it as a contract. The problem is that the people who are most directly involved don't have the right to define the contract, as they should, and as they would if the state had not stuck its ugly, pervasive nose in where it had no business being.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Though this is a fruitless discussion as I well understand that you will apply you own world view to any given subject matter and will twist and turn what you need to make it all fit. suffice it to say, the UCC does not apply to marriage, a different legal approach is taken for breach of marriage than is applied to breach in non-marriage contracts.

Marriage is not a commercial contract. The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) would not apply, and I have never claimed it should. Why bring it up?

We all must, by necessity and definition, see things from our own world views, else that view would be pointless. Even more than trying to change yours on this matter.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

This dictionary says that marriage is a contract (see entry #12). Even if there were no specific definition regarding marriage, the rest of the entry applies when discussing legal matters (entries #2 and #9).

—vb (when intr, sometimes foll by for; when tr, may take an infinitive)

1. to make or become smaller, narrower, shorter, etc: metals contract as the temperature is reduced

2. to enter into an agreement with (a person, company, etc) to deliver (goods or services) or to do (something) on mutually agreed and binding terms, often in writing

3. to draw or be drawn together; coalesce or cause to coalesce

4. (tr) to acquire, incur, or become affected by (a disease, liability, debt, etc)

5. (tr) to shorten (a word or phrase) by the omission of letters or syllables, usually indicated in writing by an apostrophe

6. phonetics to unite (two vowels) or (of two vowels) to be united within a word or at a word boundary so that a new long vowel or diphthong is formed

7. (tr) to wrinkle or draw together (the brow or a muscle)

8. (tr) to arrange (a marriage) for; betroth

—n

9. a formal agreement between two or more parties

10. a document that states the terms of such an agreement

11. the branch of law treating of contracts

12. marriage considered as a formal agreement

13. See contract bridge

14. bridge

a. (in the bidding sequence before play) the highest bid, which determines trumps and the number of tricks one side must try to make

b. the number and suit of these tricks

15. slang

a. a criminal agreement to kill a particular person in return for an agreed sum of money

b. (as modifier): a contract killing

[C16: from Latin contractus agreement, something drawn up, from contrahere to draw together, from trahere to draw]

And see here, too.

—n

1. the state or relationship of being husband and wife

2. a. the legal union or contract made by a man and woman to live as husband and wife

b. (as modifier): marriage licence; marriage certificate

3. the religious or legal ceremony formalizing this union; wedding

4. a close or intimate union, relationship, etc: a marriage of ideas

5. (in certain card games, such as bezique, pinochle) the king and queen of the same suit

Lehi

[california boy]

I am not sure exactly what your point is. But if you think that the definition of marriage is only between a man and a woman, that narrow definition has already changed. Most definitons of marriage include same sex relationships.

Here is Websters definition of marriage.

mar·riage

noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Definition of MARRIAGE

1

a

(1)

:

the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

(2)

: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex

marriage

>

b

:

the mutual

relation

of

married

persons

:

wedlock

c

: the

institution

whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2

:

an act of

marrying

or the rite by which the married status is

"]effected

;

especially

:

the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3

:

an intimate or close union <the

marriage

of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

See marriage defined for English-language learners »

See marriage defined for kids »

From my computer dictionary

</p>

marriage |ˈmarij|noun1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.•a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex. .• a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts: a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage.• figurative a combination or mixture of two or more elements : a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel.2 (in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit.

[TAO]

California Boy, neither dictionaries nor the state define the definition of mairrage. The definition of mairrage is defined by the individual, and depends on your Point of View. That is because all communication is done in Point of View relative status. Thus, no matter what the dictionaries or the state says, people will always debate what the definition is.

[LeSellers]

I am not sure exactly what your point is.

Then you'd be wise not to advertise your ignorance.

In this thread, we're discussing contract within this topic, and whether marriage is a contract. My position is that a "marriage" is a contract, and alas!, that it is a contract owned and controlled by the state, not the individuals who are bound by it. That's a dangerous precedent, irrespective of the lamentable fact that it's already part of everyday life.

Aside:

It is for this reason that I see homosexuals as being incredibly

naïve

(I'm being charitable) since they are inviting the state to regulate their relationships and so weaken them, the same as the state has weakened marriages since it got involved in the first place. The only people who will benefit from same-sex "marriage" are "family" law, aka divorce lawyers.

But if you think that the definition of marriage is only between a man and a woman, that narrow definition has already changed. Most definitons [sic] of marriage include same sex relationships.

Dictionaries are "descriptive", not "proscriptive". They reflect the usage influential groups make of the words they contain. They do not "define" words so much as they "reflect" them. Nonetheless, dictionaries are written by people, people who have their own agendas. Lexicographers are, in the main, more statist than most people in whatever country they may reside. I'd expect them to promote same-sex "marriage"—it advances their world view. I daresay a dictionary written in, for, and by Utahns would not show such a definition. People in Utah, by and large, reject the inherent contradiction in the phrase same-sex "marriage".

Marriage, by definition, is the joining of two dissimilar things: a man and a woman, poetry and sculpture, art and science, astronomy and physics. Joining, by marriage, of two similar things (a man and a man, physics and physics, art and art) is nonsensical. It might be possible, but it is not "marriage"

A marriage of human beings is, by definition, between a man and a woman because, and this is the reason the state stuck its ugly and unwanted nose into the tent in the first place (or the excuse for its having done so), marriages produce children, something no homosexual pair can manage on its own. The state claims an interest in children (because they will be subjects over whom to rule), and controlling who procreates leads increasing its power.

Homosexual do not want "marriage", per se, from what I've read. They want the government goodies that go along with the label. Further, some, naming themselves "leaders" of the movement, admit that the goal is to destroy the traditional family, and to redefine "marriage" such that things like "fidelity" and "obligation" are eliminated from the concept.

There are alternative means to achieve the stated goal: equality. But those means do not effect the aim: to weaken "family" as the foundational element of civilization. Politicians like the idea of weak families. It's why they established economic dependency programs (that kicks fathers out of homes so mothers can collect), indoctrination camps (that reduce or eliminate parental influence in children's knowledge), and antiSocial inSecurity (that obviates the need for thee to "honour thy father and thy mother"; the state will do that)—strong families do not need much government, but weak ones do. Weak families demand more government, strong ones reject it. Bureaucrats are power seekers, they want to control others' lives, and they, along with politicians do all they can to make strong families weak and weak families weaker: it's in their interest to do so.

Same-sex "marriage" is a tool designed to increase political power over another (relatively insignificant) group to begin with, but to greatly increase that power over all of us in the longer run. That's why I object to it: it's entirely antithetical to personal responsibility and individual freedom. It's why I encourage those who are not LDS to marry without a state-granted license and its marriage contract: write your own contract. Those "others who are not LDS" include homosexuals. I do not say this out of love for them nearly as much as I say it because I love my grandchildren. They deserve to be free.

Lehi