why me Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 While I suspect the Church feared this type of reasoning, I do not see that legalizing poligamy is necessarily a logical result of legalizing SSM. There is no minority involved. The logical path to legalizing poligamy would be through a State proceeding down the logic of RFRA. It would be through a free exercise claim, rather than an equal protection claim...unless you somehow brought through the kids, that might be an equal protection argument and there was a discussion of the impact of not allowing gay couples to marry upon their children.I think that it would take a more equal rights status. For example, the second wife and the children should be assured the same rights as the first wife and her children. Also, it comes as a matter of choice. SSM was a decision that brought marriage out of a man, woman understanding and allowed it to embrace other forms. This being the case, polygamy will need to be made legal. And this is why the lawsuits are being initiated. In a pluralistic society which is the foundation of liberalism, the rights of individuals and their identities are primary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Thinking Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Many people cites abuses in polygamist families as justification that polygamy should be illegal. I believe that many of these abuses exist because polygamy is illegal. When something is forced underground, that is an ideal place for bad things to happen. There will always be abuses as there will always be in monogamy. I believe that a man that will treat a woman good in monogamy will do so in polygamy and a man that abuses a woman in polygamy will do so in monogamy. Men who abuse women will do so regardless of the situation they are in. Plural marriage (where a man can marry more than one woman) naturally leads to older men marrying teenagers.
why me Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Plural marriage (where a man can marry more than one woman) naturally leads to older men marrying teenagers.Naturally? Why? The family with one husband and two wives who share nine children, do not seem to follow the 'naturally' pattern. Like with any marriage, straight or gay, laws need to be followed. Arrange marriages are not within the guidelines of the law. In a pluralistic society, it would not be fair for polygamists to be outside the law. The second wife should also have assurance that in case of death etc, she would also be compensated as would her children. The argument for gay marriage in terms of equality and the law also should apply to polygamist marriages. Such is pluralism and the respect for idenitities within such pluralism.
california boy Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 I think that it would take a more equal rights status. For example, the second wife and the children should be assured the same rights as the first wife and her children. Also, it comes as a matter of choice. SSM was a decision that brought marriage out of a man, woman understanding and allowed it to embrace other forms. This being the case, polygamy will need to be made legal. And this is why the lawsuits are being initiated. In a pluralistic society which is the foundation of liberalism, the rights of individuals and their identities are primary.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiberalismYou may be right. Is polygamy non Christian? Should it be something Mormons should fight like they did gay marriage?
thesometimesaint Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Whatever secular arguments made against polygamy either exist also in monogamy or can be overcome by changing the law which is easy to do. If it is possible to make SSM legal, it should be possible to make polygamy legal. If the courts and lawmakers have the courage to do it. The secular argument against polygamy is that it is naturally self limiting. In humans for every 100 females born 105 males are born. If only a select number of males are allowed to reproduce within a few generations there are insufficient females to go around. Also an unattached young males is perhaps the most dangerous of creatures.
thesometimesaint Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 You may be right. Is polygamy non Christian? Should it be something Mormons should fight like they did gay marriage? It is not non Christian. Several Christian Sects are polygamous. The LDS do fight it in that they excommunicate anyone who practices it.
Stone holm Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Plural marriage (where a man can marry more than one woman) naturally leads to older men marrying teenagers. I am not sure that I agree with that, in fact it might work in the opposite direction since the number of available young men as partners would increase. The old men marrying teenagers, isn't, in my opinion, a natural thing, but rather results from leadership in a community wanting to increase their power and control.
Stone holm Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 I think that it would take a more equal rights status. For example, the second wife and the children should be assured the same rights as the first wife and her children. Also, it comes as a matter of choice. SSM was a decision that brought marriage out of a man, woman understanding and allowed it to embrace other forms. This being the case, polygamy will need to be made legal. And this is why the lawsuits are being initiated. In a pluralistic society which is the foundation of liberalism, the rights of individuals and their identities are primary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiberalismThe problem with that argument was that while homosexuals were able to a protected minority category, not sure how you get from there to the second woman or second man being a protected category -- but there is case law out there condemning bastardy laws as being a violation of equal protection, so that might be the legal hook to get there with.
JAHS Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 The secular argument against polygamy is that it is naturally self limiting. In humans for every 100 females born 105 males are born. If only a select number of males are allowed to reproduce within a few generations there are insufficient females to go around. Also an unattached young males is perhaps the most dangerous of creatures. Yes but even if polygamy were made legal how many women (or men) would actually want that lifestyle? I am sure it's not enough to make that argument valid no matter how many generations it goes.
Stone holm Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Yes but even if polygamy were made legal how many women (or men) would actually want that lifestyle? I am sure it's not enough to make that argument valid no matter how many generations it goes. Didn't I read somewhere that male mortality rate, however, tends to even things out a bit. But young unsaddled males, are definitely a dangerous category for societal harmony.
thesometimesaint Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) Yes but even if polygamy were made legal how many women (or men) would actually want that lifestyle? I am sure it's not enough to make that argument valid no matter how many generations it goes. I have no desire for more than one wife, at least in this life. But I don't consider my desires as binding on anyone else. Didn't I read somewhere that male mortality rate, however, tends to even things out a bit. But young unsaddled males, are definitely a dangerous category for societal harmony. Because of a greater mortality of males it balances out over time then goes in favor of females. Though generally that is past menopause. Edited July 6, 2015 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) Define lower life form? I would and name names too but I would get banned. Edited July 6, 2015 by ERayR
JLHPROF Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Yes but even if polygamy were made legal how many women (or men) would actually want that lifestyle? I am sure it's not enough to make that argument valid no matter how many generations it goes. If it were made legal shouldn't be the issue.But if it were made legal AND God once again accepted the practice as valid that's a different issue. Then we would have to ask ourselves if Brigham Young's teaching that only polygamists would get to keep their eternal companions would be accurate going forward from the time of restoration. That might change which men and women would choose the lifestyle. Some would say better alone than polygamist. Others might say better polygamist than alone.
Tacenda Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/ Lindsay Hansen Park has put out a very thorough podcast called "Year of Polygamy". I don't think the church practicing this again would ever fly. In Jacob in the BoM, it mentions that the way they lived it in the Bible was wrong. In the first podcast on this link they have different historians discussing polygamy. Monogamy won out, hands down! Jacob 1:15: And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son. Jacob 2:24: Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Jacob 2:27: Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. Mosiah 11:2: For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but ... he had many wives and concubines. Ether 10:5: Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines. Edited July 6, 2015 by Tacenda
ERayR Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/ Lindsay Hansen Park has put out a very thorough podcast called "Year of Polygamy". I don't think the church practicing this again would ever fly. In Jacob it is mentions that the way they lived it in the Bible was wrong. In the first podcast on this link they have different historians discussing polygamy. Monogamy won out, hands down! I would suggest you have a serious misunderstanding of Jacob. You seem to be letting personal bias interfere. 1
Tacenda Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 I would suggest you have a serious misunderstanding of Jacob. You seem to be letting personal bias interfere.http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2008/11/does-book-of-jacob-support-polygamy.html Googled and these are two inferences, one from the TCOJCOLDS and CoC church. Some interesting reading.
thesometimesaint Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 If it were made legal shouldn't be the issue.But if it were made legal AND God once again accepted the practice as valid that's a different issue. Then we would have to ask ourselves if Brigham Young's teaching that only polygamists would get to keep their eternal companions would be accurate going forward from the time of restoration. That might change which men and women would choose the lifestyle. Some would say better alone than polygamist. Others might say better polygamist than alone. I don't believe that supportable. Even during BY's administration only a very small percentage of Saints were ever asked to practice it. After OD1 none were asked. I do not believe that because I was not asked I will not have my wife with me in the Celestial Kingdom.
JLHPROF Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 After OD1 none were asked. Well, that's not true for a start.
JLHPROF Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/ Lindsay Hansen Park has put out a very thorough podcast called "Year of Polygamy". I don't think the church practicing this again would ever fly. In Jacob in the BoM, it mentions that the way they lived it in the Bible was wrong. In the first podcast on this link they have different historians discussing polygamy. Monogamy won out, hands down! Jacob 1:15: And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son. Jacob 2:24: Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Jacob 2:27: Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. Mosiah 11:2: For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but ... he had many wives and concubines. Ether 10:5: Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines. Jacob 2 has been broken down and explained ad nauseum. Polygamy was banned for one reason - the people living it were wicked and behaving like David and Solomon. Jacob 2 does NOT ban polygamy.As for other polygamy in the Book of Mormon, the Brother of Jared was a polygamist and he was one of the most righteous, faithful men in the entire record. Not a peep against his polygamy.
Coreyb Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Jacob 2 has been broken down and explained ad nauseum. Polygamy was banned for one reason - the people living it were wicked and behaving like David and Solomon. Jacob 2 does NOT ban polygamy.As for other polygamy in the Book of Mormon, the Brother of Jared was a polygamist and he was one of the most righteous, faithful men in the entire record. Not a peep against his polygamy.I don't remember the brother of Jared being a polygamist, where is that? I think Amulek was though
JLHPROF Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I don't remember the brother of Jared being a polygamist, where is that? I think Amulek was though Ether 1:41 Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families.(Brother of Jared has families, Jared has a family) Ether 6:20 And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of sons and daughters of Jared were twelve, he having four sons. Ok, so it's a bit of assumption, but given the distinction of families vs family and the 22 kids it's a pretty safe one. 2
Avatar4321 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I don't believe that supportable. Even during BY's administration only a very small percentage of Saints were ever asked to practice it. After OD1 none were asked. I do not believe that because I was not asked I will not have my wife with me in the Celestial Kingdom.I agree with you. I don't believe you will be limited in any way for not obeying the command to Noah to build an arc either.
Avatar4321 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 While I suspect the Church feared this type of reasoning, I do not see that legalizing poligamy is necessarily a logical result of legalizing SSM. There is no minority involved. The logical path to legalizing poligamy would be through a State proceeding down the logic of RFRA. It would be through a free exercise claim, rather than an equal protection claim...unless you somehow brought through the kids, that might be an equal protection argument and there was a discussion of the impact of not allowing gay couples to marry upon their children.No minority involved? Yeah there is. The polygamist 1
Avatar4321 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Ether 1:41 Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families.(Brother of Jared has families, Jared has a family) Ether 6:20 And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of sons and daughters of Jared were twelve, he having four sons. Ok, so it's a bit of assumption, but given the distinction of families vs family and the 22 kids it's a pretty safe one.I never noticed that. Very interesting.
Recommended Posts