The Privatization of Marriage

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Between a 14-year-old deciding for him/herself and a parent deciding for them? 

If you mean that you don't believe a parent should be giving consent at such a young age, I would agree.  I am just pointing out what is required by law, not what is the best way of doing things.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

HAHHAHAHa He did not ha e sex with men, his wives did not have sex with other men.  We know the father of his children.

You have a very very very sick sense of humor.  I am  disgusted.  Goodbye to you playing in the sewer of your mind.

I didn't say that BY's marriages were poly-amorous.  Please read for comprehension before flying off the handle. 

What I said is that we should be slow to criticize poly-amorous relationships considering the types of marriages that we considered righteous.  You might think that BY having 59 children and 55 wives (including a handful of teen brides while in his 40's) is perfectly fine but I can find many people who find that as sick and disgusting as you consider polyamory to be. 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

his wives did not have sex with other men.  We know the father of his children.

Actually Brigham Young married Zina Huntington while she was still legally married to Henry Jacobs.

She married Brigham in Feb 1846, gave birth to a child with Henry in March 1846.
And although Zina and Henry NEVER divorced she and Brigham had a daughter together, Zina Prescinda Young in 1850. 

She was legally married to Henry, sealed to Joseph Smith, and sealed to Brigham Young for time.

And according to urban legend not even Brigham knew the father of his children:

• It was said that one day Brigham Young met a very dirty looking boy on the street near his residence. He scolded him about his untidy appear- ance and told him to go home and tell his mother it was a disgrace to the Mormons to allow such a looking child on the streets. As the boy started away, Brigham asked, "Whose boy are you?" He answered, "I am Brigham Young's son." - THE MORRILLS AND REMINISCENCES Charles Morrill

Edited February 16, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Yirgacheffe]

14 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

But consenting 17 year olds should be forbidden?  Relationships between consenting adults and non-humans?

Sure consenting 17 year olds should be forbidden, they can wait a year same as 20 year olds who have to wait another year for a beer, what's the problem?  It's consent, non-humans can't consent.

[Yirgacheffe]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

I haven't read the thread yet so this could have been mentioned, but i think the government could easily get out of the marriage business by offering civil unions instead.  Legally civil unions would be exactly like marriage is now (with all the laws and restrictions that that implies) but without the need for the government to legitimize or validate any union as a 'marriage'. 

People, however, could call their unions whatever they wanted to.

Why should they bother with a name change, why instead shouldn't religions require their own separate ritual instead?

[cdowis]

48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually Brigham Young married Zina Huntington while she was still legally married to Henry Jacobs.
 

While this is correct, I find it interesting you "forgot" to mention the context of this marriage.  She was sealed to his friend and close companion, Joseph Smith, and clearly married her out of a sense of loyalty and duty to JS.  As I remember, he had a conversation with Jacobs, that he needed to find someone else, because she was no longer his to keep.

I do not even pretend to justify what he did, but this was an unusual situation, and not a group marriage, which was topic of our discussion.

We in this forum really are familiar with church history.  Even the critics have the courtesy to  tell the story within the full context.

Edited February 16, 2017 by cdowis

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Why should they bother with a name change, why instead shouldn't religions require their own separate ritual instead?

Because it could cover a broader set of relationships that are mutually dependent, but are not sexual such as siblings or friends living together, and still provide a lot of the same benefits to society that marriage does, such as having caregivers who are family and friends.  Might encourage people to live together in long term non romantic relationships more, allowing for a greater sense of family/belonging even if not blood related.

[Calm]

It was obvious rockpond and JLHP were simply saying polygynists shouldn't get all huffy about polyamorists given how society has looked on them.  Neither were trying to make it seem weird or immoral, just being matter of fact about what the history is.

They are also spot on, in my opinion.

And going up to tell someone he no longer has a right to his own wife he is legally married to....sure, that happens every day, and certainly makes religiously marrying a married woman perfectly normal.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

But do you really see the American people being ok abolishing tax breaks for married people?  I don't (nothing to do with marriage, more just people don't want to give up any tax breaks).  

Sure, if marriage ever becomes something done by a minority number of people as appears to be happening already in some countries even if they have children and/or they don't abolished tax breaks, but simply expand the tax break category to other forms of mutually dependent relationships, such as family members other than spouses or friends that make a commitment to live together (non romantic).

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Calm
Ignore

[Calm]

BG, in response to your quote:

A "rational" response is not necessarily an acceptance of behaviour as acceptable.  It could be rather than expecting fear of incarceration to stop child abuse, putting resources into medical and psychological treatments to alter the brain chemistry.  Having it viewed more as a psychobiological disorder than simply an immoral criminal choice could result in more seeking treatment.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Number two as in couple, partnership, parents (2). What is compelling enough about 2 that makes it better than any other combination?

Not an argument I am making.

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

BG, in response to your quote:

A "rational" response is not necessarily an acceptance of behaviour as acceptable.  It could be rather than expecting fear of incarceration to stop child abuse, putting resources into medical and psychological treatments to alter the brain chemistry.  Having it viewed more as a psychobiological disorder than simply an immoral criminal choice could result in more seeking treatment.

I understand that. There are those who don't think it is a disorder.

 

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not an argument I am making.

True, but it is the question I am asking in light of what is happening around us. I would like to hear a defense of the 2 parent paradigm. Of course it is what I believe is the eternal pattern, but that is no longer a given in our world.

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Why should they bother with a name change, why instead shouldn't religions require their own separate ritual instead?

Religions already have their own separate rituals from the government. 

But all the different rituals are still called by the same name regardless. 

[Yirgacheffe]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Religions already have their own separate rituals from the government. 

But all the different rituals are still called by the same name regardless. 

And the state uses the same word, it's just a word, so I don't see why the state should come up with a different word.

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

his wives did not have sex with other men.  We know the father of his children.

Actually Brigham Young married Zina Huntington while she was still legally married to Henry Jacobs.

She married Brigham in Feb 1846, gave birth to a child with Henry in March 1846.
And although Zina and Henry NEVER divorced she and Brigham had a daughter together, Zina Prescinda Young in 1850.

She was legally married to Henry, sealed to Joseph Smith, and sealed to Brigham Young for time.

And according to urban legend not even Brigham knew the father of his children:

• It was said that one day Brigham Young met a very dirty looking boy on the street near his residence. He scolded him about his untidy appear- ance and told him to go home and tell his mother it was a disgrace to the Mormons to allow such a looking child on the streets. As the boy started away, Brigham asked, "Whose boy are you?" He answered, "I am Brigham Young's son." - THE MORRILLS AND REMINISCENCES Charles Morrill

 

10 hours ago, cdowis said:

While this is correct, I find it interesting you "forgot" to mention the context of this marriage.  She was sealed to his friend and close companion, Joseph Smith, and clearly married her out of a sense of loyalty and duty to JS.  As I remember, he had a conversation with Jacobs, that he needed to find someone else, because she was no longer his to keep.

I do not even pretend to justify what he did, but this was an unusual situation, and not a group marriage, which was topic of our discussion.

We in this forum really are familiar with church history.  Even the critics have the courtesy to  tell the story within the full context.

Love how you switch gears when uncomfortable.  I told the story in perfect context and it is you who ignore the fact that the marriages of Brigham and Joseph were not as clear cut as you attempt to make them.

I don't consider any moral issues with either Joseph or Brigham's marriages.  And I don't have to make up historically inaccurate excuses to get to that point.

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually Brigham Young married Zina Huntington while she was still legally married to Henry Jacobs.

She married Brigham in Feb 1846, gave birth to a child with Henry in March 1846.
And although Zina and Henry NEVER divorced she and Brigham had a daughter together, Zina Prescinda Young in 1850. 

She was legally married to Henry, sealed to Joseph Smith, and sealed to Brigham Young for time.

And according to urban legend not even Brigham knew the father of his children:

• It was said that one day Brigham Young met a very dirty looking boy on the street near his residence. He scolded him about his untidy appear- ance and told him to go home and tell his mother it was a disgrace to the Mormons to allow such a looking child on the streets. As the boy started away, Brigham asked, "Whose boy are you?" He answered, "I am Brigham Young's son." - THE MORRILLS AND REMINISCENCES Charles Morrill

"It was said?" Urban legends?

Edited February 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

"It was said?"

I said it was urban legend.  It's a hearsay story (that has been altered into many forms over the years, including making the little boy African American in one version).
It probably never actually happened, but it is more of a representation of the culture of the time.

I quoted it as it was quoted in the reminiscences of Charles Morrill.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

And the state uses the same word, it's just a word, so I don't see why the state should come up with a different word.

It's a word that's definition is constantly being contested, disagreed about, and argued over, to the point that the courts have had to get involved.  Some see that as a good enough reason for the government to come up with a different word.

[rongo]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I said it was urban legend.  It's a hearsay story (that has been altered into many forms over the years, including making the little boy African American in one version).
It probably never actually happened, but it is more of a representation of the culture of the time.

I quoted it as it was quoted in the reminiscences of Charles Morrill.

It doesn't ring true, but it makes for a good story (especially for critics of polygamy).

Brigham Young had a sharp mind, and a good memory. The story sounds not only apocryphal, but intended to make him look bad.

[thesometimesaint]

22 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That depends which direction we are heading.

And that really isn't related to the "group marriages" = polygamy comparison Cdowis made.

You didn't answer the question.

I have no legal objections to group marriages, between consenting adults. Whatever floats their boat. Morality is a separate issue.

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

You didn't answer the question.

I have no legal objections to group marriages, between consenting adults. Whatever floats their boat. Morality is a separate issue.

If morality is a separate issue, what then do you look to as the source for good law vs bad law?

Edited February 16, 2017 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, rongo said:

Why does the government have to offer anything?

Discussion about this has led me to think of things I never have before. For example, who bears the cost of benefits to multiple spouses? LDS-offshoot groups "bleed the beast" and commit a lot of welfare fraud.

The thought about requiring converts to be remarried LDS (like with baptism) was interesting to me. I don't know how I feel about that. But, I do like the thought of there being no government involvement (approval or disapproval) of marriage. I'm also one who would like for federal income tax to be done away with, and if it had to remain, to eliminate exemptions and deductions (yes, even tithes and offerings). But that's not a popular view among most LDS  . . .  

The government needs to stay out of the bedroom. The government interest is in protecting the children in such relationships.from becoming dependent on the State. 

We have an income tax to have a functioning government to provide the goods and services we all depend upon. 

We as a country have decided that a fair tax system allows for them.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The government needs to stay out of the bedroom. The government interest is in protecting the children in such relationships.from becoming dependent on the State. 

We have an income tax to have a functioning government to provide the goods and services we all depend upon. 

We as a country have decided that a fair tax system allows for them.

What in the world did we do before the federal income tax? How did we have a "functioning government that provides the goods and services we all depend on?" 

President Benson's thoughts on the proper role of government resonate with me.

Also, nobody consulted me when the federal income tax was instituted.   There are other things that could be done besides income tax (with the benefit of getting rid of the IRS). 

I would settle for a low flat tax with no exemptions and deductions. I think too many Mormons freak out at the prospect of not being able to deduct tithing or getting rid of the child tax credits. 

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

But not give full legal consent.  As a minor, the parent gives legal consent to the marriage as well as the minor. (or so I believe not reading your article).

Either the consent of a parent or ruling by a judge(IE; An emancipated child) is required. We as a society largely defer to parents in the raising of their children. Unfortunately that isn't always the best thing to do.