Recent Survey (via Jana Reiss)

[clarkgoble]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

In polygyny, the man is married to multiple women. That's his relationship situation.  But in traditional marriage, it's "one man and one woman."

I feel like this argument is way of trying to stuff polygamy in the "traditional marriage" box. It just doesn't fit. Too many women, not enough box. And it kind of discounts the additional women in the relationship too.

Polygamy definitely makes more sense for a culture with much higher rates of inequity than our culture along with a death rate among men that is much higher. I think I mentioned earlier in the thread that one common problem in cultures was figuring out what to do with the excess of young males. Too many tends to lead to a type of violence that undermines social stability. But an additional problem was also the high rate of female mortality due to childbirth. So there are competing incentives that lead to privileging particular marriage patterns. That said what tended to happen in the west was that high status and high power males simply had many socially acceptable mistresses. Indeed that persisted well into the 20th century. To such an extent that it sometimes is hard to wrap our mind around it. I remember a photo of the famous physicist Schrödinger walking down the street with both his wife and mistress. Now technically that's not polygamy but in practice it is. 

The big question of polygamy is less the sexual issue since that aspect simply persisted in the west after the rise of Rome. (Rome is somewhat unique in that its pattern of sexuality was heavily wrapped up with slavery as de facto forced sexual partners. While that happened in post empire Europe with serfs, it was not quite as ruthless typically.) The real issue is what the rights within society by secondary partners were. There monogamy mattered a great deal although the practical effect was to remove what little formal support and power women had. (Somewhat ironically since we tend to see polygamy with some justification as deeply misogynist) 

It's really that question of formal power under the law that women had that is the topic of polygamy.

Our own culture, while clearly against polygamy, has simultaneously also tried the past decades to ensure rights for women in de facto polygamist relationships or ones similar to that. So for instance a sports star who's life isn't that different from a polygamist male of 3000 years ago with multiple stable partners and short term partners has to pay support for children he fathers by people other than his wife. The main difference is that they still don't have to offer support for women they lose interest in sexually whereas in polygamy they did.

Now again I'm emphasize that culturally our ideal is a nuclear family of a male and female who stay together for life. Yet even if we don't treat socially mistresses quite the same as parts of Europe did for centuries, we do have a double standard. We might think someone like Donald Trump with multiple wives and sexual encounters is crass and to be morally belittled. Yet his type of serial marriage, adultery and multiple sexual partners is effectively treated as socially accepted even if looked down upon. That is he suffers few costs for his behavior. This is why it's important to look at both informal lines of power as well as formal ones.

Edited July 5, 2017 by clarkgoble

[BlueDreams]

50 minutes ago, Gray said:

In polygyny, the man is married to multiple women. That's his relationship situation.  But in traditional marriage, it's "one man and one woman."

I feel like this argument is way of trying to stuff polygamy in the "traditional marriage" box. It just doesn't fit. Too many women, not enough box. And it kind of discounts the additional women in the relationship too.

I am an only child, if you don't count all my siblings.

Personally I think this argument can also disqualify the wife's experience as well. Where each individual woman has a specific marital contract with their husband. 

But I think the confusion comes in confusing the marriage with the family. A man may have multiple marriage contracts with several women. All of these together may be considered one family. They may not. There are some polygamist relationship where the husband maintains separate households and travels between the separate marriages. They can be so distant that the wives do not know about the other households. For each of these women they have their own marriages. It's one husband and one wife. To the man, he has multiple marriages to several different women. In these situations, being a "sister wife" is not how they would describe their relationship. 

But there are other family units where the wives are more interconnected and marital contracts more enmeshed. But these are not all polygamous marriages and doesn't negate that each marriage contract is still individual. And if one of the wives leaves the marriages it doesn't have an effect on whether the husband is still polygamous (unless there were only 2 wives). The marriage contracts themselves are still binary....one husband one wife contract. But there are just multiple of these contracts to this one man. You could think of this as housing contracts as well. Say every wife has a house they live in and has a shared contract with the husband. The husband can say he has, say, three houses...because his name is in 3 deeds. But each wife can only say that have 1 housing contract. It's not one big house they all share in equally. Likewise polygamy isn't one big marriage. It can be one big family....just not one big marriage. That would be a group marriage. This doesn't make it "fit" the traditional marriages. But it also doesn't fit the comparison of any-gender marriages either and doesn't give as solid a nod to such. 

Ironically, with your child analogy....I have been described as an only child. I'm the only child from my two parents....i don't feel like an only child nor really relate to the experience but technically in that definition I am one. I can also be described as having 10, 9, and 6 siblings, depending. My one brother can also say he has 10 siblings. While another can say he has 6. And Another can say he has 3 or 4 depending. It's about the boundaries and rules about family dynamics and how you define "family" or "sibling." And from your analogy, it could also be used against your argument because you're clumping all the wives marital contracts into one group contract. It would be like saying you're an only child because you all came from the same parents and have the same genetics and are thus all one. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited July 5, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

In polygyny, the man is married to multiple women. That's his relationship situation.  But in traditional marriage, it's "one man and one woman."

I feel like this argument is way of trying to stuff polygamy in the "traditional marriage" box. It just doesn't fit. Too many women, not enough box. And it kind of discounts the additional women in the relationship too.

I am not trying to claim it is the same as traditional monogamous marriage.  It is different in my view, but the difference isn't the relationship between genders (the marriage relationships are all between a man and a woman, not between the women...nothing changes in their relationship if one of the woman gets divorced for example in terms of contractual relationships), but how many relationships a man can have at the same time.

Current legal gay marriage can be said to be the same as traditional and currently legal heterosexual marriage in that it allows for only one legal/contractual relationship at a time but different because of genders involved), while polygamy is the same as traditional heterosexual marriage in terms of gender (one man and one woman in each relationship), but different in terms of the number of marriages allowed.

I am not claiming it is the only marriage relationship the man has, but it is the only marriage relationship the woman has.  She is not married to her husband's other wives.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not trying to claim it is the same as traditional monogamous marriage.  It is different in my view, but the difference isn't the relationship between genders (the marriage relationships are all between a man and a woman, not between the women...nothing changes in their relationship if one of the woman gets divorced for example in terms of contractual relationships), but how many relationships a man can have at the same time.

Current legal gay marriage can be said to be the same as traditional and currently legal heterosexual marriage in that it allows for only one legal/contractual relationship at a time but different because of genders involved), while polygamy is the same as traditional heterosexual marriage in terms of gender (one man and one woman in each relationship), but different in terms of the number of marriages allowed.

I am not claiming it is the only marriage relationship the man has, but it is the only marriage relationship the woman has.  She is not married to her husband's other wives.

I would agree with this statement.  I only have problems when Mormons try to make the claim that polygamist marriages are the same as one man one woman marriages.  While that may be true for the woman, it certainly is not true for the man.  And that diversion makes polygamist marriages completely different than the accepted and legal. one man one woman marriages.  

Yes gay marriage is also different that one man one woman marriages.  Who is saying they are the same?  And what is the point of pointing out the difference.  To me, gay marriage is marriage for people that are gay.  Who else would a gay person marry other than someone of the same gender?  One man one woman marriages are for people that are straight.  Who else would someone who is straight marry other than someone of the opposite sex?

 

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

To me, gay marriage is marriage for people that are gay.  Who else would a gay person marry other than someone of the same gender?  One man one woman marriages are for people that are straight.  

...and polygamist marriages are for people who are polygamist (at least it should be legally that way in my opinion).

I would change the sentence in bold to say, "One man, one woman marriages are for people who chose to live monogamous lives."  Polygamy is the inevitable next step in marriage equality.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I would agree with this statement.  I only have problems when Mormons try to make the claim that polygamist marriages are the same as one man one woman marriages.  While that may be true for the woman, it certainly is not true for the man.  And that diversion makes polygamist marriages completely different than the accepted and legal. one man one woman marriages.

But they are the same in that the religious marriage institution is a traditionally exclusively a male-female arrangement. Only until recently the secular institution reflected that as well, and that is where the redefinition of marriage is found. This is why it is a false comparison to say that Joseph Smith’s introduction of plural marriage is on a par with the impropriety of redefining marriage to include same-sex unions.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Yes gay marriage is also different that one man one woman marriages.  Who is saying they are the same?  And what is the point of pointing out the difference.  To me, gay marriage is marriage for people that are gay.  Who else would a gay person marry other than someone of the same gender?  One man one woman marriages are for people that are straight.  Who else would someone who is straight marry other than someone of the opposite sex?

This notion hinges on the acceptance of the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions, and plural marriage does not redefine marriage at all.

Edited July 6, 2017 by CV75

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 I only have problems when Mormons try to make the claim that polygamist marriages are the same as one man one woman marriages.  While that may be true for the woman, it certainly is not true for the man.  And that diversion makes polygamist marriages completely different than the accepted and legal. one man one woman marriages.  

So, can you even try to understand how a person could reasonably hold to the belief that the marriage covenant is still between one man and one woman?  Is it completely outside the realm of possibility for you that someone might genuinely see gender as a more salient feature than number? 

 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

To me, gay marriage is marriage for people that are gay.  Who else would a gay person marry other than someone of the same gender?  One man one woman marriages are for people that are straight.  Who else would someone who is straight marry other than someone of the opposite sex?

I wonder whether you are fully aware of how much your argument here relies on multiple false premises and semantic bulldozing over any nuanced understanding.  My guess is that you aren't.  At least I hope, you aren't.

For others who might read this thread: This argument assumes a categorical gay/straight dichotomy, in which all people are either gay or straight, and that this trait is fundamental and unchanging.  It depends on erasing from public awareness, if not from existence entirely, individuals with any degree of bisexuality or who have experienced any change in sexual attraction.  For a group who claims to resent their own history of being suppressed and having their experiences invalidated, they sure are quick to do the same to others. 

[USU78]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Yes gay marriage is also different that one man one woman marriages.  Who is saying they are the same?

If marriage and homosexual "marriage" are not the same [and I'm gratified you recognize they are not], why must they be granted equivalent status under law?  

Cuz ya just wanna?

[california boy]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

If marriage and homosexual "marriage" are not the same [and I'm gratified you recognize they are not], why must they be granted equivalent status under law?  

Cuz ya just wanna?

Because gays are legally entitled to the same rights as straights.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

...and polygamist marriages are for people who are polygamist (at least it should be legally that way in my opinion).

I would change the sentence in bold to say, "One man, one woman marriages are for people who chose to live monogamous lives."  Polygamy is the inevitable next step in marriage equality.

 

Perhaps.  I always felt that Reynolds was an unfair court decision.  So who knows.  Perhaps in the future Mormons will once again be allowed to practice polygamy.  

[california boy]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

But they are the same in that the religious marriage institution is a traditionally exclusively a male-female arrangement. Only until recently the secular institution reflected that as well, and that is where the redefinition of marriage is found. This is why it is a false comparison to say that Joseph Smith’s introduction of plural marriage is on a par with the impropriety of redefining marriage to include same-sex unions.

Marrying other men's wives was a new definition of what marriage traditionally had been defined as.  Gay marriage is a new definition of what marriage had been.  

 

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

This notion hinges on the acceptance of the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions, and plural marriage does not redefine marriage at all.

There is more to redefining what marriage is than just the gender being married.  In the United States, interracial marriage was a new definition of marriage because that type of marriage was once illegal.  Mixed race couples should have never been denied marriage.  Same sex couples should have never been denied marriage.  Perhaps polygamist should have never been denied marriage.  The only legal reason to deny any consenting adult marriage relationship marriage is if it can be shown to harm others.  It is my understanding that is basically the litnus test the legal system uses in determining these issues.

 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, kllindley said:

So, can you even try to understand how a person could reasonably hold to the belief that the marriage covenant is still between one man and one woman?  Is it completely outside the realm of possibility for you that someone might genuinely see gender as a more salient feature than number? 

Yes I can see that.  And they are still welcome to hold that belief.  I really don't care if someone has that belief or not.  But from a legal standpoint, that belief is not enough to justify denying same sex couples their civil rights of equal protection under the law.  When a person tries to impose that belief on others is when I have a problem.  Can you even try to understand that?

 

Quote

I wonder whether you are fully aware of how much your argument here relies on multiple false premises and semantic bulldozing over any nuanced understanding.  My guess is that you aren't.  At least I hope, you aren't.

For others who might read this thread: This argument assumes a categorical gay/straight dichotomy, in which all people are either gay or straight, and that this trait is fundamental and unchanging.  It depends on erasing from public awareness, if not from existence entirely, individuals with any degree of bisexuality or who have experienced any change in sexual attraction.  For a group who claims to resent their own history of being suppressed and having their experiences invalidated, they sure are quick to do the same to others. 

Nope.  Bisexuals can choose what type of marriage they want to participate in.  Just because someone is bisexual does not mean they should be forced to only be allowed to marry a woman.  It is their choice, not their neighbors.

CFR that gays try to legally suppress any bisexual person their choice on who they marry.  That is a ridiculous assertion.

Edited July 6, 2017 by california boy

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 hours ago, kllindley said:

For a group who claims to resent their own history of being suppressed and having their experiences invalidated, they sure are quick to do the same to others. 

The ascendant discourse of fixed, gendered sexual identities is absolutely totalising in its reach and claims. It has been constructed in such a way that if it is anything less, it fails. Its proponents and defenders either clearly understand this or intuitively sense it.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[USU78]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

Because gays are legally entitled to the same rights as straights.

You can do better than that. Argument by assertion sheds no light at all. It's no more useful than saying, "Because I wanna."

Edited July 7, 2017 by USU78
stupid phone

[california boy]

5 hours ago, USU78 said:

You can do better than that. Argument by assertion she'd no light at all. It's no more useful than saying, "Because I wanna."

That is usually the reason all people do marry. ("Because they wanna")  While each marriage partnership may wish certain things out of the marriage, (sexual relations, children, security, stability etc.) what is common with all marriages is the couple wants to spend the rest of their lives with the person they love.  There is absolutely no difference between the many reasons a gay couple will marry and a straight couple will marry.  The only difference is whether the parter is the same gender or opposite gender.

Not sure what she'd no light at all means.  Sorry.

[Jeanne]

17 hours ago, USU78 said:

If marriage and homosexual "marriage" are not the same [and I'm gratified you recognize they are not], why must they be granted equivalent status under law?  

Cuz ya just wanna?

Cuz ya just wanna?  What a disgusting comment.

[kllindley]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

When a person tries to impose that belief on others is when I have a problem.  Can you even try to understand that?

So, like when people try to impose their belief that same-sex relationships are completely equal to heterosexual unions through laws and ordinances that compel individuals to compromise their beliefs? Or is that okay because you agree with the belief being imposed?

 

12 hours ago, california boy said:

CFR that gays try to legally suppress any bisexual person their choice on who they marry.  That is a ridiculous assertion.

It is indeed a ridiculous assertion. It would be even more ridiculous if I had made it. I don't answer CFRs for assertions I didn't make. 

[kllindley]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

Not sure what she'd no light at all means.  Sorry.

If you remove the apostrophe, it makes perfect sense. Assuming there is a desire to understand. 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, USU78 said:

If marriage and homosexual "marriage" are not the same [and I'm gratified you recognize they are not], why must they be granted equivalent status under law?  

Cuz ya just wanna?

 

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Because gays are legally entitled to the same rights as straights.

Has there ever been a clearer example of question begging/circular reasoning?

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Cuz ya just wanna?  What a disgusting comment.

Disgusting? I don't see it.

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Has there ever been a clearer example of question begging/circular reasoning?

There was a whole supreme court ruling on why gay people should be allowed to get married. Not sure why CB was asked in the first place.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Gray

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Disgusting? I don't see it.

 

I do. 

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I do. 

Obviously. You were the one who made the remark.

That doesn't make it self-evident to others.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

There was a whole supreme court ruling on why gay people should be allowed to get married.

It's circular reasoning and begging the question.

USU78 asked why marriage and homosexual "marriage" must be granted equivalent status under the law.

CB, in essence, responded that they must because they are.

That is no answer. It is begging the question.

Quote

Not sure why CB was asked in the first place.

Perhaps because Supreme Court rulings are not necessarily just or irrevocable. To see that this is so, you need only review the Dred Scott decision, which held that people of African descent could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's circular reasoning and begging the question.

USU78 asked why marriage and homosexual "marriage" must be granted equivalent status under the law.

CB, in essence, responded that they must because they are.

That is no answer. It is begging the question.

Perhaps because Supreme Court rulings are not necessarily just or irrevocable. To see that this is so, you need only review the Dred Scott decision, which held that people of African descent could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.

 

 

Courts make self-evidently right decisions when we agree with those decisions, and they make self-evidently wrong decisions when we disagree with those decisions.  You're welcome.  Anything else I can clear up for you?