Recent Survey (via Jana Reiss)

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Not ineffectual. Polygamy falls outside of the boundaries of "marriage is between a man and a woman"

Since you find it necessary to further devolve your approach from a mathematical model to mere assertions, yes, i would say your mathematical arguments were ineffectual.

And you also see how polygamy does not fall outside the boundaries of a man-woman covenant, but same-sex marriage does. Are you willing to summarize them?  Posted Friday at 10:56 AM

[california boy]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Since you find it necessary to further devolve your approach from a mathematical model to mere assertions, yes, i would say your mathematical arguments were ineffectual.

And you also see how polygamy does not fall outside the boundaries of a man-woman covenant, but same-sex marriage does. Are you willing to summarize them?  Posted Friday at 10:56 AM

I always find this little game that Mormons play about polygamist marriages being the same as one man one woman marriages to be fascinating.  I think they may be the only people in the country that think polygamist marriages are nothing different than what most people would consider a deviation to the definition of marriage.  It is like if they repeat polygamy is the same as a single spouse often enough then eventually it becomes the truth to them.  But hey, if it makes them feel like polygamy should be more accepted than it is, who am I to care.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I always find this little game that Mormons play about polygamist marriages being the same as one man one woman marriages to be fascinating.  I think they may be the only people in the country that think polygamist marriages are nothing different than what most people would consider a deviation to the definition of marriage.  It is like if they repeat polygamy is the same as a single spouse often enough then eventually it becomes the truth to them.  But hey, if it makes them feel like polygamy should be more accepted than it is, who am I to care.

It usually comes up in relation to your own  “little games” played by [chose the label that makes you feel most comfortable].

Little Game 1: Same-sex marriage is not a redefinition of marriage as traditionally (in a human history sense) being only between a man and a woman. Just admit that it is! You know you understand it.

Little Game 2: Plural marriage, polygamy, polyandry, polyfidelity etc. etc. also redefine marriage as traditionally (in a human history sense) being between a man and a woman. Just admit that they are all traditional forms of marriage within their respective cultures between men and women! (PS we haven't a culture of ssm in all of human history, and because of that I wouldn’t quality what we see today as a defining aspect of any extant human culture).

Little Game 3: Little Game #2 arrangements are not between a single man and a single woman, but multiple, even though “between” any number of men and women renders only one “between” and each juncture covenant between each man and woman pairing is also a “between.” Just admit that your math doesn’t work!

Little game over LOL

Edited July 4, 2017 by CV75

[california boy]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

It usually comes up in relation to your own  “little games” played by [chose the label that makes you feel most comfortable].

Little Game 1: Same-sex marriage is not a redefinition of marriage as traditionally (in a human history sense) being only between a man and a woman. Just admit that it is! You know you understand it.

Little Game 2: Plural marriage, polygamy, polyandry, polyfidelity etc. etc. also redefine marriage as traditionally (in a human history sense) being between a man and a woman. Just admit that they are all traditional forms of marriage within their respective cultures between men and women! (PS we haven't a culture of ssm in all of human history, and because of that I wouldn’t quality what we see today as a defining aspect of any extant human culture).

Little Game 3: Little Game #2 arrangements are not between a single man and a single woman, but multiple, even though “between” any number of men and women renders only one “between” and each juncture covenant between each man and woman pairing is also a “between.” Just admit that your math doesn’t work!

Little game over LOL

I have never claimed that gay marriage was not different than one man one woman view of marriage.  Of course it is different.  So is polygamy, polyandry, polyfidelity etc.  They are all different than one man one woman.  To pretend otherwise is just some kind of delusion.  And I don't think anyone claims that gay marriage has been a part of human history.  So what is your point?  Do you think I should be claiming that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage by saying it is still one person marrying one person?  Would you accept that?  Of course not.  It would be me trying to play the same kind of game.  Honestly I have no idea where you got these ideas that I might believe what you are claiming.  Certainly not from anything I have said.

[bcuzbcuz]

On 27 June 2017 at 7:48 PM, Glenn101 said:

Is a sample size of 700 statistically significant?

 

700 Mormons or 700 unassigned loyalties?

[bcuzbcuz]

On 2 July 2017 at 2:39 PM, Gray said:

"A" is synonymous with "1". Marriage is between 1 man and 1 one woman. Polygamy is not between 1 man and 1 woman.

 

Yes it is.......if you say the contract is between one man and one woman, one woman, one woman, one woman, one woman...ad infinitum

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I have never claimed that gay marriage was not different than one man one woman view of marriage.  Of course it is different.  So is polygamy, polyandry, polyfidelity etc.  They are all different than one man one woman.  To pretend otherwise is just some kind of delusion.  And I don't think anyone claims that gay marriage has been a part of human history.  So what is your point?  Do you think I should be claiming that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage by saying it is still one person marrying one person?  Would you accept that?  Of course not.  It would be me trying to play the same kind of game.  Honestly I have no idea where you got these ideas that I might believe what you are claiming.  Certainly not from anything I have said.

Your June 28 post is founded on your assertion that marriage is not just between a man and a woman and that the Spirit confirms this updated, same-sex definition of marriage regardless of how the Church defines it in the more traditional way (the definition little game). Your agreement with Gray’s posts says a lot about your acceptance of the math and cultural little games. So, yes, you have played the little games.

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

I always find this little game that Mormons play about polygamist marriages being the same as one man one woman marriages to be fascinating.  I think they may be the only people in the country that think polygamist marriages are nothing different than what most people would consider a deviation to the definition of marriage.  It is like if they repeat polygamy is the same as a single spouse often enough then eventually it becomes the truth to them.  But hey, if it makes them feel like polygamy should be more accepted than it is, who am I to care.

That's a strawman. No one is saying that. What they're asking is the ancient Jewish view which Mormons participate in. i.e. how the people who gave the Adam and Eve typology viewed that typology.

You're of course right regarding 19th through 21st century western views. But since Mormons don't accept such views as authoritative they are not terribly persuasive.

Again, the question is how ancient Jews, who were a polygamist culture, viewed the Adam and Eve typology. How a 19th century Methodist or 21st century secularist views the issue is beside the point.

Edited July 5, 2017 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

Your June 28 post is founded on your assertion that marriage is not just between a man and a woman and that the Spirit confirms this updated, same-sex definition of marriage regardless of how the Church defines it in the more traditional way (the definition little game). Your agreement with Gray’s posts says a lot about your acceptance of the math and cultural little games. So, yes, you have played the little games.

 

You seem to be comparing two different things.  I never said that gay marriage is not a new definition of marriage.  I only said that I feel that marriage is a core part of the plan of salvation and that the plan of salvation is for all of God's children.  So yes, I feel strongly that marriage is not just for straight couples.  

And yes, I totally agree with Gray.  Marriage between one man and one woman is a completely different definition of marriage than one man and several women.  This is exactly the game I am talking about that Mormons play when they say polygamy is still just a marriage between one man and one woman.  More than one woman does not add up to one.  That is the math that starkly disputes this idea that polygamist marriages is still just one man and one woman.  It is not.  Mormons should just embrace that polygamist marriage is one man multiple women.  I honestly can not see the reality of your assertion that polygamist marriage is still a marriage between one man and one woman.  

[california boy]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's a strawman. No one is saying that. What they're asking is the ancient Jewish view which Mormons participate in. i.e. how the people who gave the Adam and Eve typology viewed that typology.

You're of course right regarding 19th through 21st century western views. But since Mormons don't accept such views as authoritative they are not terribly persuasive.

Again, the question is how ancient Jews, who were a polygamist culture, viewed the Adam and Eve typology. How a 19th century Methodist or 21st century secularist views the issue is beside the point.

This is what CV75 is saying

Quote

 

Huh? You know it's not about math, it's about template. Whenever the covenant is established, it is only a man and a woman making and entering into it.

And there's an issue with your henosis here: can you relate to how, in the marriage covenant,1 + 1 = 1?

 

I have heard this idea repeatedly.  Polygamist marriages are still one man marrying one woman.  Yet by the very definition of polygamy, it is one man several women.  If that is not what is being said, then yes, my comment is addressing something that is not being asserted.  Perhaps we need CV75 to clarify her comment.

 

Edited July 5, 2017 by california boy

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is what CV75 is saying

I have heard this idea repeatedly.  Polygamist marriages are still one man marrying one woman.  Yet by the very definition of polygamy, it is one man several women.  If that is not what is being said, then yes, my comment is addressing something that is not being asserted.  Perhaps we need CV75 to clarify her comment.

 

Cal boy, A man is polygynously married to four women in a country where polygyny is legal..  First wife, married to him for ten years, has four kids by him, second married for five has three, third married for three years has one, and fourth married for six months has none.

How long has he been in the one marriage with multiple women?

-------

He divorces his first wife, is the custody discussion over four kids (his and the wife divorcing him) or eight kids (all of his kids)?  When the divorce is finalized, is he single now or does he have three wives?  His first wife is no longer married.  Is he still married to his second wife?  Do the third and fourth wives have husbands?

 

Edited July 5, 2017 by Calm

[CV75]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

You seem to be comparing two different things.  I never said that gay marriage is not a new definition of marriage.  I only said that I feel that marriage is a core part of the plan of salvation and that the plan of salvation is for all of God's children.  So yes, I feel strongly that marriage is not just for straight couples.  

And yes, I totally agree with Gray.  Marriage between one man and one woman is a completely different definition of marriage than one man and several women.  This is exactly the game I am talking about that Mormons play when they say polygamy is still just a marriage between one man and one woman.  More than one woman does not add up to one.  That is the math that starkly disputes this idea that polygamist marriages is still just one man and one woman.  It is not.  Mormons should just embrace that polygamist marriage is one man multiple women.  I honestly can not see the reality of your assertion that polygamist marriage is still a marriage between one man and one woman.  

...and thus the "little games" continue...

[Gray]

On 7/3/2017 at 3:23 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Who are "they"?

Those with the most senior leadership callings in the church.

[Gray]

On 7/3/2017 at 7:46 PM, CV75 said:

Since you find it necessary to further devolve your approach from a mathematical model to mere assertions, yes, i would say your mathematical arguments were ineffectual.

And you also see how polygamy does not fall outside the boundaries of a man-woman covenant, but same-sex marriage does. Are you willing to summarize them?  Posted Friday at 10:56 AM

Both of them fall outside of the model of "marriage is between a man and a woman." That should be obvious, right? "a man and a man", "a woman and a woman" and "a man and multiple women" are obviously different from "a man and a woman."

[Gray]

15 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Yes it is.......if you say the contract is between one man and one woman, one woman, one woman, one woman, one woman...ad infinitum

That's describing serial monogamy, not polygamy.

[Gray]

The attempt to mathematically squeeze polygamy into the phrase "marriage is between a man and a woman" is not unlike me claiming to an only child. Sure, I have brothers and sisters, but my child/parent relationship is with my parents only. Therefore I'm an only child. My brother is also an only child. Ditto for my sister.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Cal boy, A man is polygynously married to four women in a country where polygyny is legal..  First wife, married to him for ten years, has four kids by him, second married for five has three, third married for three years has one, and fourth married for six months has none.

How long has he been in the one marriage with multiple women?

As soon as he marries that second woman, then he is married to multiple women.

 

6 hours ago, Calm said:

-------

He divorces his first wife, is the custody discussion over four kids (his and the wife divorcing him) or eight kids (all of his kids)?  When the divorce is finalized, is he single now or does he have three wives?  His first wife is no longer married.  Is he still married to his second wife?  Do the third and fourth wives have husbands?

 

Even if he divorces one of his wives, he is still married to multiple women.  The first wife is only the mother of the four kids, so she would only be able to make a claim to the children that were hers.  That would be the same as if she was married and had an affair or if she was single and had an affair.  Marriage dos not change custody rights.

The third and fourth wives are still living in a polygamist marriage.  By very definition of polygamy, multiple wives.

[california boy]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

Both of them fall outside of the model of "marriage is between a man and a woman." That should be obvious, right? "a man and a man", "a woman and a woman" and "a man and multiple women" are obviously different from "a man and a woman."

Exactly.   Quite honestly, I honestly can not see how anyone could ever view a man married to multiple wives as being in a one man one woman marriage.  And neither would the courts.

Edited July 5, 2017 by california boy

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The attempt to mathematically squeeze polygamy into the phrase "marriage is between a man and a woman" is not unlike me claiming to an only child. Sure, I have brothers and sisters, but my child/parent relationship is with my parents only. Therefore I'm an only child. My brother is also an only child. Ditto for my sister.

Except that would onky be an issue if it was said the husband had only one wife, only one marriage

The wife can of course say "he is my only husband and I am married to no other" and be completely accurate..

One man with multiple marriages of which each marriage consisted of him and one different woman seems to me to be the most accurate way to describe it, shorthand would be one man in multiple marriages with the understanding that the marriage contract is between one man and one woman and does not depend on any relationship the woman may have with any other wife he may have nor is his relationship in this one marriage dependent of any other of his marriages.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Calm

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Except that would onky be an issue if it was said the husband had only one wife, only one marriage

The wife can of course say "he is my only husband and I am married to no other" and be completely accurate..

One man with multiple marriages of which each marriage consisted of him and one different woman seems to me to be the most accurate way to describe it, shorthand would be one man in multiple marriages with the understanding that the marriage contract is between one man and one woman and does not depend on any relationship the woman may have with any other wife he may have nor is his relationship in this one marriage dependent of any other of his marriages.

I think all this explanation confirms the original point--there would have to have been a change in the definition of marriage, at least in the minds of 19th Century Americans, if polygamy was going to be made legal.  None of it happened, neither a change in the definition, nor was polygamy made legal.  But here we sit in 21st Century America and marriage now legally includes those who are brought together through the bonds of marriage and are of the same gender.  If the definition of marriage was changed to accommodate polygamy, I wonder if Same Sex marriage would have been as hard to accept or not.  oh well...we'll never know. 

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Except that would onky be an issue if it was said the husband had only one wife, only one marriage

The wife can of course say "he is my only husband and I am married to no other" and be completely accurate..

One man with multiple marriages of which each marriage consisted of him and one different woman seems to me to be the most accurate way to describe it, shorthand would be one man in multiple marriages with the understanding that the marriage contract is between one man and one woman and does not depend on any relationship the woman may have with any other wife he may have nor is his relationship in this one marriage dependent of any other of his marriages.

Or to say it much more simply, polygamous marriage is between one man and multiple women.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

Or to say it much more simply, polygamous marriage is between one man and multiple women.

Except it is not.  There is not one marriage, one contract (whatever form it takes, legal or religious or social) that is broken if one woman leaves.   It is multiple marriages, with a unique contract between the man and each of his wives.  There is a difference.

There is a difference imo with intentional monogamous marriage as well, which excludes the man as well as the woman from having additional marriage contracts, but it is imprecise to call multiple marriages of this type "a marriage".  That would be equating it to a polyamory marriage.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I have heard this idea repeatedly.  Polygamist marriages are still one man marrying one woman.  Yet by the very definition of polygamy, it is one man several women.  If that is not what is being said, then yes, my comment is addressing something that is not being asserted.

I think Calm brought up the key distinction between certain forms of polyamour and many forms of polygamy. I can completely understand why you might see no real distinction between marrying several people together versus marrying individuals multiple times. Yet from a ritual and conceptual basis it is different even if in practice it results in the same arrangement. But as others noted it becomes significant in terms of how children and divorce are viewed. So when there's a divorce it applies to one individual and not all. Likewise child custody is perceived to be tied to the couple not the group as a whole. These aren't minor issues but tend to pop up in many groups that practice marriage with multiple partners or even often in groups without formal marriage but with quasi-formal ties.

Especially when looking at the issue from an anthropological perspective not tied to western culture these things matter a great deal. Often the type of relations formed get tied to this. So for instance in Nepal where polandry is common, the most common situation is to marry brothers. Old Testament polygamy on the other hand appears to have strong incentives against marrying related people such as sisters. Yet in early Utah polygamy marrying sisters was somewhat common - perhaps due to ensuring a family without as much stresses as bringing two women without ties together. The theory, at least as expressed in D&C 132, is that the woman is supposed to have a huge degree of control over multiple marriages but the reality in Utah tended to ignore that. Contrast this to contemporary polyamour marriages among upper middle class westerners where typically all people have to know each other quite well. So the women typically have more control.

Edited July 5, 2017 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

The wife can of course say "he is my only husband and I am married to no other" and be completely accurate..

And thus is exposed the sexist mindset that will not see it this way.

Edited July 5, 2017 by CV75

[Gray]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

Except it is not.  There is not one marriage, one contract (whatever form it takes, legal or religious or social) that is broken if one woman leaves.   It is multiple marriages, with a unique contract between the man and each of his wives.  There is a difference.

There is a difference imo with intentional monogamous marriage as well, which excludes the man as well as the woman from having additional marriage contracts, but it is imprecise to call multiple marriages of this type "a marriage".  That would be equating it to a polyamory marriage.

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.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Gray