The March Continues: Up Next- Plural Marriage

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which fact was noted by many LDS men and women at the time. It’s interesting that the same hypocrisy persists today, which is what this thread is about.

So you believe the deceit involved with Joseph marrying and sleeping with his other wives (several who were teenagers employed as Emma's housemaids) behind Emma's back was much better?  How was that right for him to do?

How about him marrying other men's legal wives?

Edited May 29, 2018 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/24/2018 at 10:26 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Polygamy is already legal in Muslim countries, and in some non-Muslim countries like the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, and South Africa (where it is legal only for Muslims).  Even Britain has given limited recognition to polygamous families.

And apparently Brazil, although the reasoning appears convoluted. Technically, if the soccer player marries his wives at the same time, it is not bigamy.

Quote

Ronaldinho, who has told Brazilian media outlets he is "adept" at polygamy, started dating Coelho first around 2013 before meeting Souza in 2016. 

 Bigamy is illegal in Brazil, and is punishable by up to six years in prison. But a wedding ceremony to two women — one that wouldn't count as two official marriages — presents a different case.

  https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/soccer/2018/05/24/ronaldinho-marry-two-women/641517002/

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think bigamy with one man and several women partners is an inherently unfair system.  Women should be treated as equals and not property.  So, my guess is that ronaldinho is getting flack for the reasons you interpret Calm to have made.  Society is headed toward equal treatment among the sexes and so when ronaldinho comes along proclaiming his intentions to have his marriages, the world sees it as a huge step back and rightfully so.     

of course women should be treated as equals and not property.  But does that mean that a woman married to one man is not property, but if he subsequently marries a second that suddenly turns her into something she wasn't before?  Namely property?  If that is what you are saying, it doesn't make a niggling bit of sense.  Marriage doesn't suddenly turn a woman into property, at least in western civilization it doesn't.  Perhaps in other places, but not here.

And what about him simply living with the two women in a sexual and domestic partnership?  Is this something inherently wrong because it's not fair? What's unfair about it?  Who's business is it to call it unfair?  The women are free to go anytime they choose, Ronaldinho is apparently not holding them hostage.  It's a voluntary and willing partnership.

You're not making any sense.

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 Wrong. Neither making plural marriage cool nor taking offense that adults do what adults do are the reasons for bringing up the soccer player in Brazil. That has been the clear intent throughout the discussion. 

The question is what changed when he decided (according to news reports) to marry the two or three women with whom he is living? It was presented as a catalyst to examine a broad and persistent societal view that condemned the Mormon practice more than a century ago. Living with, having relationships with, and having children with multiple un-married partners is viewed as less egregious than marrying them. The former is acceptable, but the latter is prosecutable. He was not criticized until he revealed plans to marry the women with which he was living as if they were married. Before that he was an international hero.

Why is that?

I've had similar thoughts many times. It's quite hypocritical to denounce a man with multiple wives while accepting a promiscuous lifestyle. If James Bond had 2 wives instead of 2 women every show, he would be villainized   It just goes to show that worrying about our own issues instead of the lifestyles of others is probably a better/safer/more productive life-plan.

 

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting thoughts. Have you noticed any changes in these patterns you have identified? 

Observations from another news source....

Seems a bit convoluted. How does one marry two women and create a common law union? Why would bigamy be prosecutable, but co-habiting with or having some kind of different arrangement with the ladies is not? It seems odd to me and I cannot think of an explanation.

Easy!  Instead of two separate ceremonies, just have one!  The officiant asks the two women if they want to marry Ronaldinho (sp?), and they say, in unison "Yes!"  Then he asks Ronaldinho if he wants to marry woman A and woman B, and he says "Yes".  The officiant then says "I pronounce you husband and wives!"  So none of them got married twice.  It's quite technically correct.

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So you believe the deceit involved with Joseph marrying and sleeping with his other wives (several who were teenagers employed as Emma's housemaids) behind Emma's back was much better?  How was that right for him to do?

How about him marrying other men's legal wives?

Well, there’s a lot more uncomfortable things to discuss about how the early leaders lived polygamy compared to what this one guy in the OP is doing.  

But none of that is to be brought up apparently 

Edited May 29, 2018 by JulieM

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So you believe the deceit involved with Joseph marrying and sleeping with his other wives (several who were teenagers employed as Emma's housemaids) behind Emma's back was much better?  How was that right for him to do?

How about him marrying other men's legal wives?

It would depend on whether or not one believes he was doing what he had been commanded to do, whether it was or was not from God, whether he handled the difficult situation wisely or not, or whether we have sufficient information. I’m sure it was very daunting for everyone. If he sinned, he will be held accountable by God. 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So you believe the deceit involved with Joseph marrying and sleeping with his other wives (several who were teenagers employed as Emma's housemaids) behind Emma's back was much better?  How was that right for him to do?

How about him marrying other men's legal wives?

I think a man doing those things today would be criticized a lot more than Ronaldihno. Church members really have no valid criticism of a soccer player whilst revering polygamous prophets.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've had similar thoughts many times. It's quite hypocritical to denounce a man with multiple wives while accepting a promiscuous lifestyle. If James Bond had 2 wives instead of 2 women every show, he would be villainized   It just goes to show that worrying about our own issues instead of the lifestyles of others is probably a better/safer/more productive life-plan.

 

Thanks for the comments. I think it is appropriate to examine broader issues of society and  lifestyles that impact our own issues. The casualness of the extremely popular Bond relationships, for example, affects culture worldwide; however, James is so cool I think he could marry them all and get away with it. I am rooting for the underdog, Miss Moneypenny. If there is justice in this world, she will be Mrs. Bond.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, 2BizE said:

What kind of creep would marry a 14 year old?

What kind of creep drops into a conversation about A and brings up Z as if it had something to do with it?  You seem too BizE to pay attention to the actual subject.

Not to invite further BS on the question, I would like to point out that my mom was 14 when she married her first husband, who was 22 at the time.  Was she a creep for consenting (enthusiastically) to it?  If you think so, let's step outside and settle this like dweeb and geezer.  Everyone party to the matter, including her and her parents were perfectly happy with the arrangement, and the marriage produced two children and lasted until his death, twenty years later.  

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's really quite fascinating/entertaining to watch Mormons act offended by the prospect of consenting adults...gasp...practicing plural marriage. Poor Brigham must be turning in his grave.

Ronaldo may help polygamy become cooler but Mormons were the pioneers of the sxual polygamous revolution before it was cool. There must be some credit for that, right?

To be fair, if you would like to, at least, there's a few ex-Mormons gasping, too.

[Bernard Gui]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think a man doing those things today would be criticized a lot more than Ronaldihno. Church members really have no valid criticism of a soccer player whilst revering polygamous prophets.

Once again, no one here is criticizing the soccer player. The question is about the public reaction to his situation. This thread is not about defending or criticizing  polygamy. Please keep that in mind. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, there’s a lot more uncomfortable things to discuss about how the early leaders lived polygamy compared to what this one guy in the OP is doing.  

But none of that is to be brought up apparently 

You have been politely asked several times to stop derailing this thread and to start your own thread. I’m disappointed that you think the request is funny.

[Bernard Gui]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Not to invite further BS on the question, I would like to point out that my mom was 14 when she married her first husband, who was 22 at the time. 

I can’t resist this derail! My mom was two months past her 15th birthday when she married her first husband who was 25. He was not a creep. They were both decent and good people.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

To be fair, if you would like to, at least, there's a few ex-Mormons gasping, too.

It was the non-Mormon social media reactions that brought the attention and the criticism. But not until he announced his plans. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

That's what I meant when I talked about straw men.  Bernard didn't say it wasn't appropriate, per se, only that it was not the topic of the thread, and if someone wanted to address the question of the mothers, he seemed to think that was a great idea, and not inappropriate at all. 

If one is going to hold another responsible for his words, then one should at least have the courtesy of holding him responsible for the words he actually used, instead of others that might possibly give one a false advantage.  

If I understood correctly, the question he was asking had to do with the calumnity of someone marrying two or more women versus the "so what, who cares" matter of living with them without benefit of marriage.  

Then I am a bit confused about what is allowed to be talked about and what isn't allowed to be talked about.  Bernard has no problem talking about the men involved in polygamy.  Now you are saying it is off topic to talk about the women in polygamist marriages?  Please explain 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Then I am a bit confused about what is allowed to be talked about and what isn't allowed to be talked about.  Bernard has no problem talking about the men involved in polygamy.  Now you are saying it is off topic to talk about the women in polygamist marriages?  Please explain 

You must have read the past four or five pages, no? I apologized for allowing the thread to be derailed into yet another discussion the merits or demerits of polygamy. Please keep it to the topic. Thanks!

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Then I am a bit confused about what is allowed to be talked about and what isn't allowed to be talked about.  Bernard has no problem talking about the men involved in polygamy.  Now you are saying it is off topic to talk about the women in polygamist marriages?  Please explain 

I was just trying to be supportive of his desire to stick to the original topic, which was:  a famous Brazilian football player has been living in a state of sexual and domestic partnership with two women, a state that has been totally without controversy to this point.  But now, suddenly when it is announced he's going to marry both the women, the world erupts in horror and revulsion.  Why is that?

The original poster apparently wants to stick to the subject at hand, but very few people are acceding to his wishes, and instead want to go off on tangents.  It should be his privilege to ask responders to stick to the main topic -- and if they want to discuss other aspects, like to talk about the women in polygamist marriages, they should feel free to start their own threads.

I don't know why that is so controversial.

Not that I've haven't contributed a bit to the tangents myself, but I herewith repent.  Mea culpa.

ETA: I guess he answered the question himself, so disregard my blitherings.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Stargazer

[california boy]

54 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I was just trying to be supportive of his desire to stick to the original topic, which was:  a famous Brazilian football player has been living in a state of sexual and domestic partnership with two women, a state that has been totally without controversy to this point.  But now, suddenly when it is announced he's going to marry both the women, the world erupts in horror and revulsion.  Why is that?

The original poster apparently wants to stick to the subject at hand, but very few people are acceding to his wishes, and instead want to go off on tangents.  It should be his privilege to ask responders to stick to the main topic -- and if they want to discuss other aspects, like to talk about the women in polygamist marriages, they should feel free to start their own threads.

I don't know why that is so controversial.

Not that I've haven't contributed a bit to the tangents myself, but I herewith repent.  Mea culpa.

ETA: I guess he answered the question himself, so disregard my blitherings.

 

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

You must have read the past four or five pages, no? I apologized for allowing the thread to be derailed into yet another discussion the merits or demerits of polygamy. Please keep it to the topic. Thanks!

This whole thread has been off topic if you are narrowing it down to the Brazilian soccer player.  Why did Bernard bring up having sex with robots? Why did Bernard bring up incestual marriage?  Why did Bernard bring up platonic marriages, birth control, abortion?  Why did Bernard bring up Jacob 2.  Why did Bernard bring up the possibility that Mormons may once again be persecuted?  Why did Bernard bring up "raising righteous seed".  Why did Bernard start talking about not allowing a TV in his house when he first got married?  Why did Bernard bring up a "proper time" to live polygamy and an improper time to live polygamy?  Why did Bernard bring up the number of children from the men he mentioned. Why did Bernard bring up how old his own mother was when she got married?  In fact, this entire thread had very little to do with the soccer player.  It is Bernard himself that has derailed this thread from the very beginning.  How is everyone suppose to know what he wants the thread to be about when most of his posts are off subject?  

It seems like the only time Bernard wants to stay on subject is when someone questions his own posts.  Bernard actually has no right to tell others to stick to the subject at hand when he himself has paid so little attention to it.  

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 

This whole thread has been off topic if you are narrowing it down to the Brazilian soccer player.  Why did Bernard bring up having sex with robots? Why did Bernard bring up incestual marriage?  Why did Bernard bring up platonic marriages, birth control, abortion?  Why did Bernard bring up Jacob 2.  Why did Bernard bring up the possibility that Mormons may once again be persecuted?  Why did Bernard bring up "raising righteous seed".  Why did Bernard start talking about not allowing a TV in his house when he first got married?  Why did Bernard bring up a "proper time" to live polygamy and an improper time to live polygamy?  Why did Bernard bring up the number of children from the men he mentioned. Why did Bernard bring up how old his own mother was when she got married?  In fact, this entire thread had very little to do with the soccer player.  It is Bernard himself that has derailed this thread from the very beginning.  How is everyone suppose to know what he wants the thread to be about when most of his posts are off subject?  

It seems like the only time Bernard wants to stay on subject is when someone questions his own posts.  Bernard actually has no right to tell others to stick to the subject at hand when he himself has paid so little attention to it.  

Please stop or leave the thread if you don't like it or cannot comprehend what is going on. Please stop making this personal. Start your own if you want to discuss those things. I've already apologized 3 times for allowing the derailing to continue. And here we go again. I have graciously apologized and acceded to your complaints and accusations about me not respecting your posts and breaking board rules that don't even exist in another thread. Can you not respect my request now?

Edited May 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

deleted

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the comments. I think it is appropriate to examine broader issues of society and  lifestyles that impact our own issues. The casualness of the extremely popular Bond relationships, for example, affects culture worldwide; however, James is so cool I think he could marry them all and get away with it. I am rooting for the underdog, Miss Moneypenny. If there is justice in this world, she will be Mrs. Bond.

What is interesting is in the books--unless they are killed---the women are the ones who dump him (iirc they find him limited).  I will try and find the reference if anyone is curious (I am thinking it is in Moonraker), but I don't have all the books though I have read them all.

Probably off topic, but .I find the fact that the movies interpret Bond's relationships with women in a different way than the books (Fleming dies in 64, not that he was traditional in his morality) do telling.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Calm

[Exiled]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

of course women should be treated as equals and not property.  But does that mean that a woman married to one man is not property, but if he subsequently marries a second that suddenly turns her into something she wasn't before?  Namely property?  If that is what you are saying, it doesn't make a niggling bit of sense.  Marriage doesn't suddenly turn a woman into property, at least in western civilization it doesn't.  Perhaps in other places, but not here.

And what about him simply living with the two women in a sexual and domestic partnership?  Is this something inherently wrong because it's not fair? What's unfair about it?  Who's business is it to call it unfair?  The women are free to go anytime they choose, Ronaldinho is apparently not holding them hostage.  It's a voluntary and willing partnership.

You're not making any sense.

I guess I can call it unfair, just like you can call it fair because the women choose this life and aren't held hostage. I wouldn't advise my neices or daughter, if I had one, though, to live this lifestyle as no. 2 of 3 or 3 of 3, etc. However, maybe she could live as no 1 of 3 or maybe there aren't favorites? That might change things?

I've just seen too many cheating spouses to doubt that there isn't jealousy or problems in these relationships. However, maybe I'm wrong? Maybe it is healthy having the women share while the man gets a variety? More power to him. He certainly has the resources to ease whatever downside these women may face, hypothetically that is.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Exiled

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Please stop or leave the thread if you don't like it or cannot comprehend what is going on. Please stop making this personal. Start your own if you want to discuss those things. I've already apologized 3 times for allowing the derailing to continue. And here we go again. I have graciously apologized and acceded to your complaints and accusations about me not respecting your posts and breaking board rules that don't even exist in another thread. Can you not respect my request now?

It seems like an apology for constantly derailing your own thread and then accusing others of derailing the thread would have been a better response.  But I will do as you wish and leave the thread.

[Bernard Gui]

Thanks to all who commented on this thread. I think it has more than run it’s course. Interesting and enlightening conversations.