Just a matter of time - plural marriage challenge

[jerome1232]

I don't think the one man one woman definition of marriage rules out polygamy. It's not one marriage, it's several individual marriages. The only difference is a lift on the cap of marriage unions one can enter.

[Guest MormonGator]

Currently accepting applications for wives number 2-8. Please send color 8 x 10 to my inbox. 

 

Just don't tell LadyGator. 

 

Edited July 13, 2015 by MormonGator

[NightSG]

I was considering a pair of sisters so there would still only be one mother in law, but she passed away last year, so now I guess I could bring it up to a triple.  One for the bedroom, one for the kitchen, and the other should be able to clean the rest of the house by herself.

Edited July 13, 2015 by NightSG

[prisonchaplain]

 

He added: "Most people are not us. I am not trying to define what marriage means for anybody else - I am trying to define what marriage means for us."

 

Read full article here

 

And this, boys and girls, is post-modernism in a nutshell.  Who's to say?  Who's to judge?

 

My response:  What if there really is a Creator?  And, what if He cares?

[prisonchaplain]

My gut tells me that Collier won't win this one--if only because he's a white male.

The case that legalizes polygamy will come from a Muslim man, a polyandrous woman, or free-love swingers in a group marriage. It won't come from a white Christian male.

 

There has to be a woman for this to win.  The left is already saying that no, polygamy is not coming, because it's abusive to women.  They are so deluded, they really believe the can trample on Christians and Muslims, because of the moral superiority of their views.  When they told us we could not legislate morality, they meant conservative morality.  They are wrong.  Polygamy is coming...but it will be a female plaintiff that tips the case to victory.

[prisonchaplain]

For some reason this one does bother me as much as same sex marriage.  I realize it is still against church policy and doctrine.

 

But if some guy wants to take on having to put up with more than one woman...more power to him.  

 

You've never watched "Raise the red lantern?"  The husband pits his wives against each other, and whoever pleases him the most on a given day, beomes head of the wives the next day.  Of course, each day is a new one.  Ironically, in the movie, we never do see the man.  We just imagine him, behind the scenes, being the real victor each and every day.

Edited July 14, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[Guest]

There has to be a woman for this to win.  The left is already saying that no, polygamy is not coming, because it's abusive to women.  They are so deluded, they really believe the can trample on Christians and Muslims, because of the moral superiority of their views.  When they told us we could not legislate morality, they meant conservative morality.  They are wrong.  Polygamy is coming...but it will be a female plaintiff that tips the case to victory.

 

Hmm... it could be a bisexual male tipping the scales.  He wants to marry both a man and a woman... because he's bisexual, and you know, it's all about love.

[prisonchaplain]

Anatess...not enough sympathy for the bisexual guy, 'cause it still doesn't address the abuse of women argument.  You're on the right track though--it's all about love and who can garner the most sympathy for perceived oppression.

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree with PC and Anatess that those are more likely scenarios; but I no longer believe those in power in this country have the fortitude to deny Islamists anything they want . . . as evidenced by our recent nuke deal with the Iranians.

[Average Joe]

And this, boys and girls, is post-modernism in a nutshell.  Who's to say?  Who's to judge?

 

My response:  What if there really is a Creator?  And, what if He cares?

 

Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us. 

 

And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. (2 Nephi 28:7-8).

[Average Joe]

I agree with PC and Anatess that those are more likely scenarios; but I no longer believe those in power in this country have the fortitude to deny Islamists anything they want . . . as evidenced by our recent nuke deal with the Iranians.

 

The spirit of Neville Chamberlain has crossed the Atlantic and is alive and well in Washington DC

[NightSG]

Anatess...not enough sympathy for the bisexual guy, 'cause it still doesn't address the abuse of women argument.  You're on the right track though--it's all about love and who can garner the most sympathy for perceived oppression.

 

What if the woman is really a transvestite?

[Vort]

The spirit of Neville Chamberlain has crossed the Atlantic and is alive and well in Washington DC

 

I don't think so. Maybe I'm naive, but I think Chamberlain was an honest dupe.

[Guest MormonGator]

I don't think so. Maybe I'm naive, but I think Chamberlain was an honest dupe.

 I agree, that's how I view him too. 

[Average Joe]

I don't think so. Maybe I'm naive, but I think Chamberlain was an honest dupe.

 

A lack of moral courage doesn't honesty make.

[Vort]

A lack of moral courage doesn't honesty make.

 

That's what I'm saying. I don't know that Chamberlain was a coward, just a fool.

[Average Joe]

That's what I'm saying. I don't know that Chamberlain was a coward, just a fool.

 

Since every book has an agenda and I wasn't alive 100 years ago...I'll just say I lean more toward the former than the latter., but that's just my opinion.

[Jamie123]

I can understand why a man might want to have a woman (or women) on the side in addition to his wife, though even that might lead to a rather complicated and stressful life. But why would anyone want to have more than one actual wife?

 

There was a TV show a few weeks ago about a "Mormon" man who had (I think) seven wives - and several sets of kids by different wives - all living together in one house. It was, admittedly, rather a big house - but all the same. How could anyone live with that level of aggravation?

 

How much nicer just to have one wife, and all your kids by her!

[prisonchaplain]

In all seriousness, I've argued for awhile that polygamy has a stronger case than same-sex marriage.  There is historic precedence, religious approval in some communities, and most of the arguments for LBGT marriages apply to polygamy.  The two main counter-arguments I've read are the potential for spousal abuse and the lack of significant support (polling).  Given that Hobby Lobby is protected from paying for Obamacare abortificients, but the local baker in Oregon who refused to make an LBGT wedding cake has to pay $135K, I'm not sure logic has anything to do with it anymore.  The Constitution certainly doesn't.  So, all bets are off.  If simply analysis and logic ever become helpful again, I'd say polygamy is on the horizon. 

 

Oh...and no, I won't be in line for a license. 

Edited July 20, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[The Folk Prophet]

I can understand why a man might want to have a woman (or women) on the side in addition to his wife, though even that might lead to a rather complicated and stressful life. But why would anyone want to have more than one actual wife?

 

There was a TV show a few weeks ago about a "Mormon" man who had (I think) seven wives - and several sets of kids by different wives - all living together in one house. It was, admittedly, rather a big house - but all the same. How could anyone live with that level of aggravation?

 

How much nicer just to have one wife, and all your kids by her!

 

As much as I definitely understand this sentiment, one might also say, for example: Why would anyone want a large family? Having 7 or 8 or 9 (10? 13?) kids would be such a pain. How could anyone live with that level of aggravation? How much nicer to just have one or two kids!

 

Yes...from a mortal, short-sighted, selfish kind of p.o.v., this holds some level of pseudo-logic and appeal. But the truth is that large families tend to bring great joy and blessings to those who are willing to so sacrifice.

 

I cannot help but wonder if the sacrifice of plural marriage (and there's not denying it would be a sacrifice all around (women "on-the-side" not withstanding ) might not also, in reality, bring all the greater joy and blessings.

[Jamie123]

As much as I definitely understand this sentiment, one might also say, for example: Why would anyone want a large family? Having 7 or 8 or 9 (10? 13?) kids would be such a pain. How could anyone live with that level of aggravation? How much nicer to just have one or two kids!

 

Yes...from a mortal, short-sighted, selfish kind of p.o.v., this holds some level of pseudo-logic and appeal. But the truth is that large families tend to bring great joy and blessings to those who are willing to so sacrifice.

 

I cannot help but wonder if the sacrifice of plural marriage (and there's not denying it would be a sacrifice all around (women "on-the-side" not withstanding ) might not also, in reality, bring all the greater joy and blessings.

I guess I'm just a mortal, short-sighted and selfish kind of person. But at least I know my limitations

 

P.S. Having just written that, doubt now assails me... Perhaps I'm putting God into His box again!  

P.P.S. A random thought: if Man were intended to have more than one wife, why didn't God create Adam and Eve, Denise, Felicity, Gina, Helen, Irene and Jane? 

 

P.P.P.S. I know I'm being a bit flippant here, but now I've thought about it some more I think Folk Prophet does raise an interesting point.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Jamie123

[NightSG]

How could anyone live with that level of aggravation?

 

Step one; install urinals so there's no toilet seat issue.

[AnthonyB]

_{Why would someone want to be polygamous.....}

 

_{1) They believe God commanded them to do it (eg Joseph Smith)}

 

_{2) My observation is that especially in older age groups there is often an imbalance that means there is not enough men for the available women in many faith communities.1/2 of a good man may be better then not partner for some woman.}

 

_{3) Outreach situation where within the group being reached it would be advantageous for the people working to build cultural bridges. Also in some cultures a single woman would find it much harder to work then a married woman and in some groups the numbers of woman wanting to work as missionaries is greater than the number of men.}

 

 

_{Just wanted to add that I don't personally support polygamy but just highlighting reasons people could have to support it...}

Edited July 28, 2015 by AnthonyB

[NightSG]

Now there's an interesting question; if we returned to polygamy, would senior missions expand to taking all the wives along, or would one have a road wife, a home wife, etc.?

[cdowis]

In all seriousness, I've argued for awhile that polygamy has a stronger case than same-sex marriage.  

 

The issue has gone well beyond simple polygamy to polyamory, or group marriage.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Professor Elizabeth Brake of Arizona State University thinks that justice requires using legal recognition to “denormalize heterosexual monogamy as a way of life” and “rectif[y] past discrimination against homosexuals, bisexuals, polygamists, and care networks.”

She supports “minimal marriage,” in which “individuals can have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties, the type of relationship involved, and which rights and responsibilities to exchange with each.”

 

......

Justice Samuel Alito voiced concerns about the norm of monogamy during oral arguments in the Obergefell case.

If “equality” requires redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what else does “equality” require? If the fundamental right to marry is simply about consenting adult romance and caregiving, what limits could the state ever place on it?

Justice Alito posed the hypothetical of “a group consisting of two men and two women apply[ing] for a marriage license” and asked, “Would there be any ground for denying them a license?” Pursuing this line of thought further, he asked about other types of couples. How about siblings?

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/24/how-the-media-is-promoting-polyamory-the-new-marriage-equality/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRohu63LZKXonjHpfsX66%2BgqWK6ylMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ATMNiMK%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHm

Edited July 27, 2015 by cdowis