Polygamy

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Ken Brock
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:08 AM

A few show tunes are relevant:

"Solomon" from Cole Porter's NYMPH ERRANT (circa 1933).

The "Eastern and Western Love" sequence from THE DESERT SONG (Romberg-Harburg-Hammerstein, 1928)

"By The Mississinewah" from Cole Porter's SOMETHING FOR THE BOYS (circa 1940?)

perhaps "It's a Puzzlement" (I'm not sure) from THE KING AND I (Rodgers and Hammerstein, circa 1951).

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Riverman
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 06:23 AM

This has been an interesting thread. Like Jon W I'm an active member of the church (from the UK) and also like him I've never been one to avoid the churches associations with the whole thing. However, I'm very glad it's come to an end which is a legitimate personal view.

The church, however, rightly and vehemently defends itself against any confusion between its innocent, law abiding members and folks like our man in question who turn such things on its head to justify a criminal lifestyle.

And to pick up on something Lady Penelope mentioned (although I don't think she was targeting the LDS church) the church has recently said that planning a family should be a matter of consideration taking into account financial and social circumstances and that's a position I support strongly. Thanks for your wide-ranging views, it's been great.

I just wish I knew those folk songs about the subject.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Grumpy
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:24 AM

Cheers all. I've been looking for these words ever since a good mate used to sing the song in our Folk Club. Sadly I've lost touch with him but always think of him when the song comes to mind.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,joe
Date: 29 May 01 - 10:41 PM

i think we should open this subject for more discussion.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Penny S.
Date: 26 May 01 - 05:50 AM

Jon, thanks for the correct term - I knew I hadn't got it right, but couldn't remember it. It's a long time since I read up about the LDS, when I had a child in my class from a family in that church.

Penny

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Haruo
Date: 25 May 01 - 08:59 PM

One of the great seriandriistesses of literature is the Wyf of Bath in Chaucer's Caunterbury Tales; pretty sure she had outlasted five husbands.

Liland

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,joe
Date: 25 May 01 - 08:46 PM

here, here!

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Don't beleive it folks !
Date: 25 May 01 - 10:22 AM

Plural marriage, polygamy is alive and well in Idaho, Utah , Montana and lots of other states!

Quietly tolerated it is doing just fine lol.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Jon W.
Date: 25 May 01 - 12:39 AM

First to answer Penny's question - Usually the plural marriages were eternal, what we call sealed for time and all eternity. Sometimes a widow would have been sealed to her first husband, and then entered a plural marriage with another man and sealed for time only. Some of these would have been wives in name only (maybe they just didn't want the hassle of being courted for the rest of their lives.

Second, to respond to Branwen23, I suppose the church, or more likely some members of it was/were embarrassed about plural marriage. It certainly isn't a subject discussed much with children and young teenagers. I personally feel quite comfortable discussing it, and I am about as active a member of the LDS church as I can be. BTW I didn't grow up in Utah, although my parents did. As far as the church not officially acknowledging the government's role in forcing the end of the practice, I will leave you with this link to the Official Declaration which ended the practice of plural marriage, which is part of the Doctrine And Covenants, a book which is considered by LDS faithful to be modern scripture on par with the Bible and the Book Of Mormon in truth, authority, and sacredness. Read it and the associated commentary and judge for yourself.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,joe
Date: 24 May 01 - 08:12 PM

Mrrz, (may i call you, Mrrz?) 'i was... booooorn in east LA....' actually in Lynnwood which is just south of there. have lived in Whittier, just east of there most of my life. 'joe' is my only name on this thread. i've used 2 other names on previous threads to experiment w/ alternate personae, but this one draws out 'directness' so i use it most, claro?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Sorrel in Utah
Date: 24 May 01 - 03:07 PM

Tom Green is not a 'Mormon' - despite what that uninformed Matt Lauer says. Since the Prophet said in 1896 "No more plural marriage" any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints engaging in such behaviour is in opposition to one of the fundamental principles of the church.

I do not know what church affiliation Tom Green has, but 'mormon' he is not.

BTW- Amergin, I come from South Africa. Due to the extent of inbreeding down there I betcha we's cuzzins.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Branwen23
Date: 24 May 01 - 12:54 PM

I grew up Mormon...

I no longer am active in any church activities, and don't consider myself a member of the church.

As far as the polygamy issue goes, all I know is that in Primary (LDS Sunday School for young children) and in the Young Women's Program, we were always told that the practice of polygamy among Mormons started on the Mormon Trail from Nassau to Salt Lake, when many men were killed in various ways, leaving widows and children, and that these women and children were basically adopted into other families.

They always told us that once the Mormons were settled in Salt Lake City, and had established communities, that the practice was discontinued at the direction of Church elders, without any direction from the American Government. But everything I've ever read that wasn't a church publication (not that there are many publications on church history regarding this issue, they pretty much avoid talking about it) seemed to say that the Mormons were forced by the government to abandon the practice once the Utah Territory was assimilated into the US.

I always sort of felt that there was an embarrassment within the Church that the whole thing ever happened. Of course, I grew up in Texas, and have never known anyone who was ever involved in a polygamous relationship. The climate may be somewhat different in Utah.

As far as questions re Mormon garments, try this link: Click here


-Branwen

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 May 01 - 10:51 AM

GuestJoe, I'm not sure if I mean you, I mean the guest (I assume it's the same Guest) who adds things like Conquest Is, or Oh, now I see, and other comments, to their Guest tag. Whether that is you or not, yes you may call me Mrrz (although the more usual shortening is Mrr). But the question remains, and again it is for contextual info, where are you from?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,IQ ...
Date: 24 May 01 - 03:08 AM

"Well, GUEST,Conquest is ..., if anyone ever puts your treatment for irrationality into practice, you'd probably best be looking to protect your frontal lobes."

=^QQ^=

Insults when weak illustrate lack of sherical objects?

Try again .... if you can think somehing original and really irritating lol

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,joe
Date: 23 May 01 - 07:51 PM

you mean me, mrrz, (may i call you mrzz?) or some other guest with more extended opinions?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: CarolC
Date: 23 May 01 - 03:48 PM

...the irrationality can be treated with either chemical or surgical tools. For example the frontal lobes of the brain could be removed in the worst cases.

Well, GUEST,Conquest is ..., if anyone ever puts your treatment for irrationality into practice, you'd probably best be looking to protect your frontal lobes.

A simple solution would be castration after the first population/crosspopulation takes place

I guess you don't hold with the practice of vasectomies and tubal ligations for the purpose of sterilization. I think I'm done talking with you.

Grab, I'm sorry if you feel that I have been feeding trolls. Our GUEST has not recieved any flames (with the possible exception of a mild one in this beginning of this post), so it's hard for me to see how he has been fed if trolling for flames has been his objective. There has been dialogue, but as distasteful as the subject matter has been, it is still dialogue.

Carol

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 May 01 - 10:53 AM

Hey guest..with comments, where are you from?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Conquest is ...
Date: 23 May 01 - 10:22 AM

Feeding the trolls again, btw the reason I am not still a member of this forum is remarks like Grab's above.

Neither for or against Tribalism, what makes you think that?

Sure why not? If the primitve is hell bent on breeding it's kind toward Apedom why shouldn't they? In modern society the practice is controled, sadly what we have today, Islam , resticts the female not the male. A little biased lol.

In the USA, evidence is there but needs some analysis of data on crime, school performance and biography. Should the USA adopt Islam?. Something will have to be done - maybe not at this time but the day is comming, it not a question of whether but when.

A simple solution would be castration after the first population/crosspopulation takes place, the irrationality can be treated with either chemical or surgical tools. For example the frontal lobes of the brain could be removed in the worst cases.

Also not clearly stated - it is not alone the male lack of discipline that contributes to the trend but also the rapid pollution of a population by it's offspring, where typical statistics indicate up to 4 females to one male, ie he may have fathered 12 children for example - often in different states, so hard to document. Of these data suggests 6 will be male and the female inherits the damaged genetic material of further 'irrational' male offspring.

In contrast the monogamous population is being overtaken simply by being outnumbered, hence current estimates of 30% normal against 70% polluted.

Other areas of study - immigration, ie importing clean stock from mongamous societies Mexico being the current source as opposed to Africa where lots of good emigrants could be found lol.

22 million in the last 15 years - 10% adjustment lol.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 May 01 - 09:11 AM

Muffbund - the husband who doesn't get you pregnant?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Grab
Date: 23 May 01 - 07:38 AM

Can we stop feeding the trolls yet?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: CarolC
Date: 23 May 01 - 12:17 AM

What I have a problem with is that you seem to be suggesting that the behavior in question, ie: conquest, is ok in the context of the way it is practiced by people who are not members of tribal societies, and yet not ok when practiced by members of tribal societies.

You seem to be saying that 'rape' is an indicator of primitive, animal like behavior, while watching people as they are being gassed to death is not.

I will repeat what I stated before... conquest is conquest. The only difference is target and scale.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Oh now I can not see what the problem is :)
Date: 23 May 01 - 12:04 AM

"Carol the context clearly illustrates the use!"

'I don't agree.'

You don't agree with the meaning or the use? I am lost on this one. How about this the male whacks the resisting female over the head with rock then drags her off, would that be conquest?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 01 - 08:54 PM

GUEST,How stupid can I get duh....,

As stupid as you want, I suppose.

"Carol the context clearly illustrates the use!"

I don't agree.

"You should be a Lawyer and predicate the truth along with the other 190 million spoiled humans in the USA."

It's pretty laughable that you would think I'm spoiled. I live in a two room apartment, I don't own a car, and I am grateful for the fact that I have indoor plumbing. I have lived without it.

"...... nudge nudge wink wink."

I have to tell you that your nudges, winks, and etc. etc.'s are icky.

"About the evolution of the CNS and ANS. The primitve funtions - including sex - belong to the ANS, roughly the reflex nerevous system. The Central nervous system which is the reasoning part of the human brian is more or less seperate, however the it's control does tend toward ANS demands in some societies. The fact is that where polygamy is long practiced this merging is far greater and the male will typicaly have very little selfcontrol in some situations. A bare leg may get a female raped! So in modern societies where polygamy is regulated they make the females cover their skin. Makes sense to me, Carol."

I'm going to need to see some credible documentation of this, including brain scans, before I'm willing to give it any credence. You need to document that this is a function of the brain, and not the product of the attitudes with which men are raised in those cultures.

I'm not advocating either for or against polygamy. Personally, the idea of it leaves me feeling pretty uneasy. However, there are legal and constitutional considerations that people have brought up in this thread that seem to be legitimate and worthy of discussion.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,joe
Date: 22 May 01 - 08:06 PM

Mrrzy, with regard to your definitions above, what would a 'Muffbund' be?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,How stupid can I get duh....
Date: 22 May 01 - 05:52 PM

Carol the context clearly illustrates the use!

You should be a Lawyer and predicate the truth along with the other 190 million spoiled humans in the USA.

On an unrelated point did you know that many of the Civilsations wiped out by the Greek and Roman Israeli were so far into filth and sexual perversion they could not defend themselves, worn out ...... nudge nudge wink wink.

About the evolution of the CNS and ANS. The primitve funtions - including sex - belong to the ANS, roughly the reflex nerevous system. The Central nervous system which is the reasoning part of the human brian is more or less seperate, however the it's control does tend toward ANS demands in some societies. The fact is that where polygamy is long practiced this merging is far greater and the male will typicaly have very little selfcontrol in some situations. A bare leg may get a female raped! So in modern societies where polygamy is regulated they make the females cover their skin. Makes sense to me, Carol.

Question is do modern Americans want this kind of society?

I most certainly do not.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Penny S.
Date: 22 May 01 - 05:20 PM

Also, if the way a society is organised results in a lot of young men without partners who see potential partners being monopolised by older men, is it likely that those oyung men are going to put up with it? It doesn't seem a sensible way to keep them in the faith.

I heard a debate on the BBC recently, arising from calls from some Muslims to allow polygamous marriages to take place in Britain. In the panel was Tariq Ali, who gave the information that in Pakistan, the laws have been moderated in such a way that polygamy can take place, provided (in accord with Muslim teaching) that the husband can look after all wives and care for them equally) AND that the first wife agrees. They are not doing so. Polygamy (at anyrate concurrent) is becoming rare.

Penny

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Penny S.
Date: 22 May 01 - 04:48 PM

Someone said that the pushing down of the age of women at marriage would not happen if women were allowed multiple marriages as well. True, but would the men agree to it. To suggest that China may go that way and that this would increase the status of women does not tally with some research I have seen - sorry, I can't remember where. In societies where women are few, their value to the men rises, but not as persons, as chattels, and the women find themselves changing partners, involuntarily, more frequently, and sometimes with violence. We can't win.

Since I posted last, I've remembered something else which would damage the polygamist society with young brides. Babies born to teenage mothers are more vulnerable than those born to mature women. Most vulnerable would be the boys. The society might well increase the inbalance between the sexes.

I understood that the polygamy practiced in Mormon society at the beginning was in response to the effect of the opposition to them and the loss of husbands, leaving unprotected widows. In those circumstances, there might be an argument for the arrangement. The alternative would be a convent of some sort, but Mormon beliefs about marriage would make that difficult. Do all the marriages count as eternal, or only one, by the way?

Penny

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Amergin
Date: 22 May 01 - 04:37 PM

Jon W., the Knights were American...I believe they were from the same neck of the woods as Joseph Smith Himself....in fact one of my ancestors employed him....The Ellis' emigrated from South Africa though...

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: mousethief
Date: 22 May 01 - 04:30 PM

I've glimpsed the sacred undies (I asked my Mormon cube-mate if he wore 'em and he stuck his thumb down his shirt collar and pulled up the t-shirt to show me) but couldn't tell it wasn't just an ordinary undershirt.

Alex

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Jon W.
Date: 22 May 01 - 04:13 PM

Can't say that I do know any Ellis' or Knights personally, nor do the names ring any bells as far as my geneology is concerned. There was a famous 19th century Mormon named Jesse Knight who discovered silver in the mountains of western Utah, and who's resulting financial contributions to the church enabled it to get over some rough times. I believe he was American born, however.

Regarding the sacred garments, the word "sacred" implies that we don't talk about it in public!

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 01 - 04:07 PM

You are doing the Words shuffle, the meaning of 'conquest' - in this context - basic animal behavior, if that is too difficult for you to comprhend, think rape you'd be in the right ball park

Like this, tribal bull drags female by the hair of it's head to filthy cave etc etc.

GUEST,... Conquest and plain English

I think you're the one doing the Words shuffle. Conquest is conquest. The only difference is target and scale.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Amergin
Date: 22 May 01 - 02:57 PM

Hey, Jon W.....I am descended from Mormon pioneers also....some of them emigrated from South Africa.....

Do you know any Ellis' or Knights?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: jcdevildog
Date: 22 May 01 - 02:48 PM

Re Mrrzy's comment that 14-year-olds wouldn't be able to sell their bikes w/out parental consent, minors are considered legally incompetent to contract (buy or sell) w/out parental consent, except when the contract involves the necessities of life. This law was apparently intended to keep children from buying expensive, unnecessary items which they then could not legally return; but technically it would apply to selling also, so that if a child sold his bike for a dollar, the parent would have the right to negate the deal and repossess the bike. You may feel a 14-year-old has the right to make such a decision; on the other hand, do you want umpteen banks sending him/her credit cards? It's bad enough that 18-year-olds are bombarded with them!

Regarding special Mormon underwear, my information is that these are called "sacred garments". I've never actually seen any, but I understand they're somewhat similar to your summer-type union suit (short-sleeved and short-legged). Anyone who has actually glimpsed the sacred fabric, please enlighten our darkness!

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: mousethief
Date: 22 May 01 - 01:09 PM

Where did we get this idea about the ape-man dragging his female by the hair? It has no standing in any anthropology or archaeology. It's a myth.

Alex

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 May 01 - 01:06 PM

Another correction/answer:

Isn't there still a serious imbalance between the numbers of women and men in the world, someone asked.
No, there are roughly 50% men and 50% women. Globally, slightly more male babies are born but they are less hardy than the females so more die by age 1. By adulthood there are slightly, repeat slightly, more women than men.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,... Conquest and plain English
Date: 22 May 01 - 01:01 PM

Quote

And of course, throughout the history of the U.S., Americans of European descent have done their fair share of killing what can't be fixed as well. I guess they did a pretty good job of wiping out the tribal people who were there before them. And then there's the little matter of the nuclear bomb.

So I guess I don't buy this theory you have about tribalism and conquest.

You are doing the Words shuffle, the meaning of 'conquest' - in this context - basic animal behavior, if that is too difficult for you to comprhend, think rape you'd be in the right ball park

Like this, tribal bull drags female by the hair of it's head to filthy cave etc etc.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 May 01 - 01:00 PM

Oh, and parental terms too: let's say I have 3 Moms and 2 dads, one of each being my biological parents. Do I call them all terms like Mom and Dad, the way children of gay parents often do now (e.g., Dad & Papa) so that the adults all know who's being called? Are there separate terms for biological (or if infertility interventions were made, the closest equivalent) parents and the other parents, who aren't exactly Uncles and Aunts? How about Muncle, or would that be confusing since that is how some people pronounce "my uncle" anyway?

Grok the fullness! This is fun!

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 May 01 - 12:55 PM

I like the idea of the gubmint regulating contracts but not religious accords. The priesthood (large sense) can then dictate what a religious marriage can be, and the gubmint can say only that contracts must be entered into knowlingly. It's the knowingly part that would exclude children, as they could be ineligible to consent till they were older. But where would the cutoff be? Legislated or what? We already have "age of consent" for sex, it could easily be extended to anything else, like a contract. Thus a 14-year old couldn't sell their bike without parental permission? Are we OK with that? And if the contract DOES come with social or legal consequences, like inheritance or deathbed rights (those things that are leading many gay activists to lobby for same-sex marriage), what is the problem? I see a marriage in that sense as encompassing 2 or more adults, and all members of the marriage are married to all the others. There can be 1 man and many women, 1 woman and many men, or many men and women. If one person wants to divorce, they divorce the whole marriage, not just the person with whom they are fighting now. Children benefit from the group, but their individual parentage is known.

Then, if someone divorces the group: You can't make a divorcing parent pay child support for ALL the kids, even the ones not theirs, but you CAN require them to pay the support for theirs (known by biology, or if in the case of infertility intervention, as determined by THAT contract). However, they can try for visitation rights to all the kids, not just their own.

Then anyone in the marriage has marriage rights, like inheritance is assumed, you can visit them in the hospital, and so on. If a member of the marriage dies, all their property is inherited by the marriage, unless otherwise specified in a will. Then the only thing we need are new terms:

Wife=one woman married to one man
Husband = one man married to one women
Mife = one of many women all married to the same one man (and to each other, by definition)
Musband = one of many men all married to the same one woman (and to each other, by definition)
Multife = one of several women married to several men
Multusband = one of several men married to several women.

OK with everybody so far?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Grab
Date: 22 May 01 - 09:18 AM

Guest, you'll find tribal societies all over, regardless of the country. Your typical crowd of English soccer thugs, for instance, or ice-hockey fans. And their behaviour doesn't exactly impress me as being reasoned and non-violent!

IQ test results in Africa may well be lower, basically since most Africans have little or no education. To pass an IQ test, you need to have been taught to think in a particular way, hence you can learn how to maximise IQ scores quite easily. If you've not been taught to think that way, you won't be able to pass the tests. This doesn't affect rationality or personality, any more than my inability to do better at German grammar than your typical 10-year-old German makes me mentally handicapped. Equally, blacks with the same standard of lifestyle and education as whites perform identically - variations in blacks' performance compared to whites in Western countries are much more due to lack of motivation from family, social pressures and basically lack of money.

Gun ownership - hmm, that's a whole nother thread again!

Me, I'll be interested to see what China does. Given that men significantly outnumber women, women can now pick and choose husbands, and consequently are likely to get much more power. Legalising (consenting!) polyandry would be a suitable choice there for the same reason that Brigham Young legalised polygamy in Utah, namely a gross imbalance in the genders.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 22 May 01 - 09:07 AM

In my perfect world, splitting up families is not something the government should do -- people who choose to live together should be free to do so, even in larger groups than are conventional. However, government may wish to clarify that it will only recognize certain parties as having standing, should there be a breach of the marriage contract. Ideally, it should do this at the outset, rather than to give this fellow one impression when he enters the country, and then tell him something else after he and his family have settled here.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Bagpuss
Date: 22 May 01 - 08:52 AM

Can I just point out that there is also a serious related issue in France at the moment. There are some polygamous African migrants to France who were told when they moved there that the polygamy rules would not affect them and they could continue to live polygamously. However there is now talk of making these families conform to the western standard and making the man annul all but the first marriage. I saw an interview with one polygamous man who was distraught at this development - (he could support all of his family) and really upset at the thought his family might be split up.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 22 May 01 - 08:42 AM

I avoided this thread for a few days, but ultimately couldn't resist jumping in. Then I got towards the end and found that Alex (mousethief) and toadfrog (toadfrog) had already said most of what I would have said. Just add my voice to their choir -- government has no business interfering in anyone's religious decisions, but it does have a responsibility to regulate contracts. These contracts should be free of any unnecessary constraints concerning race, gender, and the like -- the government should not define marriage to exclude interracial or same-sex marriages, because this has the effect of violating the principles of equal protection under the law (help me out here, folks -- in the US, is that the 13th or 14th amendment?). When various (generally conservative) US politicians proclaim that the government must protect the "sanctity" of marriage, or preserve the common understanding that marriage is only for two people of the opposite sex, they are neglecting equal protection considerations and injecting themselves into religious issues that are outside of their legitimate purview.

However, since the government enforces obligations related to marriage contracts, and serves as a guarantor and/or provider of basic necessities for people who have entered into a marriage contract (and their offspring), it is appropriate for the government to regulate the number of parties that can enter into one of these contracts at any one time. That is a proper government function.

Boy, Alex and toadfrog said it all, but that didn't stop me from spouting off anyway, did it?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 01 - 03:14 AM

Women who think they can outdo the animals we call polygamists may well think about this. In Africa where the pracitce has survived to this day the IQ of the average person is far lower than that of Europeans, the primitive reaction to crisis is violence rather than reflection etc etc.

Biological trends indicate that more of the brain of tribal society tends toward sexual function. In simple terms your brain falls out your ass. The hair of the head tends toward pubic type etc etc.

What I am talking about, Carol, is the inevitable evolution of the brain of the male toward it's ass, ie his brain knows nothing other than conquest, hence the tendency of those begot of such animals toward irrational response when confronted with a problem. If it can't be fixed, kill it - in the USA that means with a gun.

--GUEST,Words acts and plain English

I don't know. That sounds like a bit of racist dogma to me. Take Hitler, for example. He wasn't African. But he was one of the most conquest oriented people the earth has ever known. Then there's Julius Caesar, Napoleon, George Patton, all Europeans or of European descent. None of them with pubic hair on their heads.

And of course, throughout the history of the U.S., Americans of European descent have done their fair share of killing what can't be fixed as well. I guess they did a pretty good job of wiping out the tribal people who were there before them. And then there's the little matter of the nuclear bomb.

So I guess I don't buy this theory you have about tribalism and conquest.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Bella
Date: 22 May 01 - 02:39 AM

Haven't lurked for a few days - good to see my drift has evolved. Although I'm a one man at a time kind of gal (chance would be a fine thing!), I don't see why my way should be the only way. I don't see any wrong in adults choosing what ever kind of relationship "turns their crank" as long as no one is being exploited or abused. Adults with children does not fit into this. Nor can we all expect to be able to rear children all alone without the assistance of our wider village...but to father 25 children offends even my leftism.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Words acts and plain English
Date: 22 May 01 - 01:50 AM

What I am talking about, Carol, is the inevitable evolution of the brain of the male toward it's ass, ie his brain knows nothing other than conquest, hence the tendency of those begot of such animals toward irrational response when confronted with a problem. If it can't be fixed, kill it - in the USA that means with a gun.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 May 01 - 11:23 PM

I tend to agree with those who wonder just where the offense lies and why the 'state' has any interest in polygamy. (Of course, abuse of state funds and institutions, as well as sexual assaults on minors are susceptible to legal action. That's separate from the point at hand.)

If the state can outlaw polygamy, what will eventually likely develop with the current societal trend of serial marriages and the spouses and families left behind? What about the single parent families that go on welfare because the departed spouse cannot support a given household? Just what is the difference between five wives at one time or five wives accumulated over 30 years? Will that too become illegal?

Isn't there still a serious imbalance between the numbers of women and men in the world? It has been debated for a couple of generations whether eventually several women will voluntarily share one man, so that each will have the protection and and support and comfort of a spouse. Will we someday look back and laugh at the notion that there ever was a time when polygamy was prosecuted?

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: CarolC
Date: 21 May 01 - 10:55 PM

GUEST,Words and acts .... more,

You start out sounding like you make some kind of sense, and then you write something that makes me wonder what in the world you're talking about.

Personally, I find myself agreeing for the most part with toadfrog.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,joe
Date: 21 May 01 - 09:49 PM

i don't know fr sure, but me being 54 yrs old, i think my wife is showin' me around to try to get a little help from some younger women; from her own culture, of course.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Words and acts .... more
Date: 21 May 01 - 07:30 PM

Penny puts the case for regulation far better than I did above, thankyou Penny!

In the end these cultures descend toward violence to settle who is and who is not allowed to have a home, a family etc. In fact that is precisely why in the United States gun ownership is so well protected.

It is nearly always the case where males far exceed the law they will own several weapons and typicaly support other polygamists. So for example after David Koresh ( real name Vinny Howel - who had a previous Homicide history BTW ) was killed there was a well organised attempt to justify all he had done.

He had impregnated underage girls, used drugs as a means of entrapment and imprisioned some of his victims. The parent of any underage girl would not be welcome at Koresh City!

I think Thomas Hobbes amply expounded the consequences of no social contract and I do agree with his conclusions. How could we do otherwise?

Women who think they can outdo the animals we call polygamists may well think about this. In Africa where the pracitce has survived to this day the IQ of the average person is far lower than that of Europeans, the primitive reaction to crisis is violence rather than reflection etc etc.

Biological trends indicate that more of the brain of tribal society tends toward sexual function. In simple terms your brain falls out your ass. The hair of the head tends toward pubic type etc etc.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: toadfrog
Date: 21 May 01 - 07:17 PM

Mousethief

You are a reflective guy, what you say is interesting. Now consider: As a religious or civil institution, marriage is not only a relationship between individuals. It is a relationship which imposes on themlegal obligations to each other, and gives them legal rights and privileges vis a vis third parties. All of which the church or the state enforces. And the people who say, the state has no business regulating who marries, are irresponsible, because as the state enforces the rights and privileges that go with marriage, is it is reasonable that it regulate them.

That is the ratio decidenti of Shelly v. Kramer in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that racially restrictive covenants in deeds constitute state action because the state enforces them, so that those restrictive covenants are unconstitutional.

In other words, since the state confers goodies on married people, it is not unreasonable that the state may, within limits, decide who gets the goodies.

This guy married lots of women so as to maximize the goodies he gets from the state, and he will pay for it. In this country, bigamists who don't hurt anyone don't get tried and convicted. Nothing I can see wrong with that.