Polygamy

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Jon W.
Date: 21 May 01 - 06:52 PM

Yes, the young age of the wives is another factor to consider. Tom Green is still facing additional charges of statutory rape in the case of his first wife, who was 13 at the time of their marriage, and bore a child at 14. It seems like an open and shut case against him except for some possible statute of limitations arguments. I must say that I find this aspect of Tom Green's and other so called Mormon fundamentalist's practice of plural marriage repugnant, and I don't believe that the historical "mainstream" Mormon practice of polygamy before 1890 featured marriages of young women below the age of consent, although I don't have a lot of specific data to back me up. As far as the numerical disparity between men and women, in those early days (and still today) there were more women than men willing to live the basic doctrines and principles of the church, which were a prerequisite for plural marriage. So the disparity wasn't so much of a problem.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Grab
Date: 21 May 01 - 06:35 PM

Jon W, convicting him of rape would have been the right thing to do, given the age of the girls concerned! Cutting off benefits to the family if they have no intention of trying to support themselves is a civil matter for the various welfare agencies, but sex with a minor is a criminal offence.

I think Alex has it right - relationships amongst consenting adults are their own affair. I'd rather see a general-purpose state of marriage which encompasses any long-term relationship. This could then be extended quite easily to cover polygamous or polyandrous relationships. You could solve the "travelling salesman's roving willy" problem by sending a letter, registered, own-signature-only, to every partner in the relationship when one member wants to marry someone else!

Penny, I'm not sure that'd be the case if multiple-partner relationships of both sexes were allowed - the two would tend to balance out. I agree though that an imbalance towards men does devalue women - you can see that with the highly-publicised forced marriages of young girls to Mormon men (often inside family groups) and with arranged marriages of Muslim girls. If men have more status in the culture, it's almost inevitable that women become adjuncts to "their" male - a good survival tactic in the case of a primitive society, but not much good in any modern society that values equality of opportunity.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Penny S.
Date: 21 May 01 - 05:43 PM

If people are brought up to accept a certain way of life, can they be said to have free will if they choose to follow what they have been taught is right? Whatever age they make their choices? In the case of marrying in early teens, the girls have clearly not reached their full development of mind. I note that none of the wives are of the same age, or near the same age as the husband, and that the gap is considerable between him and the oldest. Either he had some difficulty in finding a partner when he was at the normal age for marriage, or, living in a polygamous society, all the women his own age had been snapped up by the older men in the group. Polygyny must have the effect either of depriving some men of partnership, or of driving down the age of marriage for the females. It cannot treat women as of equal value with men. I am aware that the religious groups concerned are of the opinion that God supports this view - it's the one thing all long established religions agree about, but I feel that an argument which makes Goering the spiritual superior of Hildegard von Bingen lacks moral power.

Sorcha's point about the synchronous menstruation had occurred to me, but I am afraid the amusing vision of every one of those mobile home doors being shut to him once a month wouldn't happen because of the regular pregnancies

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Jon W.
Date: 21 May 01 - 03:08 PM

Kat, I can't be offended by you bringing up "Zack The Mormon Engineer" since I'm the one that submitted it to the Digitrad DB in the first place. As far as Sonia Johnson goes, I'm not to crazy about her or the ERA--I believe that if it had passed in the '70s, by now men would be useing it as a weapon to take priveleges away from women. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. As a descendant of Mormon pioneers, some polygamist and some not, I feel that the provision in the Utah State Constitution which outlaws polygamy, and was forced on the people by the federal government as a condition to statehood, is not a just law. It baffles my why the County attorney decided to prosecute Tom Green, though it may have something to do with a misguided attempt at improving the state's image for the 2002 Olympics. On the other hand, convicting the fellow of criminal non-support was probably the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: mousethief
Date: 21 May 01 - 02:59 PM

Just thinking out loud here about this case. This is all just my opinions, and some of them are firmer than others, and others are quite squishy.

In general and all other things being equal, how many spouses a person has, and of what gender, is none of the government's business. I'd prefer if the government stayed out of most people's private affairs (no pun intended) most of the time.

We must distinguish between "marriage" as a religious institution, and "marriage" as a civil institution. Whether and how one is "married" in the religious sense is a question for one's religion, and THAT is none of the government's business, per the 1st amendment.

Now as to the civil institution -- if the government decides to recognize a certain condition (call it "marriage" or call it "condition X" -- it matters not) then it certainly can make rules regarding who can file for said condition; however at least in the gender question it is hard for me to see how the government has any interest in defining it one certain way.

Now there are reasons, from the civil point of view, for defining marriage as the union of 2 and exactly 2 persons. For one thing, one purpose of civil marriage is to provide for survivorship/inheritance in the case of the death of one partner.

Conceivably rules could be made for the polygamous cases; but it strikes me as a legal headache and just from a "CYA" point-of-view the government could be expected to not want to deal with the multi-spouse case.

The fact that this particular guy was defrauding the government and not supporting all these "wives" is presumably a problem with this one guy, and not with the institution of polygyny. And the fact that people in these bizarre multiple marriages were wed illegally young, and sometimes against their will, is not necessarily a reason to prohibit the practice for people who are old enough and are, in fact, consenting.

(Indeed a case could be made that legalizing the practice would make preventing abuses easier.)

Anyway just some thoughts.

Alex

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 May 01 - 02:13 PM

Bill/Sables, thanks for posting that! I think you sang that at my house last year, yeah?

I had a friend back east whose mother found after her dad died, that he had a couple of other wives and families, in other states. He was a traveling salesman, but not LDS. So my friend and her mom wrote to them all. My friend and her sister have now met some half-brothers and sisters, all in their 50's-60's and her mother has met her "step-moms"! All those years and none of them knew about the others!

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: CarolC
Date: 21 May 01 - 01:20 PM

Thanks gnu, you're too kind.

Do guys like that need special jock straps made for them, or can they just use the regular ones?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: gnu
Date: 21 May 01 - 12:49 PM

King Brilliant... polyorchid means having more than two testicles.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Les from Hull
Date: 21 May 01 - 09:25 AM

Thanks for posting that Bill, I was looking for a way to include Keith's wonderful song in this thread. I should point out that the last verse is an additional verse (wasn't it written by Chris Sugden aka Sid Kipper?)

Les

Subject: Lyr Add: THE FUNERAL SONG (Keith Marsden)
From: bill\sables
Date: 21 May 01 - 08:27 AM

THE FUNERAL SONG
(Keith Marsden)

1. They wheeled the coffin down the aisle. The choirboys sweetly sang.
The organ played a requiem and one sad church-bell rang.
He'd always been a quiet man, not given to a spree,
So we stood alone to bury dad, my poor old ma and me.

2. He was a traveling salesman, said he worked in ladies tights.
We always thought that was his job, not what he did at nights.
And though I'd known him twenty years, still I'd have never guessed.
Why when he had some time at home he needed so much rest.

CHORUS: Till all his other wives came in weeping down the aisle.
We had to send for extra chairs. They queued for half a mile.
They came from near. They came from far. They filled up every pew.
He must have been a Mormon and my mother never knew
Till all his other wives came back to share the Co-op ham tea,
And they bought a lot of kids with them that looked a lot like me.

3. The priest was old and feeble and made a bad job worse
When he tried to marry mother to the man who drove the hearse,
And one wife rang to ask us were we going to cremate,
And could we keep him on a low light as she thought she might be late.

4. One wife was only my age. She'd a warm look in her eye.
She said, "You're so much like your dad, it makes me want to cry.
I only live on Peel Street. Come and see me by and by,
For I've something that your father liked he'd have wanted you to try."

5. Then all his other wives came in, young and old alike.
One came in a bath chair and one on a motor bike.
A rock star in a Rolls, a Duchess in a coach and pair,
And a lady Sumo wrestler who'd been freighted in by air.
Yes, all his other wives came back. They came back one and all,
And they pinched the carpet off the floor and the paper off the wall.

You can hear this song sung by Mudcatter Graham Pirt on the double CD "Picking Sooty Blackberries" by "Cockersdale" from Camsco (Dick Greenhaus). Cockersdale are doing a US tour in October this year.

Cheers Bill

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: KingBrilliant
Date: 21 May 01 - 07:04 AM

Doesn't polyorchid just mean blokes with more than one bollock. Eurk - one is enough.

Kris

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: gnu
Date: 21 May 01 - 07:03 AM

CarolC : You know any guys like that, gnu?

Nope. Was on a Trivial Pursuit card. But if I ever hear of any, I'll point them in your direction.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 01 - 06:44 AM

The sailors prayer (or is it soldiers prayer?).

...and if we may have one wife may we also have ten.
You'd be dead in a bloody fortnight, said the sailor. Amen.

Cheers

Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler
Date: 21 May 01 - 06:33 AM

..and the guy gets five mothers-in-law.
OK, mine is a gem, but you all know the staple comedian's stereotype.
"I could always tell when it was mother-in-law at he door, the mice were throwing themselves at the trap" (Les Dawson etc)
RtS

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: lady penelope
Date: 20 May 01 - 10:49 AM

Now, I always thought the mormons were supposed to be 'hot' on the idea of providing for their families. This may be because I'm an ignorant Brit.

In Britain we have a fair amount of trouble with women who have never worked, are not married or, more to the point, in a stable relationship and have small hordes of children, usually by more than one man, that they expect to be kept in some comfort by the state.

Apart from the age of the wives, I see no real difference and I must say it's a smack in the face for people who have children in a responsible fashion, including not having children if they cannot afford it. Before any one says anything about contraceptives not being 100% infallible, abstinance is!

TTFN M'Lady P.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Bill D
Date: 20 May 01 - 10:29 AM

'Tis the Arabian bird alone, lives chaste,
Because there is but one.
But had kind Nature made them two,
They would like doves & sparrows do.

--(Ben Franklin?)

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: SeanM
Date: 20 May 01 - 03:44 AM

Well, all you need are decorum, taste, a sense of responsibility and common sense protective measures and you already CAN do 'whoever you please'. Ain't noone putting a gun to anyone else's head saying 'you can't date or sleep around' that I know of. Even in the most repressive of societies people still find a way around it. Admittedly, in strict Muslim societies it's a bit more problematic - but think about all the Adultery trials we're given to snicker at - then think about how many don't get caught.

M

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Women and desire....
Date: 20 May 01 - 03:11 AM

Science has now provided the ideal solution, designer babies! Genetic planning means Polygamy is a bad way to make your own tribe.

Tribes for the masses lol.

All we need now is a disease free world and every one can do who or what ever they please.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 May 01 - 01:29 AM

Yes, it is true. I've read a lot of books by people who've left the church, one of which gave detailed instructions on such things. Sorry I cannot remember the name of it just now. I got it from the library. Of course she was excommunicated. For an incredible insight into the power of the LDS over woman Sonia Johnson's book From Housewife to Heretic is still a very timely read, even though it was written in the 1970's immediately after her heinous "trial" by the church for her role in the ERA movement.

I guess enough have posted that I don't have to say more about wimmin having plenty of libido, eh?:-)

kat

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 May 01 - 12:47 AM

I have heard that too, "angel wings", I heard them called, but I have never been able to confirm it either.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,lloyd62
Date: 20 May 01 - 12:44 AM

Is it true that Mormons have special underware? This is not the lead in to a joke!!!!! I picked this up someplace but never had it confirmed.

lloyd62

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Bella
Date: 20 May 01 - 12:12 AM

mmmm...I guess the US law reflects a certain cultural bias. I believe that it could and should change in time (should the govt/state really have a stake in "marriage"?) to reflect the reality of so many different relationships - are gay/lesbian relationships so less valid that they can't enter a formal marriage? The issue for me is the value of any adult couple-relationship, and their right to formalise this; some of this person's relationships could hardly be considered as between two adults. The other issue that I find repugnant is the atittude of privilege/right to have as many children as you wish without due consideration as to whether you are able to personally take responsibility to provide the necessities of life. Interestingly, Tibetans follow a matriachal culture - many in rural areas apparently still follow the way of women having several husbands. The way this works (simplistically of course) is that one husband will often be away (trading, farming etc) whilst the other is at home to share the usual donkey work of caing for a home children etc. The husbands regard each other as brothers, and often are. Bella

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 01 - 11:55 PM

quote me?...sure..*smile*...notarized affidavits, if you want 'em...

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 01 - 11:30 PM

well, there have been, (and probably still are) happy, sane, reasonable multiple marriages...just looks like this one was not exactly kosher..(well, you know...)

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: harpgirl
Date: 19 May 01 - 11:30 PM

...can I quote you on that BillD?

What I find objectionable is the fact that this gentleman has spread his genes so widely into the human race. Any man who fathers more than three children should have to apply for a license to do so. And he should be able to prove his genetic worthiness!

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Naemanson
Date: 19 May 01 - 11:20 PM

Oh, and at least one of the mariages was incestual. Throw away the key!

Oh, and then he tried to say that he wasn't married to more than one of them thereby trying to repudiate the supposedly loving relationships. Put him in the cell with Big Brucie!

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Naemanson
Date: 19 May 01 - 11:18 PM

I read Heinlein. I wouldn't have any problem at all with polygamy except that this guy was marrying girls that were far too young to be marrying and he was bilking the system. Lock him up!

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 01 - 11:03 PM

that 'guest' has been living on some other planet *grin*...women have just as many desires and interests as men unless they have some 'reason' not to....and they are more free than ever to express them

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 May 01 - 10:37 PM

The plural of "spouse" is "spice". 'Nuff said

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Dancing Mom
Date: 19 May 01 - 10:35 PM

Once a MONTH???

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 May 01 - 10:26 PM

Besides which, females who live together eventually synchronize their cycles to a certain extent.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: CarolC
Date: 19 May 01 - 10:21 PM

The female is only ready once a month?

GUEST,Convenience words and acts (etc.), what fantasy world do you live in? Women don't just want sex when they're ovulating. What, are you crazy?

Sheesh...

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: GUEST,Convenience words and acts ... what
Date: 19 May 01 - 09:57 PM

is wrong with it in the first place?

If you make babies with more than one partner, you are a polygamist. The time when you do it is irrelevant. So there is no legal or moral formulae that can excuse the practice.

In the United States more than two thirds of the breeding population are polygamists. Live with it or leave the United States.

What is wrong with it? History and Antropology show us that such societies tend toward tribalism, see Africa and its current bout of tribal conflicts. The question now becomes what is wrong with Tribalism? The male tends to want satisfaction at all times but the female is only ready once a month, so the male chooses the one that is ready. There may be several males contesting the selection, so in primitve society the guy with the biggest stick or largest body would win. This as civilised folk know is animal behaviour and we are not animals. In order to give it some gloss of respectability there have been several religions adopted to legitimise one guy getting all and the rest nothing. Judaism, Islam and Mormonism for example. Even with the gloss the practice still produces other undesirable social and biological problems. For one sometimes a couple may marry who are really very closely related. There is also the trend toward phyical similary - see Africa and some parts of Europe which continue even to this day, behind closed doors, with the practice.

Can there be a reasonable solution? Yes but not in modern religcosociety. The civilised thing to do is legalise and monitor the health of Ladies of Leisure. That way the males get all they want - and a far greater choices, the females get stable marriages and divorce ceases.

How to end polygamy? As soon as a Parent chooses divorce automatic and permanent castration.

If there are complaints - hey brother/sister the planet is overpoulated think of this way YOUR children will have a better world to live in.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: SeanM
Date: 19 May 01 - 09:40 PM

Well, try the guy for statuatory rape then.

If you're concerned about him marrying just for welfare benefits, then you'd better sharpen the axe for the entire system that provides better benefits for being unmarried with children as well...

But still - the law in question doesn't specify 'You can have multiple marriage partners, as long as you support them' or 'You can have multiple marriage partners, as long as you're religion says you can'. Our laws state that you can only have one marriage partner and they must be of the opposite sex.

It's a codified religious view that made it into law. Most 'morality' laws are.

On a tangenitally related story, I once knew a guy in the US Navy who was prosecuted for 'Oral Copulation'. Under the Unified Code of Military Justice, that's considered an offense.

Of course, he was also charged with abandoning his watch post, being absent without leave, being absent with intent to commit offences, adultry, and a host of other minor offenses. Such is the problem with being caught in bed with the married wife of a popular chief from another ship...

M

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: toadfrog
Date: 19 May 01 - 09:25 PM

Gee. I guess it would be reasonable to let everyone have as many wives, husbands etc. as they might want, so long as everyone is a consenting adult and marriage has no legal or social consequences. But as here we have a guy marrying 13-and 14-year old girls, and having at least one of them draw welfare to support him, I don't see it that way. Absent the "marriages," he could be doing hard time for molesting minor girls.

And query, when he dies, if he does, who gets the community property? And which of those wives gets to go out on the street and beg?

If I buy a piece of land from him in a community property state, and one of his 5 wives fails to sign off on the deed, can he take it back whenever he wants?

Is his employer, if any, obliged to provide health care for all 5 wives? If not, who is going to tend to them if they are sick? The guy who already has one wife drawing welfare? No. His branch of the Church? Not bloody likely.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 May 01 - 08:50 PM

kat, the way thay manage with many wives is the Coolidge effect. Works a treat, no Viagra needed! Of course, women don't suffer from refractory periods (well, not in the same sense!) so the problem doesn't, um, come up.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: CarolC
Date: 19 May 01 - 08:45 PM

You know any guys like that, gnu?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 01 - 07:11 PM

whoops...messed up the 2nd link...try http://gaiaconsort.com/family.html

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: gnu
Date: 19 May 01 - 07:07 PM

Since my double joke above didn't get any response, perhaps I should ask about polyorchid fellows ? Would they be more acceptable as husbands of multiple partners ?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:56 PM

Yes, kat, I just forgot to mention that. Troll, apparently, most of this guys wives were only 13 and 14 when he married them. My personal opinion is that Mormonism has a few loose screws as a religion, but I have known some very nice ones. And quite a few "Jack" Mormons as well.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Bill D
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:55 PM

speaking of 'polyamory'...some of the songs of The Gaiaconsort deal with it...see

seems to me that they oughta just let people meld as they please, as long as they define their relationship formally and follow the rules

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Troll
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:53 PM

In certain areas of Tibet, polyandry is common and is the accepted practice.
As far as "nine times a night" goes, the article I read said that the senior wife chooses who will share their husbands bed each evening. They apparently accepted the situation with open eyes and (mostly) as consenting adults. As long as the children are provided for, why is it the governments business anyway?

troll

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: paddymac
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:35 PM

Like so many things, it works for some but not for all. I don't go along with 13 year-old wives, any more than I do commitments to a convent or seminary at the same age, but where such things are truly matters of free and informed choice, then I think society should not interfere by imposing majoritarian views. Most Americans probably don't take the time to ponder the question, but our culture is still greatly influenced by the perverse notions of most things sexual brought here by the Puritans and other early religiously motivated immigres.

Interesting thing about the current case is who will support whatever remains of the "family" if they lock him up. Press reports claim that the family/clan/tribe/reproductive unit in question is currently drawing down some $100k/yr in various kinds of support. Wonder if that would go up or down if they lock him up, and will the wives/kids be any better of.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Art Thieme
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:33 PM

That's on my first album for Sandy Paton at Folk Legacy Records, Art Thieme--That's The Ticket. Available now as a cassette from Sandy.

Thanks Kat.

Art

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: AllisonA(Animaterra)
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:32 PM

Then there's polyamory which many espouse as an alternative to "serial monogamy".

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: gnu
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:30 PM

Mrrzy said... Polygyny=many wives, polyandry=many husbands, polygamy=many parents.

So, because he wasn't properly charged, he can get off ?

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:27 PM

Sorcha, yes, as long as all are consenting adults

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Amergin
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:22 PM

Doug, not at the rate they breed...

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:20 PM

Although I don't approve of the practice, I do think is should be considered a religious issue. Maybe he will appeal.

Subject: RE: Polygamy
From: DougR
Date: 19 May 01 - 06:01 PM

I assume, Amergin, you are referring to the one between the men's shoulders. (Couldn't resist ...stop that!) DougR