All Comments (11)

Well, on the polygamy thing, with the Mormons, there's an essential conflict between the idea of a Mormon man having the rights to keep a stable, (and if you watched the sympathetic TV series about it, you have one man trying to keep three disparate households, when the people really getting screwed are the women and children, none of whom, however much of a family they built together, had any legal rights if the guy decided to cast some off or had the temerity to croak or anything...)

People do talk about this sort of think like it's *sexual* scandal and impropriety, but just like other forms of marriage certain people don't like, it's really about fairness and equal protection under the law...

(here the Mormon religious view is directly opposed to the gay marriage view, in that, gay couples want fairness, and Mormon groups want legally-sanctioned *unfairness* )

Still, I think if people are willing to legally-commit to all others involved, then it doesn't have to be a matter about religious tabooes. In fact, women born into these Mormon sects not only get forced into these marriages, but don't have a legal leg to stand on if they complain about *anything.*

Just like Senator Craig and others appear to like to keep their human toys disenfranchised by opposing gay rights and then exerting wealth and power.

America needs to be about being fair. Which is really the thing. This is from someone who's helped shelter some refugees from Provo, ... It's not about the sex. It's about the human and legal rights.

Tim:

Yes, the first wife should have had a say in whether there would be a second wife. And both shold have had a vote on the third. And so on and so on.
As for the children getting a vote equal to that of an adult, I'm not sure I agree, but their feelings and opinions should certainly be taken into account. Before my husband and I married, we did discuss it with my daughter, and her feelings and concerns were dealt with before the wedding took place. I would not have called the wedding off on her say-so, but I would not simply ignore her feelings either.

No, I'm not in a poly situation. It doesn't work for me. I just know that relationships are not one-size-fits-all. I do best in a one-man, one woman model. But I don't assume that it's the only correct model - it's just the only one that works for me.

Lipidy, exactly! All the wives and all the kids should have had a meeting and approved the new 15 year old bride for bin Laden. All the parties in a polygamist relationship should agree to all the terms. The 4 wives, the 35 kids, the 4 mother- -in-laws, the brother-in-laws, the grandmothers ... they should all agree before the polygamist man (the head of the clan, the king of his castle) can do anything.

We know that polygamy is propped up by some cult or religious concept that puts the man in ultimate charge by the power of God and then subjugates the women who are in that relationship. That's how it generally works. There is no model of mutual consent by all parties.

There may be rare situations where this is not the case and maybe you, Lipidy, are in one of these relationships. Congratulations and have fun. If things do get complicated, call a good divorce or custody lawyer. That is your inalienable right as an American citizen!

TIM:

Polyamory, like any other relationship model, only works well when the terms are agreed onby all parties involved.

Anthony said: For me, “sin” is not breaking a law, but offending a person or persons by betraying trust.

Isn't this a rather unconventional "Christian" definition of sin? Don't traditional Christians believe that all sin is sin against God, that is, sin is always rebellion against God? I don't agree with this Christain definition, but then if we are not going to bring God into the discussion why talk about sin at all? Why not just talk about right and wrong?

In my judgment hurting another person is wrong, and it seems to me that extra marital sex almost always hurts someone and, therefore, is wrong.

Throughout recorded history and still today we can find many examples of wonderful monogaous marriages. Of course we can also find huge numbers of terrible monomagous marriages, suggesting that it may be pretty tough for just two people to live together. Adding a third or fourth or more is not likely to improve things. In fact, in my opinion, it greatly increases the likelyhood of one or more people being hurt.

But I would not class polygamy as wrong simply because a man or woman has more than one spouse at a given time. Rather I think it is wrong (as others on this site have suggested) because in almost all cultures where practiced men have near total control over their wives and the wives are only slightly above the level of slaves.
This makes the culture wrong and the practice wrong.

Concerning gay marriage, I am just not ready to call that union a marriage. Now you may start bashing.

On one point I agree with what I think Anthony is saying - if a person is willing to betray one person for personal gratifaction then he/she may be more amenable to betrayal of the public. Betrayal is wrong. Sin? Someone else can decide.

Polygamy Islamic style:

...Bin Laden around June of 2001 decided to marry a 15 year old Yemeni girl named Amal Al-Sada. He had his body guards travel to the mountain town of Ibb to pay five thousand dollars for the girl. Bin Laden's other wives were very upset and even his mother chided him. Two of bin Laden's sons, Mohamed and Othman, angrily confronted the body guard. Najwa, bin Laden's first wife, left him. After eleven children and twenty-seven years of marriage, Najwa decided to return to Syria, taking her daughters and her retarded son. She had lived a life on the run, deprived, often living in squalor and now she was free... (paraphrased from "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright).

Let the Muslim here in America practice polygamy as it will be good business for the divorce lawyers.

I think it's a good example of 'definitions of marriage' and all, ...a lot of people treat Mormon ideas of polygamy as though it were one person having sex with a few others in a committed way: the only real objection I have to it is how it is structurally-unequitable: you have one man with several wives, all under his control, with no rights or standing as regards each other, and without similar options as regards their choice of lifestyle, and little in the way of recourse to *leave* if the situation goes bad.

I think any recognized civil marriage about it would need to treat all the people involved fairly, and with equal protection under the law, or it can't be part of the American legal system. What they want to make of it religiously is a matter for their own conscience.

How it relates to people talking about not-obeying-the-Christian-monogamous marriage-only idea of sex and 'sin' is, really, it's the government using its power to enforce *a* religious view on everyone, regardless of their own beliefs.

Not everyone believes an open marriage, or premarital sex, or polyamory, or a same-sex marriage is inherently a 'sin,' ...in fact, more major churches than states recognize gay marriage, even if they *still* consider unmarried sex a 'sin.'

I think the government should make reasonable accomodation for these varying kinds of religious beliefs, and keep civil marriage fair and equitable. Some believe that wife-beating and child-beating is religiously-justified, but the government can't support *that,* as it violates individual rights.
People of that belief aren't prevented from marrying, but a wife-beater doesn't have the right to batter people under the law.

Equal protection under the law is the American way, and maybe that should be recognized by public opinion, too.

Josehph Smith did, indeed, have several wives. The idea of polygamy, or plural marriage, as the Mormons called it, did come from Joseph Smith. He said, or he believed that plural marriage was an instruction from God.

I believe the early Mormons justified their ideas about plural marriage, by projecting about widows and widowers remarrying here on earth, while remaining married to their original spouses, whose risen spirits still lived. They carried the logic of multiple marriages a little further than most Christians would.

There are many more complications to this, that I would not wish to go into here.

"That’s one of the advantages religion has over atheism: the ability to repent and find forgiveness." I don't see this as true at all, unless you are only speaking of absolution by a personal god. Otherwise, one can repent (change one's mind) and be forgiven by the offended, independent of adherence to any religion.

Ok, generally... though there are real issues in terms of Mormon-style polygamy in that they're inherently unequal and violate the rights of citizens... that'd go to having the state establish the right of one man to 'own' a bunch of women who wouldn't have reciprocal rights as regards that man or each other. As for convenient 'revelations,' well, whatever.

The American state can't be in the business of taking people's rights away.

An irony is that these folks won't think twice about denying others marriage rights if it *doesn't* agree with their religion.

It's not about the 'sex' thing about it, it's about power and fairness and individual rights. Personally, I think Mormons should be able to marry as they choose, but this can't involve the women involved surrendering their *civil* rights and equal protection under the law. Cause in practice, it's often quite coercive.

Outlawing it entirely only makes it worse, but that doesn't mean a religion can tell the government to remove someone's rights as a citizen.

This was a thoughtful and insightful article. The only problem is with your reference to Joseph Smith originating polygamy in the Morman church. There is no reliable historical evidence that Joseph Smith was ever a polygamist, much less tried to teach it to his church. Polygamy came into the Morman church via Brigham Young and other colleagues of his in leadership positions. Do a little research next time you refer to Joseph Smith.