Split Thread Mormons and marriage

[RandFan]

QFT

I'm not sure what makes religious zealots think they can reshape society in their image.

They honestly believe that Mormonism will rescue the American Constitution. IIRC, they will then install a theocracy. Won't that be fun? You won't have to wear a uniform but I'm afraid you will need to purchase regulation underwear. Yes, that IS required of Mormons.

 

[Arcade22]

Two men cannot marry, and neither can two women; it takes one of each.

Wrong.

It's a simple, basic, unalterable rule about how human life works.

Wrong.

Marriage is based on it. Family is based on it. Any stable society is based on it.

You have failed to explain how recognizing same-sex marriages would make anything unstable. I'm going to have to repeat myself here: please elaborate on and prove that a family with same-sex parents is 'unstable and destructive'.

 

[RandFan]

Two men cannot marry, and neither can two women; it takes one of each. It's a simple, basic, unalterable rule about how human life works.

Wrong.

Bob, you are wrong.

Tell the gays and lesbians in Canada that are married that what they are doing can't happen. Tell that to the gay and lesbian couples in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington, D.C..

 

[tesscaline]

Well, I'm poly, though obviously not legally. I have to say that there is a substantial body of literature that addresses these issues. Trouble is that hardly anybody who isn't poly ever reads it; they just throw their hands up.

I'm poly (amorous, no marriage involved for me at this point, nor will there be if I have anything to say about it) as well, and yes, you're right. There are any number of ways to handle these sorts of relationships even within the current legal system (power of attorney, contractual agreements, living wills, etc.) but people who aren't interested in them simply don't avail themselves of the information.

In any event, it's kind of a digression. The facts are that the early LDS recognized both polygyny and polyandry (though the former was far more common) as well as a kind of group marriage that, confusingly, some people also call "polyandry."

Sure I did. Here's more.

http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.early mormon polyandry.pdf

If you can't read that, it's your own problem.

Okay, so, I'm trying to read that PDF, and I'm finding it a little hard to follow. Perhaps I've just not had enough caffeine yet today. It also might be a terminology issue.

For me, polyandry (as with polygamy and polygyny) means that the marriages are simultaneous. But the article makes reference to women leaving their husbands (it does not specify if divorce is happening, or legal separations, or what) to be with Smith, and that the leaving of a husband to be with another man who could better guarantee you entry to heaven is fine with Mormon doctrine. To me, if you have left one husband, and you then go on to marry someone else afterwards, that's not polyandry. But the article is kind of fuzzy on the timelines for these things, so I'm really not sure what to make of it.

The article then goes on to confuse the matter by making reference to de Ruiter's infidelity (sleeping with female followers not married to him). Infidelity is not the same as polyandry either. Perhaps there were multiple wives (with multiple husbands), but they are not mentioned in the article you linked, and the links within that article are non-functional (in regards to de Ruiter, at least) so I can't go read what the writer is referencing.

So, I'm confused.

You seem to acknowledge that there's a strange terminology issue going on as well. Perhaps you could clarify your understanding of the term "polyandry" as it relates to these articles? Is the problem arising because of some belief that once a person is "sealed" to one husband, they cannot be "unsealed" despite any secular divorce proceeding (I didn't think that belief was in existence, but I could be wrong)? Is there some other factor that is making instances of "women leaving their husbands to marry Smith" into polyandry that's been glossed over in the Mc Cue article you link? Because the first article you linked really wasn't evidence of polyandry... A woman divorcing her husband and then re-marrying is not polyandry by any definition I can find.

I'm not for or against the idea that polyandry existed in Mormon culture. I just like learning, so please don't take any of the above as attacking your position. I really do need a fair bit of well cited clear evidence before I'm going to accept a claim as true. The two links you've provided haven't been either, unfortunately

 

[tyr_13]

Well, I'm poly, though obviously not legally. I have to say that there is a substantial body of literature that addresses these issues. Trouble is that hardly anybody who isn't poly ever reads it; they just throw their hands up.

In any event, it's kind of a digression. The facts are that the early LDS recognized both polygyny and polyandry (though the former was far more common) as well as a kind of group marriage that, confusingly, some people also call "polyandry."

I've read a few of them when this came up a year or so ago on these forums. Many are unworkable (do they really think company health insurance can be extended to six wives and fourteen children?), many are reasonable and 'water down' rights and responsibilities (to the point where one wonders why have marriage for those situations at all as they're achievable easily within current laws) and the rest are in between with some complex changes that would in the end be workable, but with some issues. They are all in conflict with each other. There are about as my different plural marriage frameworks are there are plural marriage advocates.

The other issue is that many of these proposals are HEAVY into 'ideal social' changes. I've read some that just bleed, 'enlightened elites are the ones who are emotionally and psychologically advanced enough to wish to engage in multi-relationships and those who want only a single romantic partner at a time are broken, backward, or damaged individuals so if we just enlighten these poor souls, everyone will WANT to have multi-relationships'. Then there are the 'post romantic relationship' hippies. It's the other end of the 'us v them' mentality surrounding such things. This isn't a good basis for public policy, and I tend to stop reading those.

Again, I just don't think it needs done right now, or very soon. But yes, there are proposals out there, but they vary wildly.

 

[bikerdruid]

I've read a few of them when this came up a year or so ago on these forums. Many are unworkable (do they really think company health insurance can be extended to six wives and fourteen children?), many are reasonable and 'water down' rights and responsibilities (to the point where one wonders why have marriage for those situations at all as they're achievable easily within current laws) and the rest are in between with some complex changes that would in the end be workable, but with some issues. They are all in conflict with each other. There are about as my different plural marriage frameworks are there are plural marriage advocates.

The other issue is that many of these proposals are HEAVY into 'ideal social' changes. I've read some that just bleed, 'enlightened elites are the ones who are emotionally and psychologically advanced enough to wish to engage in multi-relationships and those who want only a single romantic partner at a time are broken, backward, or damaged individuals so if we just enlighten these poor souls, everyone will WANT to have multi-relationships'. Then there are the 'post romantic relationship' hippies. It's the other end of the 'us v them' mentality surrounding such things. This isn't a good basis for public policy, and I tend to stop reading those.

Again, I just don't think it needs done right now, or very soon. But yes, there are proposals out there, but they vary wildly.

could a polyamourous family maybe register as a corporation, with equal shares, and corporate health benefits?
...just an idea...

 

[tyr_13]

could a polyamourous family maybe register as a corporation, with equal shares, and corporate health benefits?
...just an idea...

If they pay to get the insurance for their corporation, which would cost several thousand dollars a month, then yes.

 

[RandFan]

Again, I just don't think it needs done right now, or very soon. But yes, there are proposals out there, but they vary wildly.

I'm not sure when it will be needed. Perhaps never. However, I'm not overly impressed with a 50% divorce rate. I'm not even sure marriage is something we should value. I think we need some major changes. Marriage has no basis in our biology. The facts would seem to indicate that we are not meant to be, by and large, long term bonding pairs.

 

[bikerdruid]

i'd like to hear more about mormon concept of the people living on the moon.

 

[Kopji]

Sure I did. Here's more.

http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.early mormon polyandry.pdf

If you can't read that, it's your own problem.

Hi epepke,
Still nothing there. Spiritual wifery is different than polygamy. My problem with the paper's assertions is that there is no DNA evidence I know of that links Joseph Smith to any of these practices. Without that, it all seems like hearsay.

Some DNA evidence in any of the families that claim to be descended from his wives would be interesting to see.

 

[tyr_13]

I'm not sure when it will be needed. Perhaps never. However, I'm not overly impressed with a 50% divorce rate. I'm not even sure marriage is something we should value. I think we need some major changes. Marriage has no basis in our biology. The facts would seem to indicate that we are not meant to be, by and large, long term bonding pairs.

I'm on the 'perhaps never' team as well. Divorce is so traumatic to many, that not having the exception of marriage in the first place is probably better.

But long term bonding pairs worked great, when people died by their mid forties.

 

[Babbylonian]

I'm not sure when it will be needed. Perhaps never. However, I'm not overly impressed with a 50% divorce rate. I'm not even sure marriage is something we should value.

I don't think the divorce rate percentage is a particularly useful metric for judging marriage. My dad had a 50% divorce rate (one out of two) and his marriage to my mom lasted over 30 years. Both my mom's parents had similar successes their second times around.

That said, neither of those marriages was bogged down with religious gobbledygook (all four people were Christian believers but none were at all devout).

 

[RandFan]

But long term bonding pairs worked great, when people died by their mid forties.

I seriously doubt it. The evidence I've seen was that by the time most people died they were not happy with their marriage. Our chemistry is closer to animals who bond for shorter periods. Oxycontin being the big one and the current divorce rate aligns with field research into animals like prairie vols. Yes, we are far more complex but we were able to predict whether or not our chemistry would align with short term bonding pairs or long term bonding pairs based on chemistry.

 

[tyr_13]

I seriously doubt it. The evidence I've seen was that by the time most people died they were not happy with their marriage. Our chemistry is closer to animals who bond for shorter periods. Oxycontin being the big one and the current divorce rate aligns with field research into animals like prairie vols. Yes, we are far more complex but we were able to predict whether or not our chemistry would align with short term bonding pairs or long term bonding pairs based on chemistry.

Fair enough. I forgot the little joke guy at the end.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think the divorce rate percentage is a particularly useful metric for judging marriage. My dad had a 50% divorce rate (one out of two) and his marriage to my mom lasted over 30 years. Both my mom's parents had similar successes their second times around.

We would need something more than anecdotes but it's a fair observation for consideration. However there is a considerable body of evidence that includes more than the divorce rate.

That said, neither of those marriages was bogged down with religious gobbledygook (all four people were Christian believers but none were at all devout).

Yeah, no questions that humans have the capacity for long term relationships. Our current views are influenced highly by culture.

 

[RandFan]

Fair enough. I forgot the little joke guy at the end.

That's me.

 

[Babbylonian]

We would need something more than anecdotes but it's a fair observation for consideration. However there is a considerable body of evidence that includes more than the divorce rate.

Oh, I'm certain of that. There's a general tendency, though, to throw out that percentage as if it's meaningful on its own. It doesn't take into account serial monogamists (which, despite the somewhat negative terminology, I find a reasonable way to deal with intimate relationships, as long as both parties know the score) who marry over and over, nor does it take into account second, "successful" (success being culturally measured by the "'til death" vow) marriages when a negative connotation is attached to it.

In other words, I suspect we agree on marriage in general (I've been lurking in this thread for entertainment purposes); I just felt like commenting on that narrow issue.

 

[Taarkin]

I'm going to go with PR move.

Homophobic bigots got caught being homophobic bigots and are now trying to repair their public image.

I feel the same way about deflecting blame for Prop 8 onto African Americans. "No no don't look at us, black people are the real bigots".

Basic science and biology takes gender into account. Two men cannot produce offspring, and neither can two women; it takes one of each.

Is this relevant or just an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy (which you happily called out others for using in the other thread)?

Two men cannot marry, and neither can two women; it takes one of each.

No ****, that's what civilized people are trying to change.

It's a simple, basic, unalterable rule about how human life works.

Lol, a social construct is an "unalterable rule"? Or did you just make that up?

 

[RandFan]

Oh, I'm certain of that. There's a general tendency, though, to throw out that percentage as if it's meaningful on its own. It doesn't take into account serial monogamists (which, despite the somewhat negative terminology, I find a reasonable way to deal with intimate relationships, as long as both parties know the score) who marry over and over, nor does it take into account second, "successful" (success being culturally measured by the "'til death" vow) marriages when a negative connotation is attached to it.

In other words, I suspect we agree on marriage in general (I've been lurking in this thread for entertainment purposes); I just felt like commenting on that narrow issue.

Cool.

 

[tesscaline]

Oh, I'm certain of that. There's a general tendency, though, to throw out that percentage as if it's meaningful on its own. It doesn't take into account serial monogamists (which, despite the somewhat negative terminology, I find a reasonable way to deal with intimate relationships, as long as both parties know the score) who marry over and over, nor does it take into account second, "successful" (success being culturally measured by the "'til death" vow) marriages when a negative connotation is attached to it.

In other words, I suspect we agree on marriage in general (I've been lurking in this thread for entertainment purposes); I just felt like commenting on that narrow issue.

The statistic thrown out isn't entirely complete, is the problem.

It's not that 50% of all marriages end in divorce. It's that 50% of all FIRST marriages end in divorce. Something like 65% of all second marriages end in divorce, and 75% of all third or more marriages end in divorce.

I've seen links to the stats posted here before, but I don't recall one off the top of my head.