Polygamy on the rise?

[JackLuis]

Very interesting accounting of Biblical polygamy and its pitfalls, and thank you very much for taking the time to post it.

This is a quote from Mark Twain's book, Roughing It;

Roughing It – Chapter 14, pages 97-98

Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter.

I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here—until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically "homely" creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, "No--the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure--and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence."

I'd say Twain had a point, that a woman who 'had a husband" was better off than one without, and so the less fortunate women might rather have a bible thumping, shared husband, who at least fed you than be forced to fend for themselves, alone childless and without property.

I have been studying Mesopotamia and and early religions recently. From what I see much of the old testament was constructed from Mesopotamian Myth, but slanted to show that Yahweh (?) was The Superior to all the Gods. and by extension, if he was supreme then he was the only God, that actually counted.

So while a lot of Hebrew History is illustrative, it really is a continuation of knowledge beyond,~-2000 BCE, when the Bible was assembled.

Solomon killing his brothers was following an established tradition in the area since before -3000 BCE. People have been dicks forever!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Just remember! The courts also kill things everyone loves.

Read an article this morning about how judges are throwing poor people in jail when they cant pay fines and fees they owe the government, like fees the public defenders charge indigents.

 

[Hypoxia]

For those who say let them do as they will because they aren't hurting anyone, history doesn't bear it out.

This assumes that all the cited biblical texts are actually historical -- a dubious assumption. Unless corroborated by independent non-biblical texts or especially archaeological evidence, biblical texts should be regarded with skepticism.

 

[sr71plt]

This assumes that all the cited biblical texts are actually historical -- a dubious assumption. Unless corroborated by independent non-biblical texts or especially archaeological evidence, biblical texts should be regarded with skepticism.

It also assumes that biblical writing folk had twenty-first century mind-sets and social taboos. They didn't.

 

[A_Little_Show]

Polygamy has been common through history

[deleted]

 

[AllardChardon]

There were plenty of successful polygamous families in Utah before the United States made it illegal and started hunting them down.

Quoted from Wiki;

"The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (37th United States Congress, Sess. 2., ch. 126, 12 Stat. 501) was a federal enactment of the United States Congress that was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. Sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, the act banned bigamy and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.

The act targeted the Mormon practice of plural marriage and the property dominance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Utah Territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and Lincoln chose not to enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War. General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah, beginning in 1862, was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue.

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was amended in 1882 by the Edmunds Act, and then again in 1887 by the Edmunds–Tucker Act.

 

[AllardChardon]

A-Little_Show, that was a very insightful response. Obviously, we were posting at the same time and yours came up before I posted.

I am also fascinated by strong, powerful women from ancient times and always love to learn more about them. Thank you so much for sharing the history of Lucrezia Borgia and her sister, Isabella d'Este.

Yes, in my studies of the Mormons of the 1850s, fact is stranger than fiction. I never could have dreamed up some of the stuff I have read about them. Joseph Smith's Seer Stones, magic underwear, and the list goes on.

 

[3113]

An "agreed upon contract", a la a pre-nuptial agreement, has been challenged in court and overturned on the basis of common law precedents more than once.

Because government is involved in marriage. I mean, aren't you begging the question? I say government shouldn't be involved and you say that when pre-nips have been made, government has overturned them. Well, government IS involved in marriage, has set up laws on it, and thus the contracts are overturned. What if it wasn't involved at all and ONLY what was written in the contracts mattered? As with business?

Given that much of the legal status of Spouses -- generally wives (in the US) -- was enacted to codify protections that overturned some archaic, patriarchal traditions, I very much doubt that government is going to abjure the regulation of "marriage" in the foreseeable future. I'm not entirely sure that I would want the resulting return to just medieval common law either.

I'm working under the assumption that if the government was out of the marriage business, both parties (or however many parties) would be viewed as legal adults with all the rights of legal adults—not with one or more of them viewed as property or as a minor. If, however, the clock gets turned back on women...then women are in trouble either way. Government laws can easily be changed so that they don't protect women, but rather maintain a woman's status as property or as a child. As mentioned by the post about the Italian woman who couldn't inherit her family business because she was an unmarried woman.

I'm as wary of the government getting out of the marriage biz for that reason as you are because of the way the clock on women's rights are being turned back in many states right now. BUT, my argument about government getting out of the marriage business presumes a contract between legal equals. Again, as with business partners. A woman and a man can draw up a business contract and the law doesn't protect the woman more than the man in that, does it? The law looks at the contract and the situation, not things like "how long were they in business together? Seven years? Okay then what she gets is different than if they'd been in business together for only year....."

 

[sr71plt]

And palimony is very different as that has to do with responsibilities of parents toward a child, not toward the wife.

Where did you get that idea? Palimony is between two adults who have lived together but not legally married. It has nothing to do with there being children. The children would be addressed in other avenues.

And I don't see how you even begin to think of fair redistribution of combined assets in an "arrangement" (whether marriage or not) outside of a legal, therefore government, context. Sounds pretty naïve to me.

 

[3113]

Polygamy notwithstanding, I like the gov't involvement in principle because it's a more likely way of permitting "gay marriage" than leaving it up to religious groups.

Um, no. You see, there is a spiritual side to marriage—that's a church marriage—and civil side. That's the U.S. government there deciding what rights, duties and protections partners who are "married" get over partners who are not married. If marriage was *purely* a religious ceremony, and the rights, duties and protections in the relationship was drawn up by the pair involved like any other partnership, then we'd have gays marrying in every part of the U.S. by now, no way for any religious group to stop them.

The only thing they couldn't do would be get married in certain churches, but even if every state makes gay marriage legal, that will remain. That's freedom of religion. A pastor can't be forced to marry gays if his church says it's unholy. But the question of whether gays can *legally* marry was outlawed in the first place ONLY because marriage was a partnership that the government regulated and, therefore, the government (states) could say who could marry whom.

The only reason you're seeing more gay marriages in more states is because of legal precedent that wouldn't have been required if the legal aspects of a marriage was the same as any other contractual partnership and no reliant on government regulations—including rights, duties and protections.

 

[3113]

I said, "No--the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure--and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence."

Quotes like this make me wonder if Twain really is still relevant. This is really the most illuminating thing our "great American satirist" could come up with on the topic? That we should let these men have multiple wives because they're ugly and no one else would want 'em? That's something I'd expect to see from an internet troll.

How...disappointing.

 

[Weird Harold]

Because government is involved in marriage. I mean, aren't you begging the question? I say government shouldn't be involved and you say that when pre-nips have been made, government has overturned them.

No, your missing my point. The institution of marriage and the "rights and duties" invoked by "marriage" predate government or even church involvement in the process. Your objection of a return to chattel status for wives is mostly a result of Roman Catholic Church involvement in marriage and not government involvement. The US and other jurisdictions have codified a lot of "Church" tampering, but the US has slowly overturned much of the misogynistic patriarchal elements.

And palimony is very different as that has to do with responsibilities of parents toward a child, not toward the wife.

You must be using a different dictionary than I am.

palimony - Legal Dictionary - The Free Dictionary
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/palimony

palimony n. a substitute for alimony in cases in which the couple were not
married but lived together for a long period and then terminated their relationship.

 

[Hypoxia]

Quotes like this make me wonder if Twain really is still relevant. This is really the most illuminating thing our "great American satirist" could come up with on the topic? That we should let these men have multiple wives because they're ugly and no one else would want 'em?

Methinks Mr Clemens was being a mite sardonic.

 

[TxRad]

Methinks Mr Clemens was being a mite sardonic.

And more than a little truthful if you've ever spent any time going over photos from that time and place.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Photography of the time makes everyone ugly!

 

[3113]

Where did you get that idea? Palimony is between two adults who have lived together but not legally married. It has nothing to do with there being children.

Sorry, read the word wrong. Will edit my post.

And I don't see how you even begin to think of fair redistribution of combined assets in an "arrangement" (whether marriage or not) outside of a legal, therefore government, context. Sounds pretty naïve to me.

Government is involved in business disputes as well. But it is odd, isn't it, that government has different rules for who gets what if the two are business partners sharing a home which serves a their office (man and woman) as compared to partners living together and sharing a home. Marriages can be business-like and less emotionally involved than some business partnerships. So why are contracts involving marriage in dispute but contracts involving business partnerships not?

 

[3113]

The US and other jurisdictions have codified a lot of "Church" tampering, but the US has slowly overturned much of the misogynistic patriarchal elements.

Which is fine and good and I'm glad of it. But the job of the government to protect the rights of a legal adult in any and all situations, is it not? Which is to say, if a woman's rights are protected in all situations, then why does the government need to be involved in marriage to protect her rights?

You must be using a different dictionary than I am.

Misread the word, edited my post.

 

[JackLuis]

Here is another viewpoint, I thought valid.

My Big Polyamorous Wedding

When my boyfriend and I stand up before our loved ones and declare our commitment, I hope we can offer some little glimpse into the reality of our lives, and that maybe a few people in attendance will recognize what they see as real love. But if not, that’s okay, too. We’ll still be married, whether anyone else sees us that way or not.

She appears to have taken the view, that she cares not what the Church or government thinks, it is not their concern.

 

[A_Little_Show]

[deleted]

 

[Bramblethorn]

Since this issue (in this discussion) is rooted in the Bible, let's look at what the Bible has to say about it. Every single time a polygamous marriage was spotlighted, there were serious problems as a result.

It's not just polygamy; from Genesis 3 onwards, pretty much any time a man pays attention to a woman who's not actively trying to lead him towards God, it ends in tears. (See also: Delilah, Jezebel, most of Paul, etc etc). Probably says more about the authors than about the viability of RL poly*.

But it does establish that polygamy was permitted in the OT, and since it never seems to get repealed at any point, it's handy for discomfiting people who want to impose their selective reading of that book on the rest of us.

And we need to keep in mind, the Bible is written from a male viewpoint (the beneficiaries of polygamy), and in a culture where polygamy was socially and legally acceptable.

Yes and no. The Bible presents one particular version of polygamy: het polygyny with no queer or polyandrous options permitted. That version is pretty nasty for women and for low-status men, unless your society is so violent that male mortality outstrips female death in childbirth by a long way. In modern-day FLDS-type societies it leads to child brides and "lost boys".

Fortunately, in this day and age there are other options.

For those who say let them do as they will because they aren't hurting anyone, history doesn't bear it out.

I don't consider the Bible to be "history". However, I can point at some RL examples of polygamy that worked out just fine. The genesis of Wonder Woman makes for an interesting story.

Would you really be ok with the person you committed your life to now taking live, time, and energy from you and your child in order to give it to another? Or would you say that since they are no longer devoted wholly to you, you have no reason to be wholly devoted to them, so you now seek another also?

Even when we were monogamous I never expected my partner to be wholly devoted to me. She has hobbies and friends that I don't share (along with plenty that I do), she has family, she's studying for her degree, and I have stuff on my side that doesn't involve her. That's OK; committing to each other doesn't mean we have to be in one another's pockets 24/7. It has its hiccups now and then, but so does monogamy.

I'd be wary of anybody who wanted the freedom to have multiple relationships and didn't trust his partners with that same freedom. But not everybody exercises the option even when they have it. There are quite a few "mono-poly" relationships around where one person is monogamous but quite happy for their partner to be poly; not everybody needs the same amount of relationship time. The Susan Buffett/Warren Buffett/Astrid Menks relationship makes for an interesting study that way; if all you knew about it was "rich guy has wife and lover" you'd assume it was a guy's dream relationship, but it was actually at SB's instigation because she needed a lot of solitary space and wanted her husband to have somebody more companionable.

 

[Bramblethorn]

My heart breaks a bit though. What happens to one husband when he gets bad news or wants a hug, but his life partner is in the midst of getting her brains fucked out by her other husband?

Pretty much the same thing that happens in a monogamous relationship when you're looking to spend quality time with your spouse, and they have a family emergency or a best friend needing their attention. They make a judgement call, look after whatever seems most urgent first, and then look after the other relationship when they can.

It's not always easy, but in any kind of relationship you have to deal with that sort of problem one way or another.

It is something that can be abused. I knew one guy who said he was cool with his girlfriend having other lovers, but then every time she was having quality time with them he very coincidentally had some sort of crisis that needed her attention. That's poison to a poly relationship, but people like that are bad news in monogamous relationships anyway.

The flip-side is that a healthy poly relationship can be a great source of support. When somebody close to me died a couple of years back, my partner and my girlfriend were both looking out for me - and they both had somebody else who could give them some support when I was too upset to give much back.

 

[AllardChardon]

Thank you, everyone, for posting such interesting thoughts on this thread. I really don't have the time right now to add much substance to this discussion, due to family obligations, but you have my gratitude. I adore intelligent conversations about sexual relations and human behavior.

 

[AllardChardon]

In defense of Samuel Clemens, he was a young man, accompanying his brother to the new Nevada Territory and avoiding fighting in the Civil War, when he wrote his impressions of the Mormons on his way through. He was just as curious as the rest of America about how anyone could successfully practice polygamy and he gave it a dose of his sarcastic wit to round it out.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Mormons were chased out of the mid-west before they went to Utah.