Polygamy [Archive]

Pete

28th January 2004, 01:08

A recent Globe and Mail poll (this is in no way characterstic of any group, I am just citing it as a discussion starter) found that 52% of those who answered the poll would not object to a consenual polygamous relationship. Now I was wondering, what does the board as a whole believe about this? Felicia and I were discussing it, and although both of us would prefer a mamagamous, I would personally not care if others were involved in a consensual polygamous relationship. I think fel concurs, but we'll have to wait for her reply.

Anyways here is the poll and the link, and let's here what you think!

A Utah man was jailed recently on charges relating to polygamy. If all parties to the marriage agreed, would you object to polygamous households?

Yes
9815 votes (48 %)

No
10674 votes (52 %)

Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.Page/document/polls/pollResults?id=23571&pollid=23571&save=_save&show_vote_always=no&poll=GAMFront&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult)

LSD

28th January 2004, 01:13

Forced monofamy is just another example of laten Judeo-Christianity.

I would absolutely support legalized polygamy.

Felicia

28th January 2004, 01:14

yeah, I think I might agree with Pete.

Like I said, I like a one-woman-man and a manogamous relationship, call me old fashioned (lol). But if others want to be polygamous, they may do so as long as it's between consenting adults and they understand what they're doing. Under those circumstances I'll support "free" relationships, but not for myself. I'm greedy and I'll admit it, I want a guy all to myself and I don't like sharing :D

edit: by the way, Pete and I are knitting a quilt for society :D

BuyOurEverything

28th January 2004, 01:35

I'm with LSD on this one. Although many of the people that practice polygamy do so for religious reasons, they believe that the bible advocates it. I'd agree that the aversion to it is based on mainstream Judeo-Christian values. Obviously, I entirely support it, as long as it is consentual.

Al Creed

28th January 2004, 01:45

Yes, I think that, forthose who wish for a legal, polygamous relationship should have it.

Like Felicia, I prefer a monoagmous relationionship, but on the same hand, I support the decriminalization and eventual legalization of Private Marijuana use, and I don't smoke at all.

Marxist in Nebraska

28th January 2004, 19:30

I fail to see where there is authority to regulate consenting relationships between adults. I do not necessarily endorse polygamy, but I see no grounds for it to be a criminal offense. RavenFan makes a good analogy by comparing it to responsible use of marijuana. I support the legalization of marijuana, though I have no interest in smoking it or endorsing it.

Interestingly, a lot of right-wingers in arguing against gay rights use the logic that recognition of gay couples will lead to decriminalization of polygamy. A lot of gay rights advocates will try to avoid that argument, since they have no desire to defend polygamy. At this point, polygamy has a much stronger stigma on it than homosexuality.

cubist

28th January 2004, 19:39

i must say i don't like that personally, but it is a free world and consenting adults may do as they please inside there own marriage

Pete

28th January 2004, 19:50

I am going to move this into OI for fun, I think there may be more opposition to it there, and I want a good debate about it.

On the point of Judeao-Christian morals, we must remember that in the bible their are countless cases of polygamy which are supported by the diety, such as the many wives of David (even the one he sleeps with who is the wife of another man, who he then has killed in battle so he can marry her).

On to the hell hole we go!

John Galt

29th January 2004, 01:18

I see no problem with it.

The gov should stay out of people's lives.

Y2A

29th January 2004, 01:44

If all parties agree then yes. The government has no right to attempt to enforce it's "morals" on the people.

Vinny Rafarino

29th January 2004, 02:40

I personally don't care myself, as I have never been married, but I think it is wise to look at the past and present "situations" that always seem to surface once polygamy is embraced.

I spend a large portion of my time in Arizona, I suggest you search the internet under "polygamy colorado city arizona".

Some may say, "well it's only the religious nutters that commit these atrocities"....Well for the most part you are correct, however you fail to see that marriage is for the most part a religious institution in the modern era.

If it means suppressing someones "freedoms" (and I use that term very loosely here, please don't bother to comment anarchists) in order to avoid children being sold and raped in the name of "freedom" then I say suppress the fuck out of them, better yet, just whack them all out.

If you want to fuck multiple people all the time then do what I did and don't get married.

Now the problem is solved.

BuyOurEverything

29th January 2004, 03:04

If it means suppressing someones "freedoms" (and I use that term very loosely here, please don't bother to comment anarchists) in order to avoid children being sold and raped in the name of "freedom" then I say suppress the fuck out of them, better yet, just whack them all out.

Fair enough but I think it's a common misconseption that poligamy in neccessarily a Christian fundamentalist slave trade like institution that deals in 12 year old girls. The media sure has a field day portraying it as such.

If you want to fuck multiple people all the time then do what I did and don't get married.

Poligamy isn't neccessarily about just fucking multiple people, it has as much potential for meaningful relationships as monogomy.

As for the Colorodo City type poligimers, I agree with you, suppress em.

Osman Ghazi

29th January 2004, 03:08

Umm, dont you need some one on the other side to debate? I don't think anyone here doesn't endorse it.

Vinny Rafarino

29th January 2004, 03:14

Fair enough but I think it's a common misconseption that poligamy in neccessarily a Christian fundamentalist slave trade like institution that deals in 12 year old girls. The media sure has a field day portraying it as such.

You're almost there....It's a fundamentalist slave trade institution that deals in 12 year old girls that is practised by MOST religions through out the globe.

I'm not even going to bite on the "media portrayal" hook.

Poligamy isn't neccessarily about just fucking multiple people, it has as much potential for meaningful relationships as monogomy.

I can dig what you are saying however I would like you to answer this question;

If polygamy is not simply a bunch of fat, white cats screwing as many children as they possible can then what IS is for?

Increasing the population?

Nope, have not needed that for many, many moons kimosabe.

You don't ned to be married to have many "meaningful relationships". As a matter of fact, I have many meaningful relationships all the time.

No matter what way you slice it brutha, it still is a slice of shit.

BuyOurEverything

29th January 2004, 03:41

You're almost there....It's a fundamentalist slave trade institution that deals in 12 year old girls that is practised by MOST religions through out the globe.

OK, you're right, most religions. My point though was that poligomy isn't always like that, just sometimes, or even often. My point about the media was that people tend to view poligamy as always a 'backwords oppressive institution' because that's the only way they ever see it practiced. Thanks to numerous specials and 'shocking footage' of Colorado City. If you live in Arizona, you should know what I'm talking about.

I can dig what you are saying however I would like you to answer this question;

If polygamy is not simply a bunch of fat, white cats screwing as many children as they possible can then what IS is for?

I dunno, love and whatnot.

Increasing the population?

Nope, have not needed that for many, many moons kimosabe.

What's sex for, increasing the polulation? No, but we all still do it.

You don't ned to be married to have many "meaningful relationships". As a matter of fact, I have many meaningful relationships all the time.

Well fine, but that's an issue with marraige. I'm talking about poligamy vs. monogomy, regardless of marital status.

Rastafari

29th January 2004, 03:53

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 28 2004, 11:40 PM
I personally don't care myself, as I have never been married, but I think it is wise to look at the past and present "situations" that always seem to surface once polygamy is embraced.

I spend a large portion of my time in Arizona, I suggest you search the internet under "polygamy colorado city arizona".

Bountiful and all of those ultra-mormon paradises, as well?
The ones where they think that interracial relationships are punishable by death, that non-whites are inferior (the whole Mormon church continues to beleive this today, regardless of what they said in the 70's). Societies where 12 and 14 year old girls are raped consistantly and told that if they don't submit, they'll be punished to hell. I will be frank with you, after reading "Under the Banner of Heaven," I was 110% ready to renounce any sort of pacifism and take a gun to Rulon Jeffs (I guess he's perished, though) and the whole ilk. That is, until I read "The Monkey Wrench Gang," a great peice of fiction with a polygamist mormon as one of the main characters, "Seldom Seen" Smith. Edward Abbie used humor to soften my opinions on it a little, which is good.

anyway, what percentage of those "polled" are women, you think? And I really appreciate seeing full sources behind one of these things, because they are very very easy to manipulate. I mean, what if they polled students at BYU for these results?

But then this brings up the question of the family as an unnatural institution, doesn't it?

I think Polygamy is horribly revolting and I would be opposed to it unquestionably.

kimosabe
watch your language.

BuyOurEverything

29th January 2004, 04:03

I think Polygamy is horribly revolting and I would be opposed to it unquestionably.

That's like calling monogomy a horrible and revolting practice because some religions force young girls into monogomous relationships and raped them.

Rastafari

29th January 2004, 04:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 01:03 AM

I think Polygamy is horribly revolting and I would be opposed to it unquestionably.

That's like calling monogomy a horrible and revolting practice because some religions force young girls into monogomous relationships and raped them.
I don't understand how you couldn't see polygamy, which is ALWAYS the case of ONE man having SEVERAL wives, as anything but morally wrong and patriatchal to the extreme

LSD

29th January 2004, 05:43

I don't understand how you couldn't see polygamy, which is ALWAYS the case of ONE man having SEVERAL wives, as anything but morally wrong and patriatchal to the extreme

I think it's fair to assume that those who support polygamy here, would support poyandry as well.

Societies where 12 and 14 year old girls are raped consistantly and told that if they don't submit, they'll be punished to hell.

Yes, because only polygamists rape.

But then this brings up the question of the family as an unnatural institution, doesn't it?

Who's to say what is or isn't natural.

We only see one form of family as superior because of tradition, hardly the best standard.

Pete

29th January 2004, 15:25

I don't understand how you couldn't see polygamy, which is ALWAYS the case of ONE man having SEVERAL wives, as anything but morally wrong and patriatchal to the extreme

Please read the original question before becoming so irrate. Mayhaps it would cool your coals?

I think it's fair to assume that those who support polygamy here, would support poyandry as well.

Could you explain poyandry to me? (and probaly most other people here).

Thanks

Pete

Vinny Rafarino

29th January 2004, 15:27

What's sex for, increasing the polulation? No, but we all still do it.

Apples and oranges. The instinct to increase breed has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to breed with every chick that walks by.....as long as she is 14. I assumed that was fairly obvious.

Well fine, but that's an issue with marraige. I'm talking about poligamy vs. monogomy, regardless of marital status

I hate to break this to you but polygamy is the practise of retaining more than one spouse.

I'm going to have to hit these as well;

That's like calling monogomy a horrible and revolting practice because some religions force young girls into monogomous relationships and raped them.

Agreed, monogamy is also a horrible and revolting practise. I recommend it to no one.

watch your language

Get bent.

I think it's fair to assume that those who support polygamy here, would support poyandry as well.

I will give you six to one you are mistaken.

Yes, because only polygamists rape.

Another case of apples and oranges. The fact remains that YES a great MAJORITY of polygamists rape small children. If polygamy makes it easy for ONE child to be raped then it is useless. To play the devils advocate in a case like this is simply silly.

Who's to say what is or isn't natural

The problem with the internet is everybody wants to be a philosopher. What we need here is some balls, so I will say it;

It is unfuckingnatural because it allows for children to be raped. They all should be whacked out. Period.

LSD

29th January 2004, 16:16

First of all, Pete:

Could you explain poyandry to me? (and probaly most other people here).

Polygamy means one man with many women
Polyandry means one woman with many men
People often use polygamy for both, but technically those are the propper words.

Now then, RAF:

I will give you six to one you are mistaken.

Based on the arguments they've presented so far, I'd take those odds.

Another case of apples and oranges. The fact remains that YES a great MAJORITY of polygamists rape small children. If polygamy makes it easy for ONE child to be raped then it is useless. To play the devils advocate in a case like this is simply silly.

You want to talk about "apples and oranges"??

The fact that today those who practice illegal polygamy in no way shows that anyone who practices polygamy would instantly become a rapists.
You're not critisizing the idea, but rather how it has been implemented.
Hmmmm.... think I might have heard that before (communism=bad because USSR didn't work type argument there)

It is unfuckingnatural because it allows for children to be raped.

You want to back that up with, you know, some sort of logic??

They all should be whacked out.

Good to know you're thinking clearly.
Talk about reactionary...

Rastafari

29th January 2004, 16:32

I really can't beleive that leftists on here support the practice.

Vinny Rafarino

29th January 2004, 17:38

The fact that today those who practice illegal polygamy in no way shows that anyone who practices polygamy would instantly become a rapists.
You're not critisizing the idea, but rather how it has been implemented.
Hmmmm.... think I might have heard that before (communism=bad because USSR didn't work type argument there)

Based on the arguments they've presented so far, I'd take those odds.

Send me the cheque.

The idea in itself is absurd. I'm sorry you feel differently, you know, some just can't be helped.

The fact that today those who practice illegal polygamy in no way shows that anyone who practices polygamy would instantly become a rapists.
You're not critisizing the idea, but rather how it has been implemented.
Hmmmm.... think I might have heard that before (communism=bad because USSR didn't work type argument there

You bet your ascot I am. It's definately a case of a bunch of bad apples spoiling the lot. Too fucking bad for them.

You want to back that up with, you know, some sort of logic??

The fact I need to explain anything shows the futility of this. If you don't like my opinion, again, too fucking bad.

Good to know you're thinking clearly.
Talk about reactionary...

Thanks buck-o, I will keep that noted.

DarkAngel

29th January 2004, 20:19

I don't know what you heard about me, but I am a mother fucking P.I.M.P.

-50cent

:P :D :rolleyes: :ph34r: :) :lol: ;)

lol :)

LSD

29th January 2004, 20:40

I really can't beleive that leftists on here support the practice.

I support the right of people to consentually organize themselves in any way they want to.
If that isn't leftist what is??

You bet your ascot I am. It's definately a case of a bunch of bad apples spoiling the lot. Too fucking bad for them.

wow....love the logic there....
Well, Athens tried democracy and they were conquered, so let's forget about that. And when the Germans invented Jets they used them to bomb innocent people, so scratch those, oh how about the Internet? invented by the USDD it was, so can't support that.....

If you just can't think of an actual reason, stop covering with meaningless dribble.

The fact I need to explain anything shows the futility of this.

Yes, I think most reactionaries have said something similar.
e.g., Bush.
I guess it is hard to defend positions with no justification. At least you're in good company.

Vinny Rafarino

29th January 2004, 21:55

If you just can't think of an actual reason, stop covering with meaningless dribble.

Thanks mate, over the years I have concluded that those with, what they feel are, "exceptional intellects" have trouble with reality.

I'm sorry you don't understand my "meaningless dribble".

Well, Athens tried democracy and they were conquered, so let's forget about that. And when the Germans invented Jets they used them to bomb innocent people, so scratch those, oh how about the Internet? invented by the USDD it was, so can't support that.....

And?

Yes, I think most reactionaries have said something similar.
e.g., Bush.
I guess it is hard to defend positions with no justification. At least you're in good company.

Good grief.

Guest1

29th January 2004, 22:02

The question wasn't about making paedophilia or rape legal.

Nothing pisses me off more than a strawman argument.

BuyOurEverything

29th January 2004, 22:12

Apples and oranges. The instinct to increase breed has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to breed with every chick that walks by.....as long as she is 14. I assumed that was fairly obvious.

Not really. The only "rational purpose" of sex is to reproduce, you're saying the only "rational purpose" of poligamy is to increase population. Obviously, some people do these things for other reasons than their "intended purposes."

I hate to break this to you but polygamy is the practise of retaining more than one spouse.

Do you oppose "poligamy" with the same fervor if all involved parties don't get a piece of paper from the government then?

Agreed, monogamy is also a horrible and revolting practise. I recommend it to no one.

But would you ban it?

Another case of apples and oranges. The fact remains that YES a great MAJORITY of polygamists rape small children. If polygamy makes it easy for ONE child to be raped then it is useless. To play the devils advocate in a case like this is simply silly.

QUOTE

Well, Athens tried democracy and they were conquered, so let's forget about that. And when the Germans invented Jets they used them to bomb innocent people, so scratch those, oh how about the Internet? invented by the USDD it was, so can't support that.....

And?

Sorry, I don't think one word's sufficient. Do you support the use of these things or not?

Children can be raped in any type of relationship, should we ban all methods of interacting with one another? I think the real enemy here is religion, not poligamy.

Rastafari

30th January 2004, 00:06

In marriage, a man and a woman are idealized as equal "halves" of a whole person. The Jews see both as incomplete until they are together. Strict Judaism allows taking another wife if your first is barren for 10 years, but this is only to continue the lineage.

I'm not to keen on marriage myself, but when you apply these principles to Polygamy, what you're basically come up with is that the man (1/2 of the equation) can only be counterbalanced by 2 anywhere up to 48 (the number Frigham Young purportedly had). At the very least, this places women in a position of being worth 1/2 of what a man is, and this is really taken to heart in ALL polygamist communities. In fact, if you can find me an example of Polygamy that is occuring today that doesn't marginalize women and turn them into objects, I'll quite my "Strawman" bullshit right now.

Guest1

30th January 2004, 00:25

See, once you accept that the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a women is bullshit, and that two women or two men can be married, you must accept polygamy and polyandry as being the choice of those involved.

A man being one half is bullshit, a man is a half of any particular relationship, but he can be the one half in several, as can a woman.

Or who knows, maybe it can be a relationship of 4 bisexuals, 2 men, 2 women, who all love each other equally, in which case each is a quarter.

You're imposing your view of how a relationship should work on others.

Now stop your strawman bullshit.

Vinny Rafarino

30th January 2004, 01:23

Not really. The only "rational purpose" of sex is to reproduce, you're saying the only "rational purpose" of poligamy is to increase population. Obviously, some people do these things for other reasons than their "intended purposes."

A few billiion people would disagree.

Do you oppose "poligamy" with the same fervor if all involved parties don't get a piece of paper from the government then?

I'm not sure what you are trying to convey here brutha...

I don't oppose "polygamy" with any ferver at all. I suggested the reality of "polygamy" as it truly is. It is your choice to see it or not. That's all I can help you with.

But would you ban it?

Good Grief, you actualy replied to that.

Sorry, I don't think one word's sufficient. Do you support the use of these things or not?

Children can be raped in any type of relationship, should we ban all methods of interacting with one another? I think the real enemy here is religion, not poligamy.

I did not comment on that prior to this because it was silly and irrelevant. That still stands.

Oh fuck all mate, drop the "philosophical" bullshit. If you refuse to see the reality of polygamy then so be it.

LSD

30th January 2004, 01:42

Oh fuck all mate, drop the "philosophical" bullshit. If you refuse to see the reality of polygamy then so be it.

Since this is basically all you've really said, I guess I should address it.

This "reality of polygamy"is basically your conception of what polygamy would mean based on what some polygamists have done.
THAT'S IT!!!

You haven't said why it must apply to all polygamy.

Not really. The only "rational purpose" of sex is to reproduce, you're saying the only "rational purpose" of poligamy is to increase population. Obviously, some people do these things for other reasons than their "intended purposes."

A few billiion people would disagree.

If you think seeking pleasure is a "rational purpose" for sex, then why not for polygamy as well??

Do you oppose "poligamy" with the same fervor if all involved parties don't get a piece of paper from the government then?

I'm not sure what you are trying to convey here brutha...

I don't oppose "polygamy" with any ferver at all. I suggested the reality of "polygamy" as it truly is. It is your choice to see it or not. That's all I can help you with.

haha, good dodge.
But seriously, answer the man's question.
Do you oppose open relationships, or multiple partner relationships without marriage liscenses? Yes or No?

synthesis

30th January 2004, 03:43

Personally, I'd just do away with the entire institution of marriage.

If we are defining polygamy and polyandry in a legal sense - i.e. the right of one person to have several spouses - then I see no reason why legalization of those things should be any less acceptable than, say, gay and lesbian marriages.

But for me, it's a moot point. I have never seen any reason why two or more individuals would need to have their mutual attraction recognized by the state except for financial purposes.

I advocate the destruction of both marriage and inheritance. Problem solved.

redstar2000

30th January 2004, 03:47

I spend a large portion of my time in Arizona, I suggest you search the internet under "polygamy colorado city arizona".

I did & could find very little...and nothing about "atrocities".

Is there a more pertinent link?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

synthesis

30th January 2004, 04:17

I did & could find very little...and nothing about "atrocities".

Is there a more pertinent link?

Well, the first link one finds in Google after using the exact search terms RAF provided is probably the most informative and unbiased.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy.../polygamy4.html (http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy4.html)

A little further down the search screen, there are reports of things that are incredibly atrocious and which I find to be reason to arrest every senior member of the religion practicing these things. It is no different than chattel slavery.

http://www.azfamily.com/sharedcontent/sout...9.2ff2f98d.html (http://www.azfamily.com/sharedcontent/southwest/azfamily/features/polygamy/KTVKExtra20040119.2ff2f98d.html)

Two girls fled Colorado City last week out of fear that Jeffs would order them to marry older men, Jessop said. Women and children are considered the property of the church, and can be assigned to other men in the twin towns.

http://www.azfamily.com/sharedcontent/sout...8.830ddb01.html (http://www.azfamily.com/sharedcontent/southwest/azfamily/features/polygamy/KTVKExtra20031208.830ddb01.html)

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wi...world-headlines (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-feuding-polygamists,0,7221051.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines)

A power struggle has emerged in a small, tightlipped community known for polygamy, with a number of men getting kicked out of the church-owned town and their wives and children being "reassigned" against their will to other men.

Rastafari

30th January 2004, 04:30

This "reality of polygamy"is basically your conception of what polygamy would mean based on what some polygamists have done.
THAT'S IT!!!

You haven't said why it must apply to all polygamy.
Because all polygamist communities are practicing these realities.

Rastafari

30th January 2004, 04:37

I assume your from Arizona as well BOE, so what do you think about Mormons in general?

Guest1

30th January 2004, 04:57

See, that's the problem, you're talking about the mormons, and you're talking about religion.

You're not talking about polygamy.

The problem is religion, not polygamy or polyandry.

Though I think the best way to go is as DyerMaker said. Fuck marriage. The state should just get out of it.

BuyOurEverything

30th January 2004, 05:25

I assume your from Arizona as well BOE, so what do you think about Mormons in general?

Yes I am, I don't really know what you're asking though. I think Mormonism as it is practiced in Colorado City and the like is disgusting and I wholeheartedly advocate the assassination of the leaders of those communities. I do know other Mormons though that don't live in isolated communities and don't advocate poligamy. I view them no differently than I view any other Christians (or people of any other religion for that matter), severly misguided.

CyM is right though, you're talking about about religion and not the real issue, poligamy and polyandry.

Because all polygamist communities are practicing these realities.

Yes but not all poligamy is practiced in poligimous "communities."

LSD

30th January 2004, 05:46

Alright, look.

People are bringing up all sorts of examples of where relgion has abused polygamy.
Surprise, religion abuses a whole lot of stuff.

But the real question is do you want the state dictating what kind of relationship you can have?
Do you want the government to decide what is or what isn't a "real" marriage?

I say no.

And no matter what Arizonians may or may not have done. No matter what mormons may or may not have done, do you really want to give the state that much power over your personal life???

If people are abusing others, lock them up.
But if I want three husbands and four wives and they consent, who are you to tell me that it isn't "natural"?

Vinny Rafarino

30th January 2004, 15:16

But the real question is do you want the state dictating what kind of relationship you can have?

In a case like this you of course.

And no matter what Arizonians may or may not have done. No matter what mormons may or may not have done, do you really want to give the state that much power over your personal life???

Again, of course.

If people are abusing others, lock them up.
But if I want three husbands and four wives and they consent, who are you to tell me that it isn't "natural"?

Actually, if they decide to abuse children, they should be executed.

I think you missed the point on the "natural" ussue.

cubist

30th January 2004, 16:06

RAF what is the natural issue????

polygamous relationships or polygamous marriage which is the illegal one!

becuase marriae is mainly religous it holds little relevance to those who don't listen to the religion choked social systems that we live in.

ploygamous relationships are as natural as onenight stands!

Vinny Rafarino

30th January 2004, 16:19

There is no "natural" issue, some individuals have trouble with sarcasm. Well, what are you going to de eh?

cubist

30th January 2004, 16:35

ok my aps

LSD

30th January 2004, 17:50

In a case like this you of course.

What makes this case so damn special??

There is no reason that me having two husbands is intrinsically any more dangerous than me having one wife.

You just don't like polygamy, you don't think it's "natural" and you can point to some terrible examples of abuse.
And you want the government to enforce your views on everyone.

Oh and stop evading and anwer the goddamn question:
Do you oppose non-marital multiple partner relationships??

redstar2000

30th January 2004, 18:15

I really can't find anything to object to in Comrade RAF's proposal regarding the Mormon leaders in Colorado City..."whack 'em" seems about right.

Assuming that we're talking about something other than a nutball religious cult or a teen-age male fantasy, what are the implications of a living situation involving one guy and several female partners?

I don't think they are too good.

I think it would grant the man "too much" emotional power over the women...who would compete vigorously for the man's attention and approval.

The man's (unjustified) self-esteem would grow and the women's self-esteem would shrivel.

Eventually, his arrogance would "spill over" into the larger human community...with results that would be ugly.

If daughters were born into such an arrangement, they'd be likely to learn servile lessons from their mothers. If sons were born, they would learn arrogant lessons from their father and aspire to "be like him" when they grew up.

Thus a kind of proto-patriarchal ideology would begin to take root...something which, as communists, we would not want to permit.

Perhaps it would not be such a bad thing in a society where all human relationships are considered "loose" and "temporary"...and where women would, of course, have the same right to acquire additional partners that men do.

A woman might be willing to share a particularly desirable man with several other women...for a year or two and then move on. And, for that matter, a man might be willing to share a particularly desirable woman with several other men for a year or two, and then move on.

But the idea of formalizing such relationships or institutionalizing them in some fashion with at least the implication of permanence is, I think, a bad one.

If something like that looks like it's starting to happen, then I think the (revolutionary) community should step in and actively interfere with that before it "gets out of hand".

We could begin by hauling the aspiring patriarch's ass in front of a community general assembly and ask him to explain just what the hell's going on.

Or maybe picket his house.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

LSD

30th January 2004, 20:51

Perhaps it would not be such a bad thing in a society where all human relationships are considered "loose" and "temporary"...and where women would, of course, have the same right to acquire additional partners that men do.

Who's to say if that society is any better or worse than the present on? If a group of people wish to have exactly that form of relationship, who are you to stop them?

I think it would grant the man "too much" emotional power over the women...who would compete vigorously for the man's attention and approval.

We're talking about polgamy and polyandry here.
So, with that in mind, it would "grant the man 'too much' emotional power over the women" and grant the woman "too much" emotional control over the man.

Sounds pretty egalitarian to me.

The man's (unjustified) self-esteem would grow and the women's self-esteem would shrivel.

Eventually, his arrogance would "spill over" into the larger human community...with results that would be ugly.

um.....right....
So if I have two husbands, society collapses.
My freedom to have the form of consentual relationships that I and others want together is a fundemental freedom of any free society. Limiting that freedom is what hurts society, not the other way around.

A woman might be willing to share a particularly desirable man with several other women...for a year or two and then move on. And, for that matter, a man might be willing to share a particularly desirable woman with several other men for a year or two, and then move on.

Yes they might, and it is their right to do so.

But the idea of formalizing such relationships or institutionalizing them in some fashion with at least the implication of permanence is, I think, a bad one.

Why?

If something like that looks like it's starting to happen, then I think the (revolutionary) community should step in and actively interfere with that before it "gets out of hand".

So in your mind it is the responsibilty of the "(revolutionary) community" to maintain the institutionalized Judeo-Christian status-quo??
To stop people from being with who they want??
You would have the "(revolutionay) community" say to someone that they do not have the right to have two husbands because YOU don't like it.

That doesn't sound very "revolutionary"
It sounds pretty damn conservative.

redstar2000

31st January 2004, 02:30

Who's to say if that society is any better or worse than the present one?

Me. I am a communist, after all.

We're talking about polygamy and polyandry here.

I made it clear that I was specifically referring to one male with several female partners.

So if I have two husbands, society collapses.

Why do you exaggerate the import of my remarks...and out of context at that? Again, I was referring to a single male with multiple female partners.

Outside of certain royal dynasties (Hawaii, for example), the practice of a single female with multiple husbands is, to the best of my knowledge, quite rare.

I don't think anyone would be terribly upset...or even interested, if you had two husbands.

So in your mind it is the responsibility of the "(revolutionary) community" to maintain the institutionalized Judeo-Christian status-quo??

Hardly, since I specified a society in which intimate relationships would be regarded as relatively "loose" and "transient".

Certainly there would no longer be any kind of legal or formal institution of marriage...though people might perform private ceremonies and rituals of their choosing.

Who knows? Perhaps plural "marriages" might become the "socially accepted norm"...two or three individuals of each sex becoming co-wives and co-husbands.

That doesn't sound very "revolutionary" It sounds pretty damn conservative.

Guess I can't please everybody.

But if you think that some patriarch with a house full of women is "revolutionary", then I think your conception of "revolution" is considerably different from mine.

LSD

31st January 2004, 03:27

I made it clear that I was specifically referring to one male with several female partners.

Really? How about this:

A woman might be willing to share a particularly desirable man with several other women...for a year or two and then move on. And, for that matter, a man might be willing to share a particularly desirable woman with several other men for a year or two, and then move on.

Sure looks like you're addressing both.

Who knows? Perhaps plural "marriages" might become the "socially accepted norm"...two or three individuals of each sex becoming co-wives and co-husbands.

So then what exactly is it that you oppose??
That seems to be a dead-on description of Polygamy/Polyandry.
Are you sure you know what your arguing against?

Outside of certain royal dynasties (Hawaii, for example), the practice of a single female with multiple husbands is, to the best of my knowledge, quite rare.

I don't think anyone would be terribly upset...or even interested, if you had two husbands.

So you support polyandry but not polygamy???
Hardly egalitarian.

But if you think that some patriarch with a house full of women is "revolutionary", then I think your conception of "revolution" is considerably different from mine.

And what conception is that?
An unequal sexist one in which I could have four husbands but only one wife?
In which multiple partnerships are permitted but only if they are male?

Your vision of "revolution" is Institutionalized sexism.
And that is one revolution I want no part of.

redstar2000

31st January 2004, 17:34

Your vision of "revolution" is Institutionalized sexism. And that is one revolution I want no part of.

Your remarks frankly remind me of an obnoxious drunk in a bar trying to pick a fight.

Bugger off.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Vinny Rafarino

31st January 2004, 17:39

What makes this case so damn special??

There is no reason that me having two husbands is intrinsically any more dangerous than me having one wife.

Nothing at all rompipalle, especially not all of those 14 year old girls being forced to nail some overweight greaseball in the name of the "lord" .

Look esse, if you let little billy chew gum in class then you have to let everybody chew gum in class.

Get it yet?

You just don't like polygamy, you don't think it's "natural" and you can point to some terrible examples of abuse.
And you want the government to enforce your views on everyone.

for fuck's sake, the "natural" issue again. Good grief, for someone that posts constant philosophical bollocks you sure are obtuse. Well what can you do besides drink a bottle of ripple and fuck you neighbour's 13 year old daughter?

Anarchist, anarchists everywhere, and not a drop to drink.

Oh and stop evading and anwer the goddamn question:
Do you oppose non-marital multiple partner relationships??

for the last time jack, I have multiple non-marital relationships constantly. I think what it boils down to is this;

I oppose YOU.

RS,

Your remarks frankly remind me of an obnoxious drunk in a bar trying to pick a fight.

Bugger off.

Indeed. I believe I will be forced to advise him "good day".

Guest1

31st January 2004, 18:06

LSD, relax.

RAF, you haven't shown why little Billy, and everyone else, shouldn't chew gum in class.

LSD

31st January 2004, 19:08

Alright, I've calmed down.

I think that this is getting nowhere because it's turned into a question of definitions.

Most people here who have opposed polygamy/polyandry have also opposed institutionalized marriage.
But without institutionalized marriage, polygamy/polyandry is as valid as monogamy.

Polygamy/polyandry doesn't mean raping four 14 year olds anymore than monogamy means raping one. Every system can be abused, including this one. But if there is no marriage, and if the governement recognizes no union over any other than polygamy/polyandry is implicitly supported.

Polygamy/polyandry just means a multiple-partner relationship that has been recognized by the state.
And without state marriage-liscenses it just means a multiple-partner relationship.