Multiple Wives?

[Rob_Mayes]

Are these guys in Texas crazy? I can barely handle the one wife I have.

 

Do you think Man was made for multiple Wifes (at one time)?

[Jerry_75_Guy]

Not me, buddy; I found it too messy and stress inducing just trying to date two girls at once, much less be in a multipule person marriage

 

So far as the concept is concerned though, as long as all the individuals concerned are adults, well informed, and not under some unusual influence (like being locked in a compound and 'told' by their family what they 'must' do), then by my lights it's none of my business how they set up they're family arrangements.

 

Just like other species though, I think our choices in that arena are strongly influenced by our biology, in other words what works best for the species as a whole. Most, though not all, cultures seem to trend towards the 'one for one' model, but there also seems to be a strong inclination towards serial marriage. Makes sense with regard to propagation of the species; emotional bonds ensuring a couple stays together long enough to maximize the likelyhood of offspring survival, and after that (from the broad scope of a population anyway) the strength of that bond is less valuable.

[JerryMather]

If someone can handle the costs of proper upkeep and has the time to devote to all the members involved towards creating a loving environment, I don't see a problem with it.

[Bud]

Nurse Nancy says I can have as many motorcycles as I have wives.

 

I have one of each.

 

[Big_Gray]

Women are probably better equipped to handle multiple husbands.

[Knifemaker]

Do you think Man was made for multiple Wifes (at one time)?

 

It time for the JOKE of the YEAR....RIGHT!!!

 

I do not think I can truly love anyone more than I do my wife...

 

I know, I truly do not want more than one wife...

 

With that being said....Does it take more than one bullet in the head of you gentlemen to know that you don't want to do it again?

 

Especially at the same time!!!!

[Kathy R]

Women are probably better equipped to handle multiple husbands.

 

I can't even deal with ONE for crying out loud!

[BruceWA]

You've got to be kidding. I am happily married and adding more wife's to the mix will most certainly be the end of that!

[90%angel]

Are these guys in Texas crazy? I can barely handle the one wife I have.

 

You're still thinking about it like a normal marriage, where women have all the power. (kidding, kidding)

 

In the TX case, it's pretty easy for them since the men have all the power and the women have no say in anything (at least from what I've read and heard about it).

[Aluminum_Butt]

Aside from the "logistics" issues and whether I could "handle" multiple wives, I don't think it's possible to share the gut-level intimacy, found in a healthy marriage, with more than one person.

[eddd]

I think multiple wives would be a great idea. They could keep each other company when I took off on my RT.

[Stir]

I think multiple wives would be a great idea. They could keep each other company when I took off on my RT.

 

LOL. I thought that but didn't have the guts to say it.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I think multiple wives would be a great idea. They could keep each other company when I took off on my RT.

 

There's the old joke about three guys arguing whether it would be better to have a wife or a mistress. One guy says the stability/commitment of a wife is best, another guy says the romance and passion of a mistress is better, and the third guy - an engineer - recommends both: "you tell the wife you're with the mistress, tell the mistress you're with the wife, and then you can go to the lab and get some work done."

[bakerzdosen]

Well, being from Utah, I've always had to deal with jokes/questions on the matter when traveling (particularly in the south). To me, I just can't figure out how to go about presenting the idea to a woman. Do you say something like "so, do you wanna come back to my place and my wife could fix us a night cap?" Would wife #1 set you up on a blind date with one of her friends?

 

Personally, I can't imagine having to deal with more than one wife. Wow. I can't see how anyone (male or female) could find it appealing.

[marcopolo]

I've had multiple wives -- just not at the same time. Does that count?

[exwingnut]

I think multiple wives would be a great idea. They could keep each other company when I took off on my RT.

 

There's the old joke about three guys arguing whether it would be better to have a wife or a mistress. One guy says the stability/commitment of a wife is best, another guy says the romance and passion of a mistress is better, and the third guy - an engineer - recommends both: "you tell the wife you're with the mistress, tell the mistress you're with the wife, and then you can go to the lab and get some work done."

 

 

Engineers! LOL

 

I have heard well thought out and very reasonable argument for plural marriage from several sources, including some from women who claim to be happy in this arrangement. The Sociology text I had in college a few years back stated that plural marriage is the custom in many societies around the world today and that it has some great advantages for families; access to caring child care, support among the partners, many hands to do the multiple tasks required to sustain a family, freeing up those individuals who whis to pursue a career and allowing those who wish to be 'stay at home parents' the financial support to do so. All of these points were supported by women who have chosen (key word there, chosen) this lifestyle.

 

For me personally, I am happier living alone and having a solid monogamous relationship with someone who likes their own life alone as well.

 

YMMV

[exwingnut]

I've had multiple wives -- just not at the same time. Does that count?

 

Only as serial monogamy.

[4wheeldog]

I am a firm believer in the concept of diminishing returns. What, exactly, do you get more of with multiple wives? Nothing worth the balancing act.

I have been happily and faithfully married for almost 35 years........To the same woman........Though we aren't exactly the same people we were way back then.

[hANNAbONE]

Women are probably better equipped to handle multiple husbands.

 

I can't even deal with ONE for crying out loud!

 

!!wHERE'S yOUR avatar..??!! [hi kathy ]

[Twisties]

Personally, I'm quite comfortable with the idea that adults ought to be able to form any family units they desire, regardless of gender or number combinations, within the context of a reasonable household size.

 

Unfortunately, that is not what this is about. This is a system of total control in which girls are treated as chattel and bargained away before they are old enough to have any say. The price of disobediance is to be outcast... unthinkably severe for a teen raised in a closed society. You lose your family, your soul (within their belief system), and all your worldly goods. In some cases this outcome may be preceded by physical abuse.

 

The system rests on communal property ownership (a trust) controlled by the prophet. Excess males are sent out with nothing on a whim, even after they have a family in some cases, never to return. Obediance is total.

 

While, so far, it hasn't been shown that the FLDS use systematic welfare fraud as the basis of their economy, several of the other polygamist groups around here have been busted for this type of scheme. The non-legally married wives file as single mothers with unsupported dependents.

 

I have very mixed feelings about the going's on in TX, and feel this is an issue worthy of some debate. On one level, this mass round-up is quite disturbing. It challenges the very idea of freedom in a fundamental way. What of the right to form a society and raise your children as you see fit. On the other hand, we have laws and those laws may be being disregarded.

 

Personally, I find the FLDS to be quite evil, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right live as they choose.

 

Jan

[Bheckel169]

As the microbrewery ad goes in Utah - Polygamy Porter-

"Why have just one?"

Without going into the history of polygamy, the idea of many wives who have a duty to the patriarch as wife and bearer of his children, probably is seen as far fetched, but the idea of polygamy is practiced among many cultures in the world. Not so strange if you separate yourself from your own preconceived ideas of love and marriage that our general culture accepts as normal here.

I'm more concerned about the children being displaced.

Decades ago the governor of Arizona attempted to separate the children of a mormon fundamentalist sect living there. He had his troops come in and take the children away, ostensibly for the same reason we're witnessing in Texas. The people of Arizona we're incensed that he'd take the children away from their parent's despite the fact they were polygamists and he lost his reelection bid which was attributed to the backlash he received over his actions. It's interesting to see what the response will be this time for basically the same reasons.

Bruce

[drzep]

Evolution will work out the wrinkles. Just give it time.

[ghaverkamp]

Evolution will work out the wrinkles. Just give it time.

 

If so, that would just diminish the desire for an younger additional wife.

[Bud]

 

snip...

 

Personally, I find the FLDS to be quite evil, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right live as they choose.

 

snip ....

Jan

 

If the choose to live in a manner in violation of state or federal law, then they don't have the "right".

[ghaverkamp]

Personally, I find the FLDS to be quite evil, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right live as they choose.

 

If the choose to live in a manner in violation of state or federal law, then they don't have the "right".

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .

 

Regardless of what the laws -- which don't trump the Constitution -- say, maybe they do. Or maybe they don't.

[Twisties]

 

snip...

 

Personally, I find the FLDS to be quite evil, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right live as they choose.

 

snip ....

Jan

 

If the choose to live in a manner in violation of state or federal law, then they don't have the "right".

 

Yes, but that has not been established in this case. It seems quite extraordinary to empty a community of large numbers in the execution of a search warrant for one. Granted, Jeff's has been convicted of something similar in UT, and granted, I personally think it's all true... the underage marriage/sex/coercion thing.... but my belief is a far cry from proof and not a legal basis for this kind of raid.

 

It's hard to see this in TX after David Koresh. At least in this case there has been no violence yet.

 

Anyway, as I say, I have very mixed feelings. I just don't understand the legal basis for all the removals, or holding all the men.

 

I do think the event is historic and has deep ramifications that I am only beginning to think through.

 

Best,

 

Jan

[edge51]

Those guys in Texas are crazy.

[velomoto]

Regardless of what the laws -- which don't trump the Constitution -- say, maybe they do. Or maybe they don't.

This could be an interesting constitutional case - do local or federal laws trump the constitutional right to "free religion"? Conversely, can one setup a religion to circumvent laws?

 

In the past seven years there has been a definite movement, at least in the area of labor, where the church has been exempted from laws which govern non-church businesses. This can give a distinct competitive advantage to the church run business. Clearly this is great if you're a member of the church and taking advantage of the service, but it would really suck if you happen to be the small business owner trying to compete with a church.

 

While I appreciate the humor of the original posting, sadly as others have pointed out this form of polygamy is about statutory rape, pedophilia and incest. Until one studies the history of the LDS and FLDS it is impossible to grasp the gravity of what is going on in Texas. As a comic once asked, "How many people does it take before a cult becomes a religion?" The FLDS compound in Texas is not a small isolated group.

[exwingnut]

I just heard on the radio that they still have not found the 16 y.o. girl they served the warrant to rescue...and that the lawyers for the plaintiffs are charging that the warrant was 'over reaching, vague, and not legaly served."

 

Tis not over yet, methinks.

[Rob_Mayes]

The Mayan Indians believed in human sacrifice to placate the Gods.

[velomoto]

Tis not over yet, methinks.

Me agrees and thinks tis just the beginning...

[motoguy128]

I think Twisties has it right.

 

The question is abotu the behavior of hte people in control. I think these men sought out impressionable women they could manipulate and control and who di not have an existing support structure (family) that would come looking for them. They are preditors, and when minors are involved pedafiles (sp?).

 

Although, predatory behavior in itself is not criminal, a grown man getting into any sexual relationship with a minor IS illegal and immoral by modern standards.

 

Is it natural? Well, I think man has an instinctive desire to procreate with as many women as possible, but most men also have the natural ability to find pleasure in life from being managamous... I can;t decide however if that is a learned trait or instinctive. Although I believe strongly in a managomous relationship, and am married myself, I'm not sure that if I was stripped of my learned bahaviors, "raised by wolves" if I would behave hte same way.

 

That being said, there are many other instictive behaviors that society frqns upon. Those being assault, rape and murder. Watch some wild dogs or cats for a while and you'll eventually see all 3 behaviors. So just because it's natural, doesn't mean its right.

[4wheeldog]

As the microbrewery ad goes in Utah - Polygamy Porter-

"Why have just one?"

Without going into the history of polygamy, the idea of many wives who have a duty to the patriarch as wife and bearer of his children, probably is seen as far fetched, but the idea of polygamy is practiced among many cultures in the world. Not so strange if you separate yourself from your own preconceived ideas of love and marriage that our general culture accepts as normal here.

I'm more concerned about the children being displaced.

Decades ago the governor of Arizona attempted to separate the children of a mormon fundamentalist sect living there. He had his troops come in and take the children away, ostensibly for the same reason we're witnessing in Texas. The people of Arizona we're incensed that he'd take the children away from their parent's despite the fact they were polygamists and he lost his reelection bid which was attributed to the backlash he received over his actions. It's interesting to see what the response will be this time for basically the same reasons.

Bruce

 

I think maybe you missed the point as far as the FLDS is concerned. It isn't that they are polygamists, it is that they are incestous pedophile line breeders. These girls are "Married" to their uncles at 12 to 14 years old. They start making babies immediately. In the meantime, their brothers are turned out as un-needed at about 14, because they are competion for their fathers and uncles.

 

Having sex, and making babies with girls under the age of consent, while being closely related to them by blood, is not exceptable on any level in our society. I could care less if these morons were convincing women of age and unrelated to "Marry" them plurally. That would be adults consenting to do what they will. But child rape and abuse is just not something to tolerate. Our financial support for the offspring through tax money just adds insult to injury.

[Matts_12GS]

I think maybe you missed the point as far as the FLDS is concerned. It isn't that they are polygamists, it is that they are incestous pedophile line breeders.

 

I guess that explains the Osmonds and their scary large teeth!

[PRC]

 

I guess that explains the Osmonds and their scary large teeth!

 

You've crossed the line on that one buddy!!!

[ghaverkamp]

Regardless of what the laws -- which don't trump the Constitution -- say, maybe they do. Or maybe they don't.

This could be an interesting constitutional case - do local or federal laws trump the constitutional right to "free religion"? Conversely, can one setup a religion to circumvent laws?

 

Federal and local laws do not trump the First Amendment. Period.

 

However, the question is whether or not they violate they First Amendment. As a general rule, no constitutional absolute is absolute. At present, and with the current makeup of the Court, the best one can do is express the existence of the right to practice all religious beliefs. Even with a different composition, this is well established precedent.

 

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

. . .

We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice.

 

It's probably not an argument that would make it very far.

[4wheeldog]

I think maybe you missed the point as far as the FLDS is concerned. It isn't that they are polygamists, it is that they are incestous pedophile line breeders.

 

I guess that explains the Osmonds and their scary large teeth!

 

The Osmonds are LDS, not FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints), I big difference, if it matters to you.

 

Not that their teeth don't scare me..........

[David]

It's amusing to read some of these responses and see how OUR cultural norms are elevated to morality. Go to any third world country and measure the average age when women marry and you might be shocked.

 

Doing any of that forcibly is wrong no matter how "developed" the culture, but I'd be hard pressed to treat the boundary between "minor" and "past minor" age as anything but an arbitrary (and perhaps artificially high) border.

[exwingnut]

It's amusing to read some of these responses and see how OUR cultural norms are elevated to morality. Go to any third world country and measure the average age when women marry and you might be shocked.

 

Doing any of that forcibly is wrong no matter how "developed" the culture, but I'd be hard pressed to treat the boundary between "minor" and "past minor" age as anything but an arbitrary (and perhaps artificially high) border.

 

A post a few pages ago made me think just this...it is all cultural and what 'we' consider normal. America's propensity to believe that what we think of as 'right' is what everyone else should think of as right is a problem that we have yet to solve as a nation and as a member of the world community.

 

believeing that we have a Manifest Destiny is just wrong; everyone else on the planet is just as entitled to their own view as we are.

 

Now, I gotta go erase all my on-line information so that the cyber police don't come asking me if I know where Bin Laden is.

[Quinn]

My wife often tells me that she needs a wife also. Mine does all the cooking, cleaning, etc. and she wants one of her own.

[ghaverkamp]

It's amusing to read some of these responses and see how OUR cultural norms are elevated to morality. Go to any third world country and measure the average age when women marry and you might be shocked.

 

Doing any of that forcibly is wrong no matter how "developed" the culture, but I'd be hard pressed to treat the boundary between "minor" and "past minor" age as anything but an arbitrary (and perhaps artificially high) border.

 

That's an important point that Scalia brushed against in Employment Division v. Smith. One argument was that courts could determine, as had previously been the case, whether certain religious practices were central to the tenets of a religion, and if so, prohibiting those practices would violate the First Amendment.

 

Because the courts would necessarily be faced with deciding the merits of and centrality of particular behaviors to distinct religions and determining whether the state's interest outweighs the individual rights at issue, the value of particular religious practices would be valued in the eyes of the courts. Rather than risk that, the Court decided the better course was simply to permit regulations of general applicability. Therefore, if our laws craft arbitrary ages for consent, so be it. Boy, that concept -- I think because it came from Scalia, for whom there is a knee-jerk revulsion to at my school -- rankled some folks in my First Amendment Law class just last week.

 

It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.

[Jerry_75_Guy]

-- I think because it came from Scalia, for whom there is a knee-jerk revulsion to at my school --

 

After having read various proceedings excerpts, and opinions he has generated, I can't imagine why that might be

 

The refutability of some of his opinions, and the logical thread they were based upon, have left me flumoxed more than once.

[Bud]

As the microbrewery ad goes in Utah - Polygamy Porter-

"Why have just one?"

Without going into the history of polygamy, the idea of many wives who have a duty to the patriarch as wife and bearer of his children, probably is seen as far fetched, but the idea of polygamy is practiced among many cultures in the world. Not so strange if you separate yourself from your own preconceived ideas of love and marriage that our general culture accepts as normal here.

I'm more concerned about the children being displaced.

Decades ago the governor of Arizona attempted to separate the children of a mormon fundamentalist sect living there. He had his troops come in and take the children away, ostensibly for the same reason we're witnessing in Texas. The people of Arizona we're incensed that he'd take the children away from their parent's despite the fact they were polygamists and he lost his reelection bid which was attributed to the backlash he received over his actions. It's interesting to see what the response will be this time for basically the same reasons.

Bruce

 

I think maybe you missed the point as far as the FLDS is concerned. It isn't that they are polygamists, it is that they are incestous pedophile line breeders. These girls are "Married" to their uncles at 12 to 14 years old. They start making babies immediately. In the meantime, their brothers are turned out as un-needed at about 14, because they are competion for their fathers and uncles.

 

Having sex, and making babies with girls under the age of consent, while being closely related to them by blood, is not exceptable on any level in our society. I could care less if these morons were convincing women of age and unrelated to "Marry" them plurally. That would be adults consenting to do what they will. But child rape and abuse is just not something to tolerate. Our financial support for the offspring through tax money just adds insult to injury.

 

Could not agree more. Well said.

[Twisties]

So just curious, is this story headlines where you live? Here it is getting several stories a day in the local papers. In the on-line versions, which allow forum like responses, they are getting hundreds of responses a day. Major controversy.

 

How is it playing where you live?

 

Jan

[motoguy128]

I just catch it on the Today show in the morning. Local news doesn't care much despite being near Nauvoo, IL, a large Mormon settlement.

 

I see both viewpoints. I think LE has gotten a litlte carried away, but I think thsi group like many other sheltered groups pushes the line on personal freedoms and meeting minimum moral standards. I'm not a socialogy expert, but the women I've heard interviewed on the Today show, sound much like POW's an others that have been abused or under strict control. There's no real emotion like a normal person would have. Something just seem off about them.

 

The real issue in question is the loose defenition of "Adult" that the FLDS is using by allowing religious marriages to women under 16. Even under 18, I would question the morality of it if the other party is over 20 years old. If the person marrying a monor is old enough to be their father... that's called a Pedophile. That why we have laws restricting marriage ages to protect the innocent.

[KCBeemer]

Hmmmmmmm.....I wonder why God only gave Adam ONE woman?

[exwingnut]

Hmmmmmmm.....I wonder why God only gave Adam ONE woman?

 

Because 'she' thought it was best I would suppose...

[Matts_12GS]

Hmmmmmmm.....I wonder why God only gave Adam ONE woman?

 

Because 'she' thought it was best I would suppose...

 

I have scriptural proof that God is not a woman.

 

The bible says that God forgives us our sins and remembers them no more.

 

When was the last time that a woman ever forgave a man's sins?

 

[milesandmiles]

Point #1-A Polygamous society is not sustainable in a population roughly 50/50 male/female. These sects have to kick young men out of the commune, no older than 12 or 13, for minor infractions just to keep the ratio adjusted. A cruel and societally waistful practice. I doubt God would approve.

 

Point #2-The girls must choose to marry as very young women or be expelled. They must make this choice at an age when they are really too young to take care of themselves. This is, in fact, not CHOICE.

 

Point #3-The previous post about marriage ages in third world countries is irrelevant. Each society sets it's own norms, and a reasonable age of consent is our norm. I don't know about any of you, but I was unfit to make these kinds of decisions at 13 or 14.

 

These are just my 2 cents.

[velomoto]

The real issue in question is the loose defenition of "Adult" that the FLDS is using by allowing religious marriages to women under 16...

Based on what I've found in several books and the recent media, in the FLDS religion girls become "adult" and get married once they hit puberty. Girls typically hit puberty between age 8 and 14.

 

Just to make sure there is no misconception about this "practice" - this is not a case of "consenting" adults. These are arranged "spiritual" marriages between teen or pre-teen girls and men 3, 4 or 5 times their age.

 

I'm not so much amazed that this has been going on as I am with the fact that we as a nation have turned our head and looked the other way for so many decades. In other words, folks this is not a new development nor a "new" offshoot of the Church of the LDS. The FLDS exists in Mexico, Canada and the USofA.