Polygamy

Rum, beer, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Polygamy

Postby Dmitri on Tue May 13, 2008 9:55 am

Posted by: kenneth_delves Posted on: May 9th, 2008, 6:50pm
The following was an extract from the New York Times 5/7/08-All I can say is where do they get the energy and what do they do the rest of the day. Do they worship a maypole
May 8, 2008
Raid on Sect in Texas Rattles Other Polygamists
By KIRK JOHNSON and JOHN DOUGHERTY
COLORADO CITY, Ariz. — As the supper dishes were being cleared away and the rice pudding brought out for dessert, Marvin Wyler’s two wives, along with some of their children and a group of friends, began poring over the list.The 44-page document, from a court in Texas, gives a glimpse of who is married to whom in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or F.L.D.S. — and in the hothouse world of religious polygamy, a list like that is a sort of Rosetta Stone to the usually hidden relationships of power, politics and piety. “We are adding up the number of men who may be going to prison,” said Isaac Wyler, 42, the eldest of Mr. Wyler’s 34 children, who was examining the list on Sunday to see which men may have had wives under the legal age when they married.
Scenes like this have played out in recent days in polygamist communities on the Arizona-Utah border as the marriage list and other records, seized last month from the polygamist sect in Eldorado, Tex., along with 462 children in an investigation of possible under-age brides, have filtered west.The information has families like the Wylers talking about some of polygamy’s best-kept secrets. Who would have guessed, for instance, that Wendell Nielsen, a high-ranking sect official with family here, had 21 wives in Texas, too? Or that he has 35 children on top of those here?As law enforcement officials from Utah and Arizona prepare for what they expect to be a capacity crowd town-hall-style meeting on polygamy on Thursday — planned north of here in St. George, Utah, before the Texas raid but now proceeding with an added urgency — polygamist gossip is only one of the many consequences of the raid that they are encountering.Rumors of an imminent Texas-style police crackdown — the authorities say none is contemplated — are among the new constants of life here, the historic heartland of the F.L.D.S. Some polygamists, who had considered moving to Texas, are putting down roots again here, even cooperating with the authorities. Others are speaking out publicly, trying to distinguish their forms of plural marriage (no under-age brides) from what the authorities say was practiced by the sect in Texas.“Polygamy is not the problem,” said Marlyne Hammon, who belongs to a group called The Work of Jesus Christ, which practices polygamy in a town just a few miles from here. Ms. Hammon, of Centennial Park, Ariz., said child brides had no place in her group’s faith or practice. “This is about human error, not polygamy,” she said.Fierce winds of change — from national political attitudes about polygamy to new economic stress and even down to the personal decisions about where to live in a post-Eldorado world — are buffeting the polygamist faithful.Recent statements by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, a Democrat and the Senate majority leader, calling for toughened enforcement of laws against polygamy, possibly with an expanded federal role by the Department of Justice, have sent a particular shiver, with questions swirling about what the states will do under federal pressure.
“They think they’re going to be next — that there’s so much pressure being brought on me that I’m going to raid them,” said Utah’s attorney general, Mark L. Shurtleff, a Republican. “They hear the rumors, and they call.”Mr. Shurtleff said he planned no change in tactics, and no mass raids, which he said would only destroy the trust needed to protect people, including the young girls his office is trying to help. It is a point, he said, that he intends to make forcefully on Thursday night on a shared stage with the Arizona attorney general, Terry Goddard, at the meeting in St. George, about 45 miles from here.Mr. Goddard, a Democrat, said he too intended to continue pursuing accusations of abuse case by case, with no mass arrests or seizures in the offing.“I don’t know how I can make a case that all the children in Colorado City are in danger,” Mr. Goddard said. But some polygamist families say paranoia is only natural now. Even the Wylers, who left the sect years ago — he is 63 and his wives are 63 and 58 (a third wife died years ago) — are anxious. The 63-year-old wife said she risked losing her job if her name was used in this article. But as the Texas raid’s impact is digested here, individual F.L.D.S. families are making new decisions. Over the last month, dozens of families have come forward to cooperate with a court-appointed officer, pay their bills and sign documents that could allow them to stay in their homes here, most of which are owned by a trust once controlled by Warren S. Jeffs. Mr. Jeffs, the F.L.D.S. leader, was convicted last year in a Utah case of being an accomplice to the rape of a 14-year-old. Before the raid, said the officer, Bruce R. Wisan, people would not even answer the door when he knocked. The raid shook something loose.This raid in Texas just totally exacerbated their concerns and solidified the idea that we’re not going to be moving out of here,” said Mr. Wisan, who is also an accountant from Salt Lake City. “It’s a huge shift, from moving the whole community out, to paying and signing.”The F.L.D.S. broke away from the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has 13 million members worldwide, decades ago over the practice of polygamy; Mormons disavowed it in 1890 and now excommunicate polygamists.The Wylers here in Colorado City were also particularly astounded to learn that Mr. Nielsen, the high-ranking sect official who everyone at the dinner table believed kept his wives and children in Arizona, had another family cluster in Texas. According to the records, Mr. Nielsen, who was 67 in August 2007 when his “family information sheet” was completed, had 21 wives, ranging in age from 24 to 79, and 35 children, ranging in age from 6 months to 23, who were living at the Zion ranch until the raid.The records do not include the dates of marriages, most of which would have been religious ceremonies with no state civil licenses issued. So the lists are more suggestive than conclusive, for now. Under Texas law, no girl under 16 can legally marry, even with her parents’ permission.

Posted by: Dmitri Posted on: May 9th, 2008, 7:47pm
on May 9th, 2008, 6:50pm, kenneth_delves wrote:
...had 21 wives, ranging in age from 24 to 79, and 35 children, ranging in age from 6 months to 23

St. Sooty's spirit is strong with this one!
(Unless some of them were under-age, in which case I hope he gets some payback for that in prison...)

Posted by: Royal_Dragon Posted on: May 9th, 2008, 8:11pm
I never understood polgamy.

I can't even handle one female without being driven crazy, God forbid i ever got stuck with more than that.

Posted by: Dmitri Posted on: May 9th, 2008, 8:24pm
I think as the quantity increases, the quality changes. As the critical mass (number of wives) is reached, they probably begin to "neutralize" one another... Grin

Posted by: Interloper Posted on: May 9th, 2008, 9:11pm
on May 9th, 2008, 8:11pm, Royal_Dragon wrote:
I never understood polgamy.

I can't even handle one female without being driven crazy, God forbid i ever got stuck with more than that.



Grin

Multiple mates (one male, +1 females) at one time, kept together in a "harem," is a natural reproductive strategy among mammals, particularly herd animals and higher primates that bear only one offspring at a time.

Since males produce loads of sperm, but the females can deliver only one (or, at most, a few) offspring at a time, the male can up his productivity in spreading his genes by keeping a plethora of females in production at any given time.

It's all about genetic replication, remember.

Marriage is a human construct that keeps things kind of permanent as long as the man can afford that upkeep, but in nature there is nothing but the Law of the Jungle and particular female loyalties to keep a harem intact over the longrun. Among chimps and gorillas, females come and go as they please. I think that sometimes they use the male to help them make a baby, and that's all they need him for. Smiley

Without the "authorities" to keep some upstart male from taking your wimmin, if you were a stallion you'd be having to fight off would-be harem-stealers to keep your mares together, or from being herded off by a younger, stronger stallion.

So that old fart with the 21 wives is lucky to have the law to protect him from having his babes hijacked by some young FLDS Romeo. Oh, wait, there are no laws protecting a guy from having his multiple wives hijacked... Wink

Posted by: Walter_Joyce Posted on: May 10th, 2008, 7:21am
Has anyone watched "Big Love" on HBO?



Roll Eyes

Posted by: mix Posted on: May 10th, 2008, 9:11am
on May 9th, 2008, 8:11pm, Royal_Dragon wrote:
I never understood polgamy.

I can't even handle one female without being driven crazy, God forbid i ever got stuck with more than that.


I'm trying really hard to think of a gay joke for that one, but it just aint happening. Grin

Posted by: Darth Rock-n-Roll Posted on: May 10th, 2008, 12:34pm
Interloper.

because we are animals doesn't mean we have to continue with those behaviours.

i mean, we aren't actually in the wild anymore etc etc.

the construct of marriage may be a construct, but it does aid in rule of law and logical progress.

polygamy is an old survival method. It isn't necessary and these days it is contrary to rule of law.

by virtue of being citizens in a country run by rule of law, that supersedes any quaint and antiquated religious belief in my opinion and thank goodness for that!

I personally am a little uncomfortable with this move backwards towards church and state that has been going on for 50 years or so now. It is wrong wrong wrong and we gotta work it out.

cracking down on fringe groups and assimilating them is on one hand counter to freedoms and such, but then, what of all the women who are kept silent and stupid in these communities.

I'd bet a dollar to every cops donut that those women would rush outta there if they tasted a goodly portion of the real world for longer than 30 days.

Posted by: Deus Trismegistus Posted on: May 10th, 2008, 5:22pm
on May 10th, 2008, 12:34pm, Darth Rock-n-Roll wrote:
Interloper.

because we are animals doesn't mean we have to continue with those behaviours.

i mean, we aren't actually in the wild anymore etc etc.

the construct of marriage may be a construct, but it does aid in rule of law and logical progress.

polygamy is an old survival method. It isn't necessary and these days it is contrary to rule of law.

by virtue of being citizens in a country run by rule of law, that supersedes any quaint and antiquated religious belief in my opinion and thank goodness for that!

I personally am a little uncomfortable with this move backwards towards church and state that has been going on for 50 years or so now. It is wrong wrong wrong and we gotta work it out.

cracking down on fringe groups and assimilating them is on one hand counter to freedoms and such, but then, what of all the women who are kept silent and stupid in these communities.

I'd bet a dollar to every cops donut that those women would rush outta there if they tasted a goodly portion of the real world for longer than 30 days.


What you have to remember about polygamy historically is that a man could only take as many wizes as he could support and keep happy, That is a fairly universal rule of all cultures that practiced polygamy and most cultures did practice polygamy. The very idea that we have laws and rules and that polygamists societies didn't or don't is simply untrue and misleading. Polygamy made sense historically because males were more likely to die in war or while hunting. So their would logically be a surplus of females who needed supported. Polygamy i9s perfectly natural and logical solution to the problem. It may not be a problem anymore or necessary but just because a woman is in a polygamist relationship doesn't mean she is ignorant or uneducated and doesn't know any better. To imply such is quite frankly insulting and demeaning to women because some guy they never met is telling them what is best for them.

Posted by: Tigershape Posted on: May 10th, 2008, 5:32pm
That is true about the historical context. As much as people want to cry about secret ceremonies and crap, that was the actual start of polygamy in the Mormon church. The Mormon men were driven and killed from Missouri, there is still an extermination order in the law books(not in effect anymore). This left many women with children without a way to support themselves. They couldn't hold their own without a man in that time in ANY part of the West, so polygamy came back. Let stay away from the religion bashing plz, none of us know that many of them weren't happy that way, and its none of our business. They were raided because some woman from an evangelical church called and pretended to be a hurt little girl, I think this whole thing is screwed up. Have a great one!

Posted by: Darth Rock-n-Roll Posted on: May 10th, 2008, 5:55pm
as a survival mechanism, i understand it. in todays world in the g8 countries, it is outside the boundaries of what is concensus on social behaviours.

Much the same as how laws contain other habits of humans when left to their own devices and understanding.

Posted by: Royal_Dragon Posted on: May 11th, 2008, 12:42am
I personally don't see what is offensive about it. If a man can actually handle more than one wife, and he's dumb enough to put himself through the emotional torture that must surely follow, then I say more power to him.

Personally if it was me, anything more than occasional sex is just too terrifying for me, let alone a dating relationship......I can't even fathom actual marriage...let alone more than one wife??

Actually, I am afraid to even try for sex. THAT's how they hook you!!!

One minute you think you are getting a nice lay, no strings attached, and then the next theres female undergarments hanging in your shower and you are fighting off guilt trips for napping in the hammock all afternoon, or facing thier Wrath and dealing with a destructive force of nature because you stayed out till 2:00 AM without even calling to report in the nite before.

The best thing about being 40, is you become immune to thier spells and trickery!

Posted by: T J LePetomane Posted on: May 11th, 2008, 12:56am
on May 9th, 2008, 8:24pm, Dmitri wrote:
I think as the quantity increases, the quality changes. As the critical mass (number of wives) is reached, they probably begin to "neutralize" one another... Grin


Yeah, with more women around they have someone who actually cares to listen to their incessant yapping.

And interloper, baby, I like the way you think!. Smiley

Posted by: Qiphlow Posted on: May 11th, 2008, 2:27am
on May 10th, 2008, 7:21am, Walter_Joyce wrote:
Has anyone watched "Big Love" on HBO?



Roll Eyes

i got hooked on that show for awhile. there was some wacky shit happening.

Posted by: Steve James Posted on: May 11th, 2008, 3:04am
It's possible to argue that polygamy is a survival strategy, and that many women are perfectly happy in that condition. And, if they're adults, they should be left alone with their choices.

The only problem is that, often, these contemporary polygamists also believe or encourage child marriage. Moreover, because of their social isolation, these same groups --or men-- engage in incestuous relations. In fact, it's those sort of charges that give the state the justification to interfere.

Anyway, I don't believe that incest --in terms of human societies-- is a survival strategy. I think it's a social strategy. Usually, for ex., there's no question about whether polyandry would be acceptable to most men.

But, even so, polygamy has never been open to most men in the society --only to the wealthiest. And, in most cases, the king, ruler or Patron, had the most offspring --way more than any average guy. Often, those guys (Catherine the Great excepted) would have the right of the first night with any woman he wanted.

I agree that when the ratio of males to females is slanted, it makes sense to have sharing arrangements. However, the ratio in the US has been about 50/50 for most of the 20th century. Anyway, so, yeah, I think that all those guys wanted many wives for biological reasons.

Posted by: Chanchu Posted on: May 11th, 2008, 3:19am
How about this? decriminalize it! I mean who cares!

If you want to do that-- then go ahead....

Not me baby.... but if you want to hey ok by me..

Posted by: Walter_Joyce Posted on: May 11th, 2008, 9:26am
on May 11th, 2008, 2:27am, Qiphlow wrote:

i got hooked on that show for awhile. there was some wacky shit happening.

I think like a lot of HBO programs that wacky shit is probably well researched and offers a glimpse of the reality of modern day polygamy, albeit on soap opera format.

Posted by: Qiphlow Posted on: May 11th, 2008, 9:40pm
on May 11th, 2008, 3:19am, Chanchu wrote:
How about this? decriminalize it! I mean who cares!

If you want to do that-- then go ahead....

Not me baby.... but if you want to hey ok by me..

agreed.

Posted by: Chanchu Posted on: May 12th, 2008, 2:06am
I mean really WTF cares what they are doing as long as they are of legal age and its mutual consent..??

Americans are fracked up in the head when it comes to sex...

Every thing is sex but if you have sex its bad....

I once told a American girl "Hey you look great in that dress"

She said " Some woman would call that sexual harrasment!- but I take it as a compliment."

Yikes!!! Shocked

Posted by: Dmitri Posted on: May 12th, 2008, 9:05am
on May 12th, 2008, 2:06am, Chanchu wrote:
I mean really WTF cares what they are doing as long as they are of legal age and its mutual consent..??

Exactly! Cool

Posted by: Tigershape Posted on: Today at 12:39pm
Hey, I have a question. The government really does limit what either sex can do with their bodies, so its not just women. I have this idea, give me your feedback. Instead of abortion, can't we just make sure that every woman has the right to NOT get pregnant? Free birth control, help with whatever issues women have in that area, but then doing away with abortion. If women have plenty of access to ways to not get pregnant, then we don't need a horrible act like abortion. LOL in court, the pro-choice lawyers won't even describe it because they know it is sickening. That still gives women control of their bodies. But I really think that abortion is a horrible reaction to usually poor judgement on peoples part. What does everyone think? I would love opinions here!
User avatar
Dmitri
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9736
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA (USA)

Re: Polygamy

Postby Royal Dragon on Tue May 13, 2008 11:45 am

Don't we already have free condoms given to kids in highschools?
Royal Dragon
Great Old One
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 6:00 am

Re: Polygamy

Postby Dmitri on Tue May 13, 2008 12:13 pm

has the right to NOT get pregnant

I'm not even sure that's proper logic... :)
User avatar
Dmitri
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9736
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA (USA)

Re: Polygamy

Postby Bär on Tue May 13, 2008 12:28 pm

Royal Dragon wrote:Don't we already have free condoms given to kids in highschools?


No - not really. There are a few random 'tarp your load' programs out there but not widespread by any means.
User avatar
Bär
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2874
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:28 am

Re: Polygamy

Postby TaoJoannes on Tue May 13, 2008 3:36 pm

Hey, I have a question. The government really does limit what either sex can do with their bodies, so its not just women. I have this idea, give me your feedback. Instead of abortion, can't we just make sure that every woman has the right to NOT get pregnant? Free birth control, help with whatever issues women have in that area, but then doing away with abortion. If women have plenty of access to ways to not get pregnant, then we don't need a horrible act like abortion. LOL in court, the pro-choice lawyers won't even describe it because they know it is sickening. That still gives women control of their bodies. But I really think that abortion is a horrible reaction to usually poor judgement on peoples part. What does everyone think? I would love opinions here!


A great idea, buuuut, it just isn't feasible. Whenever they've tried criminalizing abortion in the past, it's resulted in women trying to rid themeselves of the pregnancy through other means, herbal, mechanical, chemical, whatever, and wound up causing even more death.

The urge to procreate is very strong, so any impulse that wants to terminate a pregnancy winds up being even stronger, and when you try to keep someone from satisfying that desire, they just don't care about your laws and your consequences. It's a decision that only the woman herself can make for herself, while entertaining the opinion of the man involved. Moral concerns aren't any concern of the government, and if someone can't have legal control over their own body, how is that standing up for individual rights?

I mean, we could go into so many different scenarios and reasons, but that's just academic, the bottom line is that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, within certain limits. If folks like the politician in question had their way, we'd be right back to the pre-1970's state of affairs, where birth control was illegal, and women had virtually no rights to make their own reproductive decisions. That is definitely not what I consider freedom to be and that's why I'd never even consider voting for someone like that.
oh qué una tela enredada que tejemos cuando primero practicamos para engañar
User avatar
TaoJoannes
Wuji
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 3:40 am
Location: Cocoa Beach, Fla


Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests