I can't believe it-I never thought it'd be a reality show

[justamouse]

Y'all know I'm pretty liberal (as a Xian), but this is making me want to scream so loud my hair jumps out of my head.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katy-hall/sister-wives-tlcs-polygam_b_736551.html

 

Kody Brown married his first wife, Meri, 20 years ago. Three years later he married Janelle, and a year after that he married Christine.

 

 

 

"I just fell in love. Then I fell in love again, and I fell in love again," he says in the opening episode of 'Sister Wives,' TLC's latest reality series about an excessively large family. This one is set in Utah with a polygamist twist.

 

 

 

The Browns and their 12 children are members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), which, as Kody says, likes to "reward good behavior." Why stop with one good marriage when you could have four? (Kody is courting a fourth wife, whose assimilation into the tight-knit circle of sister wives provides the only conflict in a family that keeps reminding us how happy they are.)

 

 

[Daisy]

Blech. :ack2:

[Murphy101]

I did.

 

If homosexual marriage is okay, there is not a single legit reason to ban plural marriages.

[Gwenhwyfar]

i saw the previews for that yesterday ~ i want to watch it. :cool:

 

[if they're happy living the way they are, i don't have a problem with it]

[justamouse]

I did.

 

If homosexual marriage is okay, there is not a single legit reason to ban plural marriages.

 

i saw the previews for that yesterday ~ i want to watch it. :cool:

 

[if they're happy living the way they are, i don't have a problem with it]

 

You both just helped me figure my freakitude over this out.

 

You know, I have friends who live in plural marriages and they are pagan. I am totally OK with that. If it makes them happy, and they're consenting adults, if that's what you want, be free to do it.

 

But these people are attaching God's name to it, and THAT is the problem I have with it.

 

I am totally watching it. I loved Big Love, too, but never thought anyone would actually put their family on TV. And he's looking like he wants to be a rock star.

[Dandelion]

I found this quote (from the linked article in the OP) interesting:

 

"Because wives are comfortable with another wife in this lifestyle, they're not comfortable with another girlfriend," Kody points out.The sister wives lean on each other as their husband falls in love once again, they learn of his and Robyn's premarital, post-engagement kiss and they help break the news of the family merger to the kids, who attend a polygamist church school but aren't all sold on the idea of plural marriage."

 

He's only legally married to one of the three women now (the article says he's only legally married to Meri - polygamy is still illegal across the U.S.) - so the other two "wives" are in fact just "girlfriends", right?

 

So, I guess I'm wondering what it is that provides that distinction for the women between "girlfriend" and "wife" in this scenario... And what makes them so uncomfortable with a girlfriend, that they're able to quickly set aside as soon as she becomes a "wife".

 

I doubt I'll be watching, but I'm sure it will make for some very interesting reality TV...

[Anne in CA]

I am just finishing up The 19th Wife, and find this a little sad.

[Heatherwith4]

Yuck! Yes, I wish they wouldn't attach God's name to this.

[Daisy]

I found this quote (from the linked article in the OP) interesting:

 

"Because wives are comfortable with another wife in this lifestyle, they're not comfortable with another girlfriend," Kody points out.The sister wives lean on each other as their husband falls in love once again, they learn of his and Robyn's premarital, post-engagement kiss and they help break the news of the family merger to the kids, who attend a polygamist church school but aren't all sold on the idea of plural marriage."

 

He's only legally married to one of the three women now (the article says he's only legally married to Meri - polygamy is still illegal across the U.S.) - so the other two "wives" are in fact just "girlfriends", right?

 

So, I guess I'm wondering what it is that provides that distinction for the women between "girlfriend" and "wife" in this scenario... And what makes them so uncomfortable with a girlfriend, that they're able to quickly set aside as soon as she becomes a "wife".

 

I doubt I'll be watching, but I'm sure it will make for some very interesting reality TV...

 

I don't know? Can they be married by their church but not do the legal marriage license thing?

 

I find it incredibly sad. We have been talking about how women deserve to be treated like equals in a marriage. This looks about as far away from equality as you can get.

[LibraryLover]

Awesome. :lurk5:

 

This clearly shows that network producers have *absolutely no* personal biases against anything in particular. If you are complaining about not getting your 15 minutes of fame, it's because you are *boring*.

 

Accept this as I have. :D

[Rosie_0801]

So what happens if a woman falls in love with a second bloke?

 

 

Rosie

[Mimm]

So what happens if a woman falls in love with a second bloke?

 

 

Rosie

 

 

That's my question. I'm guessing that wouldn't be ok. :p

[Daisy]

So what happens if a woman falls in love with a second bloke?

 

 

Rosie

 

Or a third or a fourth? I can just imagine the sorts of names that woman would be called and how she'd be treated.

[Rosie_0801]

I'm guessing not too ;)

 

Dh has some polyamorous friends. It seems with them, you have a primary partner, and however many boy/girlfriends you want. I think there is another lower level of relationship too, but I don't know what they call it. Not lower as in worse, but as in less committed, perhaps? It seems to be like having a spouse- the person who lives in your house, steady dates and casual dates. The rules are the same for guys and girls, so while it isn't my thing, it doesn't give me the creepy feelings the one bloke, many women/ one woman, ONE husband ONLY thing does. But I suppose even that should be ok if the women are allowed to up and leave freely at any time.

 

Rosie

[Tabula Rasa]

I did.

 

If homosexual marriage is okay, there is not a single legit reason to ban plural marriages.

 

I really don't see the correlation between gay marriage and plural marriage. Legally there is very little difference between a homosexual and heterosexual union, it simply involves two people. Add more to that number and the logistics change, things would get complicated and the laws governing rights between married couples would have to change to include multiple spouses.

 

Morally is something else altogether. There are legitimate reasons to legalize gay marriage while still banning plural marriages, but if you (universal you) believe there is something wrong with both homosexual and plural marriages I can see where the line is much more blurred.

[Tabula Rasa]

So what happens if a woman falls in love with a second bloke?

 

 

Rosie

 

Then its called an affair and breaks up the family :glare:

[Slartibartfast]

I really don't see the correlation between gay marriage and plural marriage. Legally there is very little difference between a homosexual and heterosexual union, it simply involves two people. Add more to that number and the logistics change, things would get complicated and the laws governing rights between married couples would have to change to include multiple spouses.

 

Morally is something else altogether. There are legitimate reasons to legalize gay marriage while still banning plural marriages, but if you (universal you) believe there is something wrong with both homosexual and plural marriages I can see where the line is much more blurred.

 

:iagree:

 

IMO that is just a red herring

 

"If homosexual people can marry that means someone can marry their dog!"

 

Right....

[Rosie_0801]

Then its called an affair and breaks up the family :glare:

 

So everyone calls her lots of nasty things and her husband divorces her? Does he pay child support? Will anyone else marry her or is she the Fallen Woman and her children and mother must Bear The Shame?

 

Rosie

[Murphy101]

:iagree:

 

IMO that is just a red herring

 

"If homosexual people can marry that means someone can marry their dog!"

 

Right....

 

 

Obviously I do not agree.:D

 

If the sexuality factor shouldn't matter, then it shouldn't matter.

 

Some only want it to not matter as it pertains to them though and I understand that, illogical though I think it is.

 

If the sexuality doesn't matter, then how many are involved shouldn't matter either.

 

Personally, I think polygamy is no different or worse than baby mamas and serial divorces. Either way you have a segment of the population with multiple sex partners and multiple legal situations. To say it is only understandable if they just don't give a flip but is wrong if they claim to care and be religious seems like nonsense to me.

 

Not that I agree with any of it. I don't. I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me either.:D

[Donna A.]

So everyone calls her lots of nasty things and her husband divorces her? Does he pay child support? Will anyone else marry her or is she the Fallen Woman and her children and mother must Bear The Shame?

 

Rosie

 

Depends on what circles you run in. :glare:

[TKDmom]

What makes me cringe is that there are people who confuse mainstream Mormons with these folks. (Ask me how I know. :glare:)

 

So, I guess I'm wondering what it is that provides that distinction for the women between "girlfriend" and "wife" in this scenario... And what makes them so uncomfortable with a girlfriend, that they're able to quickly set aside as soon as she becomes a "wife".

 

I'm sure they are married by their church and since "God's ways are higher than man's ways" there's no need to worry about the legality of it. I don't agree with this, but it's the rationale.

 

I find it incredibly sad. We have been talking about how women deserve to be treated like equals in a marriage. This looks about as far away from equality as you can get.

 

:iagree:

[Slartibartfast]

Obviously I do not agree.:D

 

If the sexuality factor shouldn't matter, then it shouldn't matter.

 

Some only want it to not matter as it pertains to them though and I understand that, illogical though I think it is.

 

If the sexuality doesn't matter, then how many are involved shouldn't matter either.

 

 

 

I do believe that the legal logistics would be far different and far more complicated in multiple partner situations.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree cause I don't think anyone could change my mind and I don't think anyone could change yours. :)

[OregonNative]

I can't say I'm surprised by the show. Next year it will probably be mild to what reality TV is then. If it was a documentary, I would find it interesting just to get some insight. But as reality TV? It just seems wrong. Not from a spiritual perspective. I guess I just don't get why? Most reality TV seems like the Jerry Springer show. Why show your Q!@ on national TV?:glare:

[pqr]

I really don't see the correlation between gay marriage and plural marriage. Legally there is very little difference between a homosexual and heterosexual union, it simply involves two people. Add more to that number and the logistics change, things would get complicated and the laws governing rights between married couples would have to change to include multiple spouses.

 

 

 

Were one to accept your argument, which I do not, then you would have no issue with incestuous marriages, right?

 

"it simply involves two people"

[smrtmama]

I really don't see the correlation between gay marriage and plural marriage. Legally there is very little difference between a homosexual and heterosexual union, it simply involves two people. Add more to that number and the logistics change, things would get complicated and the laws governing rights between married couples would have to change to include multiple spouses.

 

Morally is something else altogether. There are legitimate reasons to legalize gay marriage while still banning plural marriages, but if you (universal you) believe there is something wrong with both homosexual and plural marriages I can see where the line is much more blurred.

 

:iagree:

[Tabula Rasa]

Were one to accept your argument, which I do not, then you would have no issue with incestuous marriages, right?

 

"it simply involves two people"

 

Actually it is quite legal to marry your cousin. And my argument was strictly for the difference between gay marriage and plural marriage in a legal sense. I actually never said what I was okay with morally. Including an incestuous marriage (which I'm going to assume you mean full blooded sibling or parent which I believe is illegal) into the argument is equivalent to arguing that gay marriage could lead to being able to marry an animal (which is ridiculous since an animal can not consent to the union... Neigh means no!).

 

However since you asked, legally it could be okay. It wouldn't need to change the specificity of rights granted to married partners. There is a taboo against incest of course as well as a danger with procreation between closely related persons (of course you do not have to be married to procreate).

 

However, the point is moot since the original comparison was between plural marriage and gay marriage. One legit reason against plural marriage is how rights would be decided with married partners since there are several spouses.

 

Right now marriage through the state is a legal "contract" between persons that allows certain rights for spouses including tax benefits and eligibility for their partners medical benefits, etc.

 

I purposely didn't include any declaration of morality on my own part because it wasn't relevant to the argument in my opinion. I'm not going to change anyone's beliefs about what is and isn't right. I was simply pointing out that I saw a difference between the two from a legal standpoint.

 

The logistics of legalizing plural marriages are a thousand times more complicated than legalizing gay marriages.

 

Personally, I'd liken discrimination against two same sex partners as similar to how interracial relationships and marriages were viewed less than fifty years ago.

[Cinder]

Have you all read Escape by Carolyn Jessop. She was an FLDS wife. Her story is eye-opening.

 

Cinder

[amey311]

Polygamy is legal in the US as long as you don't involve the state. You can only have one legal partner, but you can have as many spiritual partners as you want. So, your church or religious leader can declare you and your 4 husbands as married, as long as you are all consenting adults. The Supreme Court legalized any kind of relationship between consenting adults.

 

This means also, that yes - I could be spiritually married to my brother (assuming there is some kind of incest law already on the books in the state), but not legally.

 

Not being legally married is a problem for things like inheritance, custody, etc. It's my understanding that in the FLDS groups there is the one legal wife and should that wife die (or leave the group), the man will name another legal wife and file the appropriate paperwork. Because of the limit of one legal wife, many of the women in FLDS communities would file for WIC/government support because legally they're single parents (with MANY children).

 

I've read SEVERAL memoirs and other accountings of life with the FLDS group that's now in Texas (and used to be on the AZ/UT border as a direct result of watching Big Love. There are real groups upon which the families of Big Love are based (including the Greens in Mexico). I think polygyny is something that can be done well, but it is often done very poorly with great cost to the women and children involved.

[Tabula Rasa]

Polygamy is legal in the US as long as you don't involve the state. You can only have one legal partner, but you can have as many spiritual partners as you want. So, your church or religious leader can declare you and your 4 husbands as married, as long as you are all consenting adults. The Supreme Court legalized any kind of relationship between consenting adults.

 

This means also, that yes - I could be spiritually married to my brother (assuming there is some kind of incest law already on the books in the state), but not legally.

 

Not being legally married is a problem for things like inheritance, custody, etc. It's my understanding that in the FLDS groups there is the one legal wife and should that wife die (or leave the group), the man will name another legal wife and file the appropriate paperwork. Because of the limit of one legal wife, many of the women in FLDS communities would file for WIC/government support because legally they're single parents (with MANY children).

 

I've read SEVERAL memoirs and other accountings of life with the FLDS group that's now in Texas (and used to be on the AZ/UT border as a direct result of watching Big Love. There are real groups upon which the families of Big Love are based (including the Greens in Mexico). I think polygyny is something that can be done well, but it is often done very poorly with great cost to the women and children involved.

 

:iagree:

 

You've expounded on the legal aspects much more eloquently than I did.

[Skadi]

Any Christian who gets freaked out about polygamy has obviously skipped some material in the Old Testament.

 

And one of the reasons I do not support gay marriage as an issue is because the majority of people who support gay marriage do not equally accept polygamy. (Personally I don't think the gov't should have any involvment in marriage and it should just be a civil contract, but you won't see me marching in the gay pride parade because they don't apply their logic to other types of unions.)

[Slartibartfast]

Any Christian who gets freaked out about polygamy has obviously skipped some material in the Old Testament.

 

And one of the reasons I do not support gay marriage as an issue is because the majority of people who support gay marriage do not equally accept polygamy. (Personally I don't think the gov't should have any involvment in marriage and it should just be a civil contract, but you won't see me marching in the gay pride parade because they don't apply their logic to other types of unions.)

 

I don't get freaked out by polygamy but I don't support polygamy as a legal contract. If people want extra spouses then whatever I don't really care but if that is recognized by the state then that would be a logistical nightmare for insurance companies and any number of things.

 

I only care for logistical reasons. I really don't care what people do. A man can have fifteen husbands as far as I am concerned. It isn't any of my business what people do in their bedroom.

 

 

 

ETA: and it isn't that I am uber Liberal, I am actually quite prudish I just don't think the government has a place in the bedroom of consenting adults.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Sis

[Carrie12345]

 

I only care for logistical reasons. I really don't care what people do. A man can have fifteen husbands as far as I am concerned. It isn't any of my business what people do in their bedroom.

 

 

 

While I'm inclined to assume there are probably major logistical issues that could/do come into play, I'm not really sure what they are off the top of my head.

I have a child from a previous non-married relationship. We have a custody order. We have a support order. We have an insurance coverage order. If we had been married, I could have had at *least a temporary spousal support and insurance order. While all that can be somewhat tricky, we don't outlaw divorce or having children out of wedlock.

 

My insurance policy through dh's job costs the same for our 6 (stb 7) family members as it does for coworkers with 3 family members, as it would for hypothetical coworkers with 14 family members. "Fair" or not, it isn't illegal to have 12 (or 19 or 25) kids in a singular marriage, or in a situation of mulitple relationships, concurrent or not.

 

Personally, I'm a fan of singular, committed relationships, paper or no. My gut tells me polygamy has huge potential for big messes. But I haven't been able to come up with a reason off the top of my head that can't already be seen in the rest of "legal" society.

[Lisa in Jax]

<Snip> [T]he argument is equivalent to arguing that gay marriage could lead to being able to marry an animal (which is ridiculous since an animal can not consent to the union... Neigh means no!).

 

 

"Neigh means no!"? LOL! That just might be the funniest thing I've read on this board since Donna Boucher's honeymoon story. :lol:

 

Thanks for the laugh!

 

Lisa

[SquirrellyMama]

Any Christian who gets freaked out about polygamy has obviously skipped some material in the Old Testament.

 

 

I disagree. I've read this material and still get freaked out by it. I think polygamy in the Bible was shown to be a bad idea every time. Fights between the wives, marital discord, divided children...

 

I think Solomon is a great example of why polygamy is a bad idea.

 

1 Kings 1:11:4-6

4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech [a] the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.

[lionfamily1999]

Awesome. :lurk5:

 

This clearly shows that network producers have *absolutely no* personal biases against anything in particular. If you are complaining about not getting your 15 minutes of fame, it's because you are *boring*.

 

Accept this as I have. :D

I think I might print this out and tape it up next to the tv, to remind me why we don't have any channels... :lol:

 

~Julie who is content in her boringness

[lionfamily1999]

"Neigh means no!"? LOL! That just might be the funniest thing I've read on this board since Donna Boucher's honeymoon story. :lol:

 

Thanks for the laugh!

 

Lisa

But nothing tops the waxing story. ;)

[vonfirmath]

I don't know? Can they be married by their church but not do the legal marriage license thing?

 

Of course.

Not everyone who portrays themselves as married actually has a legal marriage license. And, in fact, that legal marriage license is probably the least important part of the puzzle. It gives you tax benefits and such, but that's all.

[TravelingChris]

I have two big problems as a social issue with polygamy and one philosophical issue with it. THe two big problems are welfare fraud or manipulation as is wanton in these groups. They tend to have huge payments for all these extra children since the men don't normally have enough income to support all the wives and the children. The second social issue is the matter of boys. The treatment of teenage boys is appalling. Since they are competitors for the teenage girls interests, the older polygamous men ban them (throw them out of the community) so they can get the teenage girls for themselves. This action brings up my philosophical issue which is the poor treatment of both women and children. I understand that most of these women say they want this system but that is what happens when you are raised in a closed social system with a strong control over what you do.

[Murphy101]

Neigh means no :lol:

 

I can't believe polygamy is any more of a logistical problem than multiple out of wedlock relationships or multiple divorces.

 

In fact, that is why I see no purpose for gay marriage. The argument that they need a legal marriage to get insurance, inheritance and so forth is entirely bogus. All of that can be obtained without marriage. In fact, marriage does not necessarily give a right to it, only a likely default.

[Mejane]

I have no problem with anything consenting adults do and it might be an interesting show if it accurately depicted the lifestyle, but what are the odds it's going to end up being anything more than titillation? In the reality genre, it doesn't matter who the participants are or what the premise is, the shows seem to always sink to the lowest common denominator.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Mejane

[TXMomof4]

Of course.

Not everyone who portrays themselves as married actually has a legal marriage license. And, in fact, that legal marriage license is probably the least important part of the puzzle. It gives you tax benefits and such, but that's all.

 

Legally, all of a man's children could be claimed on his taxes even if they're from 15 different 'wives', right? Wow! Talk about some major deductions!

[katilac]

Actually it is quite legal to marry your cousin. .

 

No, it's not. The majority of states ban it, and those that do almost all define it as incest (so you may travel to marry in a state that allows it, but you are still committing incest in a state that bans it).

 

 

The Supreme Court legalized any kind of relationship between consenting adults.

 

This means also, that yes - I could be spiritually married to my brother (assuming there is some kind of incest law already on the books in the state), but not legally.

 

No, most states have incest laws, so a relationship between consenting adults who are closely related is not legal in most places.

 

You can be spiritually married to your brother, but you still could not legally have sex with him. Incest refers specifically to sexual acts between relatives; it has nothing to do with marriage, spiritual or otherwise. Marriage laws are separate.

[Snowfall]

I really don't see the correlation between gay marriage and plural marriage. Legally there is very little difference between a homosexual and heterosexual union, it simply involves two people. Add more to that number and the logistics change, things would get complicated and the laws governing rights between married couples would have to change to include multiple spouses.

 

Morally is something else altogether. There are legitimate reasons to legalize gay marriage while still banning plural marriages, but if you (universal you) believe there is something wrong with both homosexual and plural marriages I can see where the line is much more blurred.

 

I completely agree, and I also agree with Sis, who said this was a red herring. I think if people want to marry more than one person in the religious sense, then that is their business, but it becomes entirely too complicated for the government to start recognizing legally binding unions between multiple people.

[Murphy101]

I completely agree, and I also agree with Sis, who said this was a red herring. I think if people want to marry more than one person in the religious sense, then that is their business, but it becomes entirely too complicated for the government to start recognizing legally binding unions between multiple people.

 

Nonsense. The govt recognizes unions/contracts between multiple people all the time from local communities to international relations that are far more complicated than marriage. Corporations, unions, nonprofits, schools, trades....

[Chris in VA]

I feel sorry for those in polygamous relationships.

I think the women are trading the best for something that is only good on the surface. Yeah, I can totally see how living with a sister and having help with housework, child rearing/care, etc. would be nice. I can see how having someone who lives with your hubby and really sees the yucky stuff he does could make it easier to feel understood when you have a problem with him. I can even see how it would be healthy and beneficial to have emotional support all the time (women are often very good at supporting each other), right there in your home.

 

But there's a ton to be said for the good stuff that comes from being the only partner to your man. Or woman. It's hard for me to express, but I am so glad I'm my beloved's, and my beloved is mine.

 

I know there is at least one person on these boards who has chosen this lifestyle, and I don't wish anyone ill will. I just wish it was seen as the best thing, to be married to one person.

 

I definitely think we are created for community. I don't see polygamy as the answer, tho.

[SamanthaBea]

Not only were the men of the Bible polygamists, but they had concubines too! Where did they find the time???

I’ve heard that the original intent of polygamy was to provide a societal structure to care for widows and other women who would otherwise be destitute (it's not like they were usually allowed to earn an honest living!). If your brother died, the honorable thing to do would be to marry his wife and take in his children as your own. I’m not sure if that’s accurate though.

I don't care what consenting adults do—gay, straight, polygamous, or otherwise. However, from the previews of that show, I already want to smack that smug grin off that man’s face! What do they see in him?

[Murphy101]

Just to be clear, I'm not for polygamy or gay marriage.

Just saying the supposed logic that is used for gay marriage should be just as applicable to poly marriage.

[justamouse]

Awesome. :lurk5:

 

This clearly shows that network producers have *absolutely no* personal biases against anything in particular. If you are complaining about not getting your 15 minutes of fame, it's because you are *boring*.

 

Accept this as I have. :D

 

lolol.

So what happens if a woman falls in love with a second bloke?

 

 

Rosie

 

then she's a Sl%$, of course!

 

I really don't see the correlation between gay marriage and plural marriage. Legally there is very little difference between a homosexual and heterosexual union, it simply involves two people. Add more to that number and the logistics change, things would get complicated and the laws governing rights between married couples would have to change to include multiple spouses.

 

Morally is something else altogether. There are legitimate reasons to legalize gay marriage while still banning plural marriages, but if you (universal you) believe there is something wrong with both homosexual and plural marriages I can see where the line is much more blurred.

 

you're right

 

(which is ridiculous since an animal can not consent to the union... Neigh means no!).

 

However since you asked, legally it could be okay. It wouldn't need to change the specificity of rights granted to married partners. There is a taboo against incest of course as well as a danger with procreation between closely related persons (of course you do not have to be married to procreate).

 

However, the point is moot since the original comparison was between plural marriage and gay marriage. One legit reason against plural marriage is how rights would be decided with married partners since there are several spouses.

 

Right now marriage through the state is a legal "contract" between persons that allows certain rights for spouses including tax benefits and eligibility for their partners medical benefits, etc.

 

The logistics of legalizing plural marriages are a thousand times more complicated than legalizing gay marriages.

 

Personally, I'd liken discrimination against two same sex partners as similar to how interracial relationships and marriages were viewed less than fifty years ago.

 

and I agree again

 

I think polygyny is something that can be done well, but it is often done very poorly with great cost to the women and children involved.

 

Like I said, I have poly friends who are pagan and they formed the union on their own. I have no problem with that (and it's a girl with two guys). It's when there's a *spiritual authority figure* that's involved telling these women that this is what they SHOULD do-it's emotional abuse as far as I'm concerned. I see no difference between it and suicide bombing-both are people who have been coerced by fundamentalist spiritual beliefs and people they've been trained to see as authority figures. Not to mention, it's not in the new testament and we'd ahve to take up stoning people again if we're going to live by the OT law.

 

I only care for logistical reasons. I really don't care what people do. A man can have fifteen husbands as far as I am concerned. It isn't any of my business what people do in their bedroom.

 

ETA: and it isn't that I am uber Liberal, I am actually quite prudish I just don't think the government has a place in the bedroom of consenting adults.

 

I agree-I just don't think these women are truly consenting.

 

Any Christian who gets freaked out about polygamy has obviously skipped some material in the Old Testament.

 

 

 

I thought it was horrible then, and I think it's horrible now. It's one of those things that I'm ashamed of in the bible and why I don't believe in sola scriptura.

 

 

I definitely think we are created for community. I don't see polygamy as the answer, tho.

 

I agree with everything you said, this especially.

 

I don't think there is one woman in those instances that if the husband turned to them and said, "I will leave all of them for YOU." They wouldn't be the happiest woman on earth. Hire a nanny for the rest, you know? I think they convince themselves they're happy with a portion, when they should have the whole. They're worth more than a measly portion.

[Teachin'Mine]

Just one more reason I'm glad we cut the cable years ago. :D

[aggieamy]

Just one more reason I'm glad we cut the cable years ago. :D

 

No kidding! Occasionally I see stuff on the three channels we do get that makes me want to put the TV on Craigslist and be done with it too. However, I think DH would miss watching Rick Steve's on PBS. :001_smile: