http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,326515,326515#msg-326515

I don't have a huge pteradon in this fight, but there was something that caught my eye.

Unbeliever42 doesn't like that polygamy is often attached to abuse, and used his own experience as proof.

Cheryl thinks that polygamy has the potential for abuse and possibly has experience for that.

I took exception that Unbeliever42 gets to use his experience as proof but Cheryl doesn't.

He then responded that he does get to use his experience as valid and Cheryl doesn't.

And he also stated that "She is insisting that any more-than-two-adults relationship has "too much potential for abuse" and that's a ridiculous statement any way you slice it (let me show you all the monogamous abusive relationships that I've seen, witnessed, and been through)."

That "that's a ridiculous statement any way you slice it" caught my eye and made my tummy hurt.

Unbeliever42, institutionalized, religious polygamy attached to abuse has been WELL documented.

Your poly amorous relationship may work and may not be abusive, but if you don't think that polygamy comes with abuse, you are making an incredibly naive claim.

Cheryl isn't claiming that ALL polygamous relationships WILL lead to abuse, but historically speaking, the two have gone hand in hand.

I haven't decided whether or not I think it should be legalized, but if you want those rights you unfortunately have a very long and rough battle because you and your relationship will HAVE to be scrutinized. Your relationship has historically speaking been in the same class as Warren Jeff's.

You may take exception to that, but it's the truth. You practice polygamy, and so does he. You may not have the same kind of educational, emotional, sexual, physical, and "spiritual" abuse in your relationships, but you WILL HAVE to show HOW yours is different if you want the voting public to take you seriously.

And trying to sweep the abuses of other polygamous relationships under the rug isn't going to help. You will have to actually confront them.

Like it or not. Right or wrong. Homosexual marriage actually gained traction when they were able to confront the claims that the public had against them and they were able to demonstrate that they made loving couples, raised well adjusted children, and contributed to society.

The courts demonstrated that effectively.

Your battle is going to be harder simply because we have polygamous communities. And their polygamy does NOT hold up well under scrutiny.

What I don't like is being forced to pay for their choices with my tax dollars or by curbing my opinions in defference to political correctness.

I don't think it's good for committees to parent children. Kids have a right to know who their parents are which shouldn't include anyone and everyone their father of the day happens to bring home.

The poster in question comes to RfM once or twice a year and is outraged that I don't kiss up to him as is requied of wimminfolk.

If his homelife is wonderful, good for him. His wimmin probaly like it too. I don't know them but suspect their esteem is not up to what most modern American women enjoy. Their relationship with their shared man is fragmented and iffy at best. I've been married to the same man for over forty years and can compare.

The jury is out about his kids. I know a few plyg kids who escaped but had more recovery issues than most posters on RfM. The rest saw only two choices, to continue in the plyg lifesyle or to freak out and overdose and/or commit suicide.

No matter how dysfunctional the home, EVERY plyg kid I've known said when they were young and vulnerable that they loved the sister wives and liked being in a plyg household.

Kids can't choose. They can only survive. It's like children under morg mind control with no way out. They can only adjust to the hand they're give.

Legitimizing polygamy? They'll do it, but they'll do it without my blessing.

Lady, I don't give a damn whether you kiss up to me or not. I'm a gay man, and I'm not interested in your deference. I don't need it, and I don't want it, and I couldn't care less about it.

You see, I have two husbands and two teenaged daughters, and I'm not about to give either of my daughters to any man in marriage against their will or until they're old enough to go there and they ask me to bless their choices (if they do). But I am interested in your refusal to look at the reality of the situation because you were soooo scarred by your past that you can't be rational. You've made a bunch of stupid assumptions about me, and obviously have read nothing I've said.

You assume I'm straight. I'm not. In fact, I'm a big old gay.

You assume I'm married to women and abusing/using them. I'm not. I'm married to one man legally and my second male partner and I consider ourselves married to one another as well. What I want is for the law to recognize that so that his parents can't keep me from his bedside if he ends up in the hospital from illness or an accident.

You assume that my kids are scarred and hurt and upset that I have more than one partner. Both of them are straight-A students who have a good life and know that they're loved by all three of their dads. Both of them love my partners. Neither of them has ever had a problem with this situation. In fact, my younger daughter has made it clear that monogamy is not something she wants with the woman she eventually chooses as her wife. Once again, you are wrong.

You are so totally wrong about me and my life that it makes me laugh. And you accuse ME of assuming things?

I'm here, I'm a regular member of this board, and I participate a hell of a lot more than "once or twice a year." And if you'd bothered to READ instead of ASSUME, you'd know that.

But you know what? Apart from this argument that I continually have with you, you're just not that important to me. I'm arguing with you mostly because I think your beliefs are cockeyed and ridiculous and based on a very small minority of the population who were, yes, abused. But that's not the whole story, and what you also fail to realize is how much that could be ameliorated by laws that protect women and children (and yes, men too) against abuse. You just don't like it because to you it's icky, so you won't listen to reason.

I'm here to provide the alternative viewpoint that you refuse to listen to or look at because you're soooo scared of what MIGHT BE that you refuse to look at what IS for a lot of people a wonderful way to live (and I am NOT talking about Jeffs and his victims, but my friends Mary, Casey and Jane who are raising Owen together, and my friends Brian and Pat and Karen and Liz, who are raising two boys together after sending the oldest off to college, and many other people that I know and know of who make polyamory work without abuse and without exploiting governmental funds. You see, adults who do polyamory do it knowing that each person is responsible for their own stuff and their own costs. They don't do it in the one breadwinner-many dependents model that you persist in thinking is the only poly model out there.

For your information, I was raised by committee, and I turned out fine. My kids are being raised by committee, and they're turning out fine. But whatever. You won't look at proof, so nothing I say matters. Therefore, except to challenge you to be rational and provide an alternate viewpoint to your fear-fueled one, I'm done talking to you.

To Raptor Jesus: Religious polygamy of the FLDS sort (children getting handed off to old men, women having no rights) should absolutely not be legal, and if we had laws in place to protect all the people in the marriage, then it would be a lot harder for abuse to occur. Cheryl's not willing to listen because she's too scared of what might actually happen if we had, you know, laws and regulations instead of obscure cults doing whatever they wanted and damn the consequences. That is not my problem. What is my problem is that because she's so scared of what "might" happen that she will do everything she can to make it impossible for me and my husbands to get our relationships with one another legally recognized, and that's not effing cool or okay. I'm not good with it, I'm not going to be, and her fear is not a good enough reason for me to back down from this fight.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2011 01:57AM by Susan I/S.

I could say something very mean, sexist and vindictive about you, but I'm better than that. And done talking to you since you've closed your ears and you're singing la, la la again.

Well you did say you didn't want or need any deference. So there you go.

Not to mention rude.

Why?

I mean seriously. Why are you so angry? You brought up the subject. You know- or should know- that folks here do NOT launder their opinions.

Do you just need a good argument every now and then?

How am I being sexist or vindictive? Mean, I'll grant you, but then again I did not bring this up at all. The first time, it was brought up by someone else and I gave my opinion. The second time, RJ brought it up to continue a thread that I had hoped was dead. I'll admit to exasperated, pissed off, and angry, but where have I been sexist or vindictive?

And yes, when it comes to my life and people trying to make part of it criminal, you bet I like having a good argument, and you'd better believe I'm angry. It's stupid for her to continue to say that what I and my husbands do should be illegal. It's idiotic. The only reason she says that is because she can't believe that consenting adults can have non-monogamous relationships without harming children. At minimum, I hope that less fear-bound individuals will read what I wrote and think about it, consider it, instead of just rejecting it because it's "icky."

bona dea made some good points. So did icanseethelight. I'm talking about rational, consenting adults. Cheryl is talking about abusive men and doormat women. While I admit that what she's talking about exists, she refuses to accept that what I'm talking about also exists.

These two are not the same thing at all. Rational people get that. Irrational people don't.

I agree. One person's experience in one sort of polygamy doesn't ean that all polygamy is the same. No one is saying that men should marry off thirteen or fourteen year olds to men old enought to be their fathers.We are talking about consenting adults.

"Cheryl is talking about abusive men and doormat women. While I admit that what she's talking about exists, she refuses to accept that what I'm talking about also exists". That's because you are talking abour different things. Thats why they have different names.

Polygamy and then polyamory, see? They are not the same thing, thats why they hace different names. Both cheryl and nonbeliever42 have valid points, because they had different points to discuss.

Seriously folks. Its like comparing singing to writing.

In my opinion, polygamy is just a subset of polyamory, which is the bigger umbrella that covers all multiple-relationship types. Polygamy is a wheel-type arrangement, where there is a central hub (in most FLDS cases, the husband) and a number of spokes (in most FLDS cases, the wives). Polyandry is a sub-type of polygamy where the central hub is female and the spokes are male; polygyny is the sub-type where the central hub is male and the spokes are female.

Polyamory covers all of those, plus arrangements like mine and my husbands', and arrangements between three women, two women and three men, and any other combination of consenting adults.

The differences between what I'm talking about and what Cheryl's talking about is that I'm talking about rational, consenting adults and she's talking about abusive men and abused women. Again, apples and fire trucks - these two things are not the same. One should be legal, and one should not.

No we're not. We are talking about apples and rotten apples.

If you legalize polyamary, you legalize polygamy. You admit that polyamary is an umbrella.

If yours gets legalized, so does Jeffs. Because other than the abuse, it's the same.

You have multiple partners. He has multiple partners.

The coercion is not up to you or anyone else. It's up to the women. And unfortunately, many won't admit to being coerced.

Some people just want to bang.

BANG BANG BANG!

greekgod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some people just want to bang.
>
> BANG BANG BANG!

========================================

Huh??

What does that mean?

Bang, like a gun or what?

I think he meank "bang" to be like "fuck" or "bone" or "hump" or "screw". All these worsd describe the act of sexual intercourse.

That there is likely no acceptable, equitable LEGAL way of defining the rights and responsibilities that accounts for children. If people want to get into polyamorous relationships and define what they mean for themselves, they are free to do just that NOW without legal definitions getting in the way. But just like couples marriages, rights and responsibilities are well defined and I see no reason why LEGAL polyamorous relations ships shouldn't have the rights and responsibilities defined as well. In deed, without good solid definitions of such thigs, the courts would be flooded with people seeking legal remedies and they would eventually be defined by common law. So, my original point stands, I have no problem with such relationships but am apposed to LEGAL recognitions and definitions unless the issue I describe can be defined.


Oh, and about the couple being free to leave the relationship, well under the corporate standard you promote, they would be able to SELL their share of the relationship, yeah, that works, rrrriiiiigggghhhhht.

If certain legal groundwork were done first?

And you clearly don't like the "corporate model."

Is there another kind of model that you DO like more? Or is this such new territory that a completely new model would need to be invented?

"Is there another kind of model that you DO like more? Or is this such new territory that a completely new model would need to be invented?"

As I said in my original response "I can't think of ways that such issues can be resolved equitably and until they are, I oppose legal recognition of such relationships."

So, I am not in favor of all variations of polygamy. I oppose legal polygamy that is not equitable for ALL INVOLVED. So variations of polygamy that leave women and/or children in inequitable positions I would be opposed to. Yes, I think there would need to be a new model invented, but I don't see such a model is possible.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2011 04:44AM by MJ.

What if marriage were organized like a trust or foundation instead of a corporation? If children were the ultamite beneficiaries and inheritors of the funds generated by the trust would that not place the children at an advantage ovet thier parents?

In fact such marriage trusts could be of great profit to the state if they were required to pay capital gains tax while finding a shelter from estate taxes.

which seems to be exactly what you are saying when you imply a legal polygamous family would need to handle their finances as a "trust".

Sorry, don't think that the government dictating how a family decides how to allocate its moneys is the answer.

In my example that I gave in the other thread, partners that were not biological parents and thus would not necessarily have any parental responsibilities for the child could out vote the people that do have the responsibilities. Since the partners did not have the responsibility to raise the child a strong case could be made that they were not being negligent by not supporting a child they had no responsibility to support.

And do keep in mind that the family scenario that I am discussing is only ONE example of the issues raised by legalizing polygamy and there seems to be a great deal of problems solving that one issue without government intruding deeply into the family.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2011 06:58AM by MJ.

The whole polyamory as a corporation was explored by Heinlein in several of his books, most notably in the book "Friday". It discussed in detail how you bought in, and could be subsequently bought out, of the arrangement. And it also discussed how the children were cared for and provided for. While a work of fiction it was a well reasoned argument, and very workable.

I personally think this whole discussion has been about apples and oranges. Unbeliever42 is talking about rational adults making life decisions with the defining emotion as love.

and the cheryl is talking about abusive males controlling other people with the defining emotion being fear.

So, as I mentioned in the other thread, it is not necassary to legalize anything, just make it not criminal.

Because marriage grants very specific rights.

So, you'd not punish, but you wouldn't be granting rights either.

The government should protect children from abuse and I don't think anyone is saying differently. However there are several points that some posters are missing. 1. All polygamy doesn't involve underaged kids being sexually abused or forced into marriage against their will.2. It is possible to prevent child abuse and still allow adults the right to choose how they will conduct their sexual life and with whom.3. Many children today live in less than ideal circumstances and no is considering making those circumstance illegal for the sake of the children.What about the child of divorce, the child whose parents argue all the time,the child whose parents sleep around or marry and divorce time after time, the parents who belong to unpopular groups whose kids are teased as a result. This would include the children of gays. Why aren't we as concerned for these kids? They are suffering too. Maybe because very few children live in "ideal" situations with a "Leave it to Beaver" traditional family with a mom and a dad and they survive just fine.A parent can be a good parent and live an unconventional life style and their kids can be just fine.The government should protect kids from abuse but it should not be in the business of regulating the sex lives or marriages of consenting adults and say they are doing it to 'protect the kids'. Sorry, but adults have rights and so long as the kids are cared for, have what they need and are not being abused in anyway, parents get to make decisions about their own personal ifestyle.

Oh, and free Warren Jeffs!

Unbeliever42 wrote:

"I'm a gay man ... You see, I have two husbands and two teenaged daughters."

Maybe I missed that segment of your bulls**t, but how did three gay guys manage to work-in two daughters?

Not that I'm a reproductive expert or anything, but I'm sure I read or heard somewhere that a female has to be involved in the baby making process.

Just curious as to how the court rationalized custody in your case.

This is the Gospel according to Timothy ... When it looks like it, smells like it and acts like it, you call it what it is ...

Timothy



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2011 07:55AM by Timothy.

Let's see if you can follow this very simple logic train.

Husband #1 and I have been together for almost nine years.

Husband #2 and I have been together for almost three years.

The kids are teenagers, older than either relationship.

Logically, then, they were here first.

Guess what? Other groups besides the Morg pressure gay men to marry straight women. Gasp shock horror. In answer to your question, I had two kids from a first marriage. They're my biological children, and a court had nothing to do with it beyond rubber-stamping the divorce and custody arrangement. The custody arrangement was handled between me and my ex, because my ex is not a bigot or an idiot. Not that it's any of your business anyway. You don't get further details.

Interesting how if I'd asked Cheryl for anything even remotely as personal as the information you've demanded from me here, you'd probably have jumped down my throat. I didn't. I took her at her word that what she said was true (if not a valid argument against legalizing polyamory). I believe that she went through hell. But it's not the fault of the relationship that her parents (or whoever) were in. It's the fault of the people who were in the relationships. That's the part I still hope she'll understand someday, and the part that I'll keep bringing up every time she says "No, it shouldn't be legal because there's too much potential for abuse." Potential for abuse exists in ALL relationships, not just poly relationships.

So let's be honest here, shall we?

You wrote:

"I'm married to one man legally and my second male partner and I consider ourselves married to one another as well. What I want is for the law to recognize that so that his parents can't keep me from his bedside if he ends up in the hospital from illness or an accident."

The reality here is that you're legally married to another male, which I advocate by the way, and the two of you share a boy toy. I have no problem with that. Your relationship(s) obviously aren't about reproduction, of which I am not an advocate, so, by default, its all about wild monkey sex.

Tell me, unbeliever42, is it your desire to share property and secure visitation rights with everyone you've f**ked, or do you only wish to keep it between those you might actually have feelings for? ... Beyond the wild monkey sex, I mean.

And what if your second partner wishes to marry someone you don't approve of? They're consenting adults. Won't be any legal recourse should such an eventuality arise.

And please keep this nonsense out of your argument:

"You assume that my kids are scarred and hurt and upset that I have more than one partner. Both of them are straight-A students who have a good life and know that they're loved by all three of their dads. Both of them love my partners. Neither of them has ever had a problem with this situation. In fact, my younger daughter has made it clear that monogamy is not something she wants with the woman she eventually chooses as her wife. Once again, you are wrong."

You have no way of verifying that, so its a moot point at best. When my folks divorced and my dad remarried, he tried to introduce his replacement squeeze as "Your new mom" ... Had to remind him that I wasn't in the market for a "new mom" and that I'd likely keep the original. You have no idea what is going through your kids' heads.

You continue to paint this wonderful portrait, but have yet to raise a valid argument.

There's nothing stopping you from engaging in wild monkey sex with your partners. What you advocate is placing the likes of Warren Jeffs beyond legal reproach. You want government out of the marriage business yet wish to restrict what you hope to liberate. How do you propose to enforce the legalities without government intervention?

And I'm particularly troubled by this remark:

"And children don't have a say in their parents' relationships, regardless. It's part of being a child."

You speak for your children and, again, paint a rosey picture. Then you put them in their place by treating them like possessions. You're gay and society supposedly "forced" you to engage in a heterosexual relationship to produce children. That's bulls**t. I'm a heterosexual male who's been married 33 years to a woman who, like myself, didn't want kids cause we reckoned the gene pool was in fairly good shape and didn't need our help. Society also pressures young heterosexual adults to marry and have kids. That doesn't mean they have to.

Such should be considered before not after the fact. No excuses. We did.

You obviously haven't given the matter much thought. Perhaps you will once you get past the wild monkey sex.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2011 09:48AM by Timothy.

You've laid out the situation as rationally as anyone could. Thanks.

My opinion is that adults get to make adult choices. But they needn't expect me to financially and socially back them if they have children and don't put the kids first.

I don't want to pay for excessive CPS services to check into cult practices and abuses. No state has the resources to wade into every commune and compound to check on how kids are being treated.

I want gays to have all of the rights I have. And I want kids to have the best chances their abilities allow.

Anyone to comes to RfM with an open ended discussion question can't control every reply. They certainly can't control me and have no right to expect that.

I know about polygamy and other kinds of alternate communal living styles and I know about child development. I've lived personally and I've dealt with it professionally, and I've paid for it with my tax dollars.

Adults will do what they decide to do and I'll continue to think that they can accept responsibility of their decisions. It isn't up to me to twist in the wind to condone and support every adult proclivity and errant choice.

He wasn't convicted for practicing polygamy, after all, but for rape and rape as an accomplice....

The Cultural Anthropologist in me tells me to throw this into the mix:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kinship_Systems.svg

While our culture follows the Eskimo Kinship model, note in particular the differences in the Crow and Omaha Systems. The point being, not all cultures recognize(d) the same family structures that our culture does. And did so successfully for millenia.

Another good example of this is polyandry in Tibet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_Tibet

While I understand peoples concerns (particularly given our Mormon backgrounds and history in regards to polygamy), cultural institutions can, and do, change to meet societal needs and/or desires. And sometimes it is impossible to look at different ways of doing things with even a remote degree of objectivity until we recognize our own biases/ethnocentricities.

Because sometimes objectivity means pointing out all of the potential issues that would need to be addressed in order for change to happen.

If we were to legalize polygamy, a lot of legal work would have to be done, changes to the tax code, etc.

Also, we would be legalizing the Warren Jeffs type of polygamy.

That's just what it is.

The way unbeliever42 describes his relationship, I don't have a problem with. Those models you've shown I don't have a problem with.

But the Jeffs' model I have MAJOR problems with.

And so far, NO ONE has demonstrated how we could legalize some of these forms without legalizing the Jeffs' model.

<<But the Jeffs' model I have MAJOR problems with.>>

Agreed, that is the crux of the issue.