You made this claim:
//I don't have an ideal, there is no ideal with polygamy. I don't understand why someone would elect to practice it, but the reality is, many women DO elect to practice it, and there are many polygamous groups out there who are not the mormons, who do not pressure women into it, and who have dating sites set up to find partners, and many message boards dedicated to polygamists discussing their lives, etc. This is not some shangri la version I have dreamed up. I've done a lot of research on intentional, at-will polygamous settings (out of intellectual interest, not desire to join). I realize that the mindset here is geared toward mormon fundamentalist polygamy, but approaching polygamy based only on this style is leaving out a whole side of the story. But I guess that's irrelevant to point out, since Troy (and you) is adamantly against discussing anything other than his view of polygamy. But I'll give him a pass based on what I remember from his history and obsession with this topic.//

And I'd like to see some citations to these assertions. You see, I've studied polygamy as well. I've studied everything I could find about it. I've seen no sign of these happy, consensual women. Did you know that a significant portion of first wives were pressured into accepting polygamy during their pregnancy? Did you know that women who have been raised to believe that God will only love them and accept them into heaven if they allow their husband to marry as many women as he wants aren't really "consenting"? Do you know how to present a solid, well thought out, evidence backed argument?

Please stop with the accusations and innuendos and simply present your argument, complete with facts, and I will cheerfully examine it and them. Until then, Troy has presented a solid, well thought out, well examined argument against legalizing polygamy and so far your argument as been a series of ad hominems, strawmen and baseless claims.

Specifically:

How MANY polygamist groups practice consensual polygamy?

What is their ratio compared to the vast amounts of non-consensual polygamy in the world?

What is your proof of your claims?

Did he just say he'd give me a pass?

I don't recall asking him for one.

but I think he's trying to rephrase his(hers?) inability to frame a logically consistent answer and subsequent retreat as a favor to you. :)

Subsequent retreat? Have you people never heard of work? Was I supposed to refresh for hours on end just in case you replied? It's just been a couple of hours since my last reply. And that's retreat? What the hell is wrong with you people. Do you ever read what you are saying? Anything you have accused me of doing, you all are doing several times over. But it's ok for you?

For the record, read my reply to Cheryl. Hers was the only comment here that I believed dignified an actual reply.

i.e. Troy's "obsession" which apparently invalidates his rather well laid out argument.

You're going to have to do what I do, wittyname. If you accuse me of something, you're going to have to address my actual words.

Correct me if I am wrong, and I fully will accept responsibility for my faulty memory if this is not you, but aren't you the one who had cognitive issues for years after an accident while trying to get your PhD in philosophy, and even while you were trying to recover, you couldn't focus on anything other than solving the ethical dilemma with Polygamy? Didn't your obsession with this ruin your marriage, or nearly ruin your marriage? It's been a while since you, or the person I remember as you (and again, I fully accept responsibility for a faulty memory if this was another poster's story) posted this story.

So if this is your story, then I give you a pass for your approach to this issue, and your rabid attacks of anyone who offers a different view to SOME OF YOUR POINTS (I've never said I agree with polygamy, never even implied that).

You're going to tell my story to me in your words? It looks like you're getting careless and a guy who had a serious head injury at one time is now pointing your reasoning errors to you. I've addressed your exact words already. You can start reciprocating any time now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 11:48PM by Troy.

We can certainly discuss other types of polygamy, but since this board is focused on Mormonism, I thought I'd leave out other abusive polygamous societies, like what we find in Islam. Their own founding prophet married a nine-year-old girl and then consummated the marriage, doing considerable internal damage to the little girl. There's no honor in Muslim polygamy.

Most involved coercion of the woman in some form or another.

That's why I'd like to see wittyname's evidence. I am assuming there is some because I like to give the benefit of the doubt.

Answering a personal ad is coercion?

Where are these people?

The presence of ads does not prove consensual polygamy.

What about the presence of ads posted BY women looking for plural situations? The presence on one of the linked forums of posts by women interested in introduction into a plural situation?

I offer you proof for my claims, and now you are asking questions that nobody can answer, unless they have responded to ads personally, or have anecdotal evidence, or own the site and have actual statistics. Since I have not answered an ad or owned one of these sites, I can only offer anecdotal evidence, which you would consider to be unsubstantiated, so there's really no winning with you. I GET that, for some reason, you are angered that I come from a different perspective, but be fair about the evidence you demand. After all, I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking, just exercising my right on this board to express my OPINION. If you want to attack me, that's fine, I can take it, but at least accept what you are doing for what it is.

My opinions are based on what I have read. Troy's opinions are based on what he has read. Only one of us is being taken to task over proving sources, and that's because I have opinions that differ from yours.

Troy grew up in polygamy and saw far more plyg groups than I did from growing up in a more easy going plyg compound than his.

He experienced many plyg groups and I experienced some of the same ones.

He and I have also read widely on the subject and I personally saw the hippie alternative marriage compounds from the 60s, 70s, 80s and worked with the children who were damaged as a result.

Sorry, but advertising for wives is the same as advertising for deordorant or cheap knife sets. The claims are meant to attract desperate and easily duped buyers, nothing more, nothing less. It makes no difference if the slick talking salesperson is male or female.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 09:29PM by Cheryl.

//What about the presence of ads posted BY women looking for plural situations? The presence on one of the linked forums of posts by women interested in introduction into a plural situation?//

Anyone can claim to be anyone on the internet -- I'd need something a little more substantial than that. I'm just not that gullible. It is, in fact, not uncommon for polygamist groups to have individuals trolling (often a male pretending to be a female) for desperate women. Sorry, until you've got evidence of these women I'm going to need to be unconvinced.

//I offer you proof for my claims,//

No, you did not offer "proof". Something posted on the internet is not, in and of itself, "proof". Proof would be studies conducted and published under the peer review system. Proof would be names and locations that could be verified. Proof would stand on its own and not have to be taken on faith.

//and now you are asking questions that nobody can answer, unless they have responded to ads personally, or have anecdotal evidence, or own the site and have actual statistics.//

Or someone did some actual research had have data to back them up. I find it very telling that pro-polygamists who make claims of happy and harmless polygamy can't seem to find the data to back it up. It's all "but I heard someone's sister's cousin's boyfriend's roommate said they knew a happy polygamist woman".

//Since I have not answered an ad or owned one of these sites, I can only offer anecdotal evidence, which you would consider to be unsubstantiated, so there's really no winning with you.//

Sure you could "win". If you made a claim based on evidence I'd have to concede your evidence. But you have no evidence -- you have claims. There really is a difference.

//I GET that, for some reason, you are angered that I come from a different perspective, but be fair about the evidence you demand.//

The anger you think you see is most likely your own projection. I am not angry, I am simply firm about requiring evidence that is verifiable. And that is a very "fair" demand. It is expected by any rational, logical, empirically motivated observer. I'm not angry that what you think is evidence is merely an unsubstantiated opinion, anymore than I'm angry the Mormonism itself is based on unsubstantiated opinions. I don't actually care. Sadly, both your argument and the Mormon Church still fail in any logic based system. By the way, by pretending to know my emotions (which you obviously don't) you reveal your own lack of rational, logical thought and you reveal your desire to use ad hominems to oppose your opponent. It destroys your credibility as a debator. You are welcome to ask me how I feel but you are dead wrong to tell me how I feel. Telling someone what they feel is actually one of the signs of an abusive personality. (Not accusing you of being abusive -- simply noting a characteristic.)

//After all, I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking, just exercising my right on this board to express my OPINION.//

You didn't express it as an opinion, you expressed it as if it were a proven fact. That will generally be challenged in a debate.

//If you want to attack me, that's fine, I can take it, but at least accept what you are doing for what it is.//

The attacks are in your mind. I attack your argument, not you. Your argument is a miserable failure as far as logic goes.

//My opinions are based on what I have read. Troy's opinions are based on what he has read.//

Acutally, Troy's opinions are based on experience and years of education and training. Yours are based on your own desires (for what, I'm not sure). Troy has spent years learning logic, ethics, philosophy and has been challenged by far better debators than you are. And his "claims" are based on logic, social constructs and studies which can be referenced quite easily by anyone who honestly wants to learn about how polygamy is almost always practiced around the globe.

//Only one of us is being taken to task over proving sources, and that's because I have opinions that differ from yours.//

No, it's because I've seen Troy's evidence and because I'm capable of following the basic logic of an argument. I'm also quite capable of recognizing a deeply flawed argument. One of their notable qualities is that the debator with the flawed argument often resorts to attacks on their opponent and claims to be attacked absent any evidence.

Have you ever taken a logic, ethics or debate course? Are you aware of how to construct a logical argument? Do you understand the standard of proof for a claim?

I'm just curious here.

Thank you.

Until I see them up close and personal, living happily ever after, I won't speak to that little pipe dream.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 06:59PM by Cheryl.

Yes, I figure I'll shut up when they stop. But that's what it's going to take. And then there are people who don't have anything useful to add to the debate. They never shut up either, so I guess we're all in for the long haul.

I have to wonder about these folks who complain when someone else tries to look out for victims of abuse.

Troy Wrote:

> I have to wonder about these folks who complain
> when someone else tries to look out for victims of
> abuse.

I have to wonder about someone who gets up on his high horse and bent out of shape when someone has their own opinion, makes accusations of all sorts of fallacies, but what have you done here Troy? You have twisted my intent to fit your ad hominem here. Complaining about you looking out for victims of abuse? For real? Can you please show me exactly where I have done that? Because I think we both know that I did not do that. I just said that there are more definitions of polygamy than what you present. I also disagreed with your claim that it's somehow unfair to men when men have multiple wives. So are these men the victims of abuse that you are protecting, and I am complaining about that? Back up your claims, Troy.

I never said they were healthy and prosperous. I merely said CONSENSUAL. That's it. CONSENSUAL. Also initiated, partially, by the woman by virtue of seeking out the situation via polygamy dating site. If a woman enters into polygamy BY CHOICE with a partner OF HER CHOICE, then it does not meet the definition of polygamy per troy's paper on polygamy. My aim was to just add perspective outside of fundamental mormon polygamy, or get Troy to consider specifying the form of polygamy when he presents conditions as absolutes for the term.

So, I am sorry, I can offer no proof of the word that you (troy, rebeckah) have put in my mouth, I can only offer some back up for what I have been talking about, which is situations where the women join polgamy by consent, and those situations are outside of mormon fundamentalism.

I am not in any way an advocate of polygamy. I don't understand why anyone would want to be involved with it. I do know, however, that there are groups who do not operate like mormon fundamentalists.

So instances of dating sites for polgamy: http://pilegeshpersonals.com/
A forum about: http://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/index.php?sid=5fa3e7d46cd80b6acbd3227a15aa65c0
their argument for: http://biblicalfamilies.org/single_moms
These came from email archives, I will have to add to this when I get home and am at my own computer with bookmarks. It might come as an amazing shock to you, cheryl, and to troy and rebekah, but I do not keep links at the ready at work, just in case I happen to express my views here on this forum. Make of that what you will, I'm prepared for more ad hominem and twisting of my words from you three, specifically troy and rebekah, but I don't mind being a play thing for you guys, say what you want. Attack me for expressing my opinions. Twist my meanings. Take my words out of context.
Have fun with that you guys.

P,S. You know what's really funny, Troy did not cite a single source for data to back up his claims of population issues, etc. But god forbid I have my own input, and I am taken to task over it? That's incredibly scholarly, don't you think?

Even if that were true, it wouldn't mean that laws and services must support them when the practice harms individuals and undercuts family and society.

It's the best proof of consent there is!

Also, I never said or even implied that laws and services must support them!! I am strongly opposed to that!! For instance, I don't think that an employer should have to recognize someone's unofficial spouses for healthcare, etc. I don't think that someone's unofficial unions should be recognized for public services. This list is by no means inclusive, just examples. But when adults consent to being part of a lifestyle that they picked out for themselves, with people they've chosen, and nobody is being harmed (I do not agree with Troy's point that they are harming men by being taken out of the dating pool) or coerced into anything, and no system is being exploited, I don't think they are engaging in criminal or harmful behavior.

Never in any of my comments in the other post, or in this one, have I said that it should be legally recognized, or that they should be afforded services and resources based on this lifestyle. I only said that there are situation where the lifestyle is not harmful Creepy, and not something I would want to participate in, but there are tons of lifestyles I wouldn't want to participate in. Creepy, but not harmful. This is not my "little pipe dream" as you so patronizingly suggested. It's just another side of the coin.

Maybe Steve Benson is right, you all are soo against black and white thinking, unless it's your own black and white thinking. Anyone challenging that by pointing out grey areas is wrong and attacked.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 08:14PM by wittyname.

You claimed that MY assertion that polygamy as it is most commonly practiced involves coercion of women was false because:

//I don't have an ideal, there is no ideal with polygamy. I don't understand why someone would elect to practice it, but the reality is, many women DO elect to practice it, and there are many polygamous groups out there who are not the mormons, who do not pressure women into it, and who have dating sites set up to find partners, and many message boards dedicated to polygamists discussing their lives, etc. This is not some shangri la version I have dreamed up//

So if you didn't dream it up and there are many polygamous groups out there who are not the Mormons, (okay, I'll concede that point because it's factual) who do not pressure women into, (that I DON'T concede -- there might be a few but you've shown evidence of none).

It doesn't matter if they have dating sites and/or message boards -- I want some evidence that these Shangri La polygamist groups you claim exist actually exist.

Right now you're making baseless claims (interspersed with ad hominem attacks on someone who has a stance you disagree with) and whining about persection (albeit not in those exact words).

Where would that be?

There are also websites for Scientology, multi-level-marketing schemes, and every kind of fraud known to man.

That's really not the point, is it? Are you saying that any woman who reads that and decides it appeals to her is just a duped victim? All of them? Nobody is coercing them to join, if it looks good to them, then they joined of their own volition. The forum is FULL of threads from women looking for introductions. The dating site has profiles posted by women. But according to you, there is absolutely no reasonable explanation for their attraction to that lifestyle other than them being duped victims?

Scientology is not a good lifestyle/choice for many people, but others are perfectly happy with it. Many people lose their shirts with MLMs, but others succeed with them, etc.

Your rebuttal is simply projection.

There's really nothing I can say, no proof that I can give, that you will accept. Because you can not leave your own values at the door, and put aside your past experiences with a(n admittedly large) segment of the polygamous population, and based on that, you will accept no proof of consent, regardless of what I say or link to.

Ok. You win. My OPINIONS are wrong. I shall humbly run my opinions by you in the future next time I dare have an actual independent opinion. I shall make sure they are Cheryl and scholar certified before expressing them, too.

(of course that won't be the end of this from you will it?)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 09:30PM by wittyname.

Please, play the victim card a little louder. I'm impressed.

+1