Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Do a little research on polygamy, especially the kind practiced by Jeffs and other splinter Mormon groups like his. We're not talking "free love" or swingers here. We're talking a patriarchal system that marries off young girls to the elder men of the community, regardless of their feelings about the situation. And then uses religion to guilt/shame/scare them into compliance. This is precisely the sort of abusive religious community that we were talking about in this very thread a few weeks back.

From the article:

Audiotapes seized from his car and the church's Yearning For Zion Ranch compound in Eldorado, Texas, and played for jurors during his trial, depicted Jeffs offering "celestial marriage" instructions to the young wives, according to prosecutors.

"You have to know how to be sexually excited and to help each other ... and you have to be ready for the time I need your comfort," a man's voice says. "This is your mission. This is how you abide the law.

At one point, the man says, "Take your clothes off. Do it right now," followed by the sounds of crying.

"Just don't think about the pain; you're going to heaven," the man says.

Does that sound consensual to you?? 

There's open-mindedness, and then there's just naivete.

[Kay12]

Oh for pete's sake that's bad logic.

If you're going to condemn all polygamous relationships as non-consensual child-molestation because of that, why are you letting monogamy off so easily? Mind you, plenty of forced marriages there as well!

[Heliman]

Do a little research on polygamy, especially the kind practiced by Jeffs and other splinter Mormon groups like his. We're not talking "free love" or swingers here. We're talking a patriarchal system that marries off young girls to the elder men of the community, regardless of their feelings about the situation. And then uses religion to guilt/shame/scare them into compliance. This is precisely the sort of abusive religious community that we were talking about in this very thread a few weeks back.

From the article:

Audiotapes seized from his car and the church's Yearning For Zion Ranch compound in Eldorado, Texas, and played for jurors during his trial, depicted Jeffs offering "celestial marriage" instructions to the young wives, according to prosecutors.

"You have to know how to be sexually excited and to help each other ... and you have to be ready for the time I need your comfort," a man's voice says. "This is your mission. This is how you abide the law.

At one point, the man says, "Take your clothes off. Do it right now," followed by the sounds of crying.

"Just don't think about the pain; you're going to heaven," the man says.

Does that sound consensual to you?? 

There's open-mindedness, and then there's just naivete.

You're right, we should ban marriage.

[ChairmanPoo]

What they said. They pretty much stated from the start that they had no problem with polygamy between consensual adults. That leaves abusers of any denomination out of the blanket.

[kaijyuu]

So, you're not actually condemning polygamy, but rather forced marriage?

Sounds fine to me. Guess we just need to watch our word choice, eh?

[Kay12]

I'm not sure how it's even possible to draw the conclusion anyone in this thread supported forced polygamy.

[RedKing]

Oh for pete's sake that's bad logic.

If you're going to condemn all polygamous relationships as non-consensual child-molestation because of that, why are you letting monogamy off so easily? Mind you, plenty of forced marriages there as well!

Jesus wept....maybe Andir was onto something, after all. 

Re-read what I said. The initial complaint was that I labelled Warren Jeffs a polygamist in the same sentence as I labelled him a child rapist. Both assertions were correct, and they are not independent of each other. His practice of polygamy crosses the line into child rape.

This was compared to mentioning the race of an attacker and victim as a deliberate incitement of racism. To which I again disagreed, noting that unlike skin color, polygamy is a personal choice (at least for the men) and is not legally permissible in the United States, or indeed in most industrialized nations. Polygamy in less developed societies is an entirely different issue (although often prone to abuse there as well).

When I pointed out that the evidence in this particular case (and that was the context this mini-shitstorm started off with -- objection to my labelling this one man a polygamist *and* child rapist) strongly suggests NON-CONSENSUAL CHILD RAPE, I get huffy hyperbolic reactions saying we should ban all marriage then. I yield to superior....whatever the hell you guys are using, cause it sure ain't logic.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think you are misunderstanding their point. They argue, and I agree, that nonwithstanding it's current legal status, there's nothing inherently immoral about poligamy (or poliandry, for that matter) per se.

[Vector]

a. We generally have women's studies, but not "men's studies," because everything else is men's studies.  I am somewhat disheartened by whoever said we should have men's studies instead, because they'd be a lot more interesting.  Might want to check that privilege, there.  I don't call you, your history, and your ancestors boring to your face, do I?

Oh, and maybe if we taught about all the stuff women have done, it'd be easier to think of us as something other than boring.

b. Rape jokes are impermissible in this thread.  Period.  This is an official warning.

c. I actually think a legalization of male rape would hurt men more than women, because it will be assumed that the rapists are male and the victim is weak, gay, etc.  But in any case, I think this is one of those instances where we'd sure as hell better go ahead and think of men as human beings.

d. I support poly* relationships.  On the other hand, I also define that relationship as a relationship, not any silly shit where some dude owns thirteen brides and treats them all like trash.  Love is love.

More gender equality -> apparently more sexual activity!  Who'd have thought of it ?!

Breezy and potentially offensive explanation of the above

Attitudes towards circumcision changing!

[Bauglir]

Well, this is very swiftly becoming the "I didn't mean it that way" thread[/well aware of the hypocrisy].

RedKing, I see where they're coming from; that he was a polygamist here is relevant only in that it allowed him to rape multiple children under the guise of marriage. The analogy to racism is valid, because choice isn't the issue (even if skin color was a choice, being black wouldn't be a poor one unless you take into account how jackasses tend to treat you), nor is legality relevant (because legality is not equivalent to morality).

That said, I can't support polygamy except in principle. Like pornography and prostitution, while I don't see anything inherently wrong with it, we as a culture have cocked up the practice of it so badly that not only is it overwhelmingly damaging to women, people expect it to be. Until that's no longer true, it's really something we're not sufficiently mature to handle. And because of how awful it almost always ends up being, I can't really fault people for assuming that when talking about polygamy, they're talking about the types of polygamy that are so prevalent.

Pre-Edit: Now to read links.

[Nadaka]

Polygamy has nothing to do with his other crimes. There are plenty of "monogamous" cult leaders and child abusers.

Just like being black has nothing to do with committing robbery and being gay has nothing to do ith being a catholic priest.

polygamy is illegal for the same reason as homosexual marriage and activty has been and still is. The same has been true for interracial relationships. A majority religious group at the time believed it to be immoral.

I wasn't accusing you of doing anything intentionally. I was pointing out that it made me uncomfortable.

[Truean]

I dunno how I feel about "Poly" relationships. I grant you, I'm strictly monogamous and maybe that's my bias.

Forgetting about half of Shakespeare, I don't know if people can handle this stuff. After all the "heat of passion" defense lowers murder to voluntary manslaughter if say... you catch your lover in bed with someone else and blow them both away.... It happens so much it's an incredibly widely recognized and legit legal defense.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_passion

Another problem is that shit like this seems to happen a lot and poligamy provides a wider pool of victims with greater ability to cover up the crime:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/polygamist-cult-leader-convicted-of-child-sex-abuse-20110805-1ie71.html

Also seriously consider this from an administrative view: divorce, benefits, tax code, down the rabbit hole we go.... Do you divorce just one of your spouses or all of them? Who would pay child/spousal support and to whom? Are they all liable for each other's debts and tax obligations through marriage? Can you have interlocking poli marriages where two different poli groups have certain members married to one another but not others? This part is a very complex and legit concern whether you are for or against.

It really doesn't seem to be well planned out to be perfectly honest because there are a lot of open questions. Whereas gay marriage just makes one well defined change. How do you define the difference between:

"On the other hand, I also define that relationship as a relationship, not any silly shit where some dude owns thirteen brides and treats them all like trash."

I can't help being scared that it provides a way to let women be treated like property....

Some heterosexual monogamous marriages in incredibly abusive but nontheless are still considered marriages.

Thoughts?

[Vector]

I read something somewhere that suggested an ability to redefine one's family/tax benefits as one's household, thus completely changing marriage in terms of law.

Dunno about any of this, really, though.  I'm not sure I'm talking about marriage so much as simple relationships.  And furthermore, how do we define the difference between "a man owns a bride and treats her like trash" and "a man and a woman are in a great, wonderful, loving egalitarian relationship," anyway?  We somehow manage...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Dunno about any of this, really, though.  I'm not sure I'm talking about marriage so much as simple relationships.  And furthermore, how do we define the difference between "a man owns a bride and treats her like trash" and "a man and a woman are in a great, wonderful, loving egalitarian relationship," anyway?

Unilateral divorce proceedings and abuse protection services.

[Truean]

I read something somewhere that suggested an ability to redefine one's family/tax benefits as one's household, thus completely changing marriage in terms of law.

Dunno about any of this, really, though.  I'm not sure I'm talking about marriage so much as simple relationships.  And furthermore, how do we define the difference between "a man owns a bride and treats her like trash" and "a man and a woman are in a great, wonderful, loving egalitarian relationship," anyway?  We somehow manage...

With the utmost respect Vector, do we manage?

Some heterosexual monogamous marriages are incredibly abusive but nontheless are still considered marriages. Spousal abuse is spousal abuse because the abused party is a spouse and thus the marriage is valid....

As for everyone getting to define their own deal ... perhaps in a perfect world. I do not know how that would play out in terms of proving things. I suppose theoretically one could try to do that with contract but wow that would be messy. Family Law is a nightmare now as it is.... I hope if we go down this road, someone gives it a lot of thought beforehand, because this would legitimately require that....

Unilateral divorce proceedings and abuse protection services.

Family Law is a mess. Abuse does not end a marriage until and unless one of the parties files for divorce and it is a real feat convincing them to do so sometimes. Not cut and dry....

"But I love him," the bruised woman says....
"The marks of his affections don't suit you...."