K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
nobodys_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter
shoudl polyandry be banned?

There are some points I forgot to include in my previous response.

The reason such arrangements are against the law is that our
society has decided to define "marriage" as one woman and one man
joined in a legally-sanctioned way, protected by the
laws of the
various levels of government.

And part of the reason they have done this is to prevent
intra-family breeding.

There's nothing to prevent a

*simultaneous*

multi-spouse arrangement, as
long as
those involved don't demand government sanction and
protection.

In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple
spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when
divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made
legally difficult in most places. That's all changed.

However Christian principles were the
basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early
American law.

The polygamist folks you mention are all Christians. Not Muslims,
Jews, pagans, agnostics, Wiccans or atheists.

Do you know of any nonChristian groups in the USA advocating polygamy,
Steve?

--

The main obstacles to simultaneous-multi-spouse arrangements that I can
see a

- Peer/societal pressure
- Personal preference of most people regardless of religion
- It's tough enough for two people to get along in a marriage (how many
US marriages end in divorce?). How are three or more
supposed to make it work?

I'm not saying that polygamy or polyandry or any other
multi-simultaneous-spouse situation should be legal or illegal. All I'm
saying is that the laws governing marriage are not so much derived from
"Christian" principles as they are derived from
society's overall concept of family structure, regardless of religion.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple
spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when
divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made
legally difficult in most places. That's all changed.

Yes, it has...and it shouldn't have, but then that's a trade-off to
civility that we surrendered for the "Sexual Revolution" in the 60's.

However Christian principles were the
basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early
American law.

The polygamist folks you mention are all Christians.

Those particular ones are...Well..let me ammend that to say they
CLAIM they are...

Not Muslims, Jews, pagans, agnostics, Wiccans or atheists.

Do you know of any nonChristian groups in the USA advocating polygamy,
Steve?

Not off the top of my head, Jim, but then even if there were, my
response would be the same.

The main obstacles to simultaneous-multi-spouse arrangements that I can
see a

- Peer/societal pressure
- Personal preference of most people regardless of religion
- It's tough enough for two people to get along in a marriage (how many
US marriages end in divorce?). How are three or more
supposed to make it work?

I'm not saying that polygamy or polyandry or any other
multi-simultaneous-spouse situation should be legal or illegal. All I'm
saying is that the laws governing marriage are not so much derived from
"Christian" principles as they are derived from
society's overall concept of family structure, regardless of religion.

You still side-stepped the poverty issue, Jim.

And yes, laws governing marriage and the structure of the basic
family unit in THIS country were derived from Christian principles.
American History 101 refers.

73

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple
spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when
divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made
legally difficult in most places. That's all changed.

Yes, it has...and it shouldn't have, but then that's a
trade-off to
civility that we surrendered for the "Sexual Revolution"
in the 60's.

Please explain "tradeoff to civility"?

As for the sexual revolution, I'd say the climb in divorce rates
is/was much more connected to women's liberation and changing
expectations.

And here's a fun fact: The divorce rate in the USA tends to be
*highest* in the "red/conservative/Bible Belt" states, and *lowest* in
the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast" states.

However Christian principles were the
basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early
American law.

The polygamist folks you mention are all Christians.

Those particular ones are...Well..let me ammend that to say they
CLAIM they are...

What are the criteria for the CLAIM to be valid?

I don't recall any prohibition against multiple spouses in the
"New" Testament. Do you know of any?

The "Old" Testament is full of polygamous families.

The "New" Testament does include a clear prohibition against
divorce, however. Yet all of the "mainstream Christian religions" have
found a way around it. Most simply recognize civil divorces
as the end of a marriage. Roman Catholicism plays a semantic game
(called "annulment") where they declare that a valid marriage never
existed.

Not Muslims, Jews, pagans, agnostics, Wiccans or atheists.

Do you know of any nonChristian groups in the USA advocating polygamy, Steve?

Not off the top of my head, Jim, but then even if there were, my
response would be the same.

My point is that monogamy isn't necessarily part of Christianity.

The main obstacles to simultaneous-multi-spouse arrangements that I can see a

- Peer/societal pressure
- Personal preference of most people regardless of religion
- It's tough enough for two people to get along in a marriage (how many
US marriages end in divorce?). How are three or more
supposed to make it work?

I'm not saying that polygamy or polyandry or any other
multi-simultaneous-spouse situation should be legal or
illegal. All I'm
saying is that the laws governing marriage are not so much
derived from
"Christian" principles as they are derived from
society's overall concept of family structure, regardless of religion.

You still side-stepped the poverty issue, Jim.

Then I'll have another go at it.

Polygamy doesn't necessarily mean poverty.

When I was a kid, I knew plenty of families with 8, 10, 12 kids,
and only the father worked outside the home. Those families were
not well-to-do but they weren't in poverty either. Today such
families are rare, for a whole bunch of reasons, none of them
have to do with legal restrictions on family size.

Divorce is often financially devastating to those involved because
the same earning power goes to support two households. Yet divorces
remain easy to get. How many families exist in the USA where one spouse
is paying child support and/or alimony to a former spouse, plus
supporting a current spouse and kids? Yet there's no law against it.

There have been a few documented cases of hidden polygamy, where
a man had multiple wives in different locations who did not know about
each other. Poverty was not the rule in those cases.

You've pointed out those isolated polygamous communities as
proof of the poverty=polygamy connection, as if that's the only
way polygamy could exist. But that's not the case - one can imagine a
polygamous family where all the adults have jobs outside the home and a
reasonable number of kids. Of course
most people I know would never choose to be part of such a
relationship!

And yes, laws governing marriage and the structure of the basic
family unit in THIS country were derived from Christian
principles.

Which "Christian principles"? See above about NT rules about marriage.

American History 101 refers.

Most of the Founders were nominally Christians, but that doesn't
mean everything they did came from Christianity.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple
spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when
divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made
legally difficult in most places. That's all changed.

Yes, it has...and it shouldn't have, but then that's a
trade-off to
civility that we surrendered for the "Sexual Revolution"
in the 60's.

Please explain "tradeoff to civility"?

As for the sexual revolution, I'd say the climb in divorce rates
is/was much more connected to women's liberation and changing
expectations.

both are the same thing

And here's a fun fact: The divorce rate in the USA tends to be
*highest* in the "red/conservative/Bible Belt" states, and *lowest* in
the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast" states.

which says interesting thing about the people there in both places, the
bible belter are less likely to maintain here vows made before god than
liberals, interesting

However Christian principles were the
basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early
American law.

The polygamist folks you mention are all Christians.

Those particular ones are...Well..let me ammend that to say they
CLAIM they are...

What are the criteria for the CLAIM to be valid?

I don't recall any prohibition against multiple spouses in the
"New" Testament. Do you know of any?

The "Old" Testament is full of polygamous families.

The "New" Testament does include a clear prohibition against
divorce, however. Yet all of the "mainstream Christian religions" have
found a way around it. Most simply recognize civil divorces
as the end of a marriage. Roman Catholicism plays a semantic game
(called "annulment") where they declare that a valid marriage never
existed.

Not Muslims, Jews, pagans, agnostics, Wiccans or atheists.

Do you know of any nonChristian groups in the USA advocating polygamy, Steve?

Not off the top of my head, Jim, but then even if there were, my
response would be the same.

My point is that monogamy isn't necessarily part of Christianity.

The main obstacles to simultaneous-multi-spouse arrangements that I can see a

- Peer/societal pressure
- Personal preference of most people regardless of religion
- It's tough enough for two people to get along in a marriage (how many
US marriages end in divorce?). How are three or more
supposed to make it work?

I'm not saying that polygamy or polyandry or any other
multi-simultaneous-spouse situation should be legal or
illegal. All I'm
saying is that the laws governing marriage are not so much
derived from
"Christian" principles as they are derived from
society's overall concept of family structure, regardless of religion.

You still side-stepped the poverty issue, Jim.

Then I'll have another go at it.

Polygamy doesn't necessarily mean poverty.

When I was a kid, I knew plenty of families with 8, 10, 12 kids,
and only the father worked outside the home. Those families were
not well-to-do but they weren't in poverty either. Today such
families are rare, for a whole bunch of reasons, none of them
have to do with legal restrictions on family size.

Divorce is often financially devastating to those involved because
the same earning power goes to support two households. Yet divorces
remain easy to get. How many families exist in the USA where one spouse
is paying child support and/or alimony to a former spouse, plus
supporting a current spouse and kids? Yet there's no law against it.

There have been a few documented cases of hidden polygamy, where
a man had multiple wives in different locations who did not know about
each other. Poverty was not the rule in those cases.

You've pointed out those isolated polygamous communities as
proof of the poverty=polygamy connection, as if that's the only
way polygamy could exist. But that's not the case - one can imagine a
polygamous family where all the adults have jobs outside the home and a
reasonable number of kids. Of course
most people I know would never choose to be part of such a
relationship!

And yes, laws governing marriage and the structure of the basic
family unit in THIS country were derived from Christian
principles.

Which "Christian principles"? See above about NT rules about marriage.

American History 101 refers.

Most of the Founders were nominally Christians, but that doesn't
mean everything they did came from Christianity.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
oups.com...

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple
spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when
divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made
legally difficult in most places. That's all changed.

Yes, it has...and it shouldn't have, but then that's a
trade-off to
civility that we surrendered for the "Sexual Revolution"
in the 60's.

Please explain "tradeoff to civility"?

As for the sexual revolution, I'd say the climb in divorce rates
is/was much more connected to women's liberation and changing
expectations.

And here's a fun fact: The divorce rate in the USA tends to be
*highest* in the "red/conservative/Bible Belt" states, and *lowest* in
the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast" states.


Perhaps that is because some of the conservatives push too hard on their
children to "save themselves" for marriage so they rush into marriage
without knowing their partner well enough? Of course this is just
speculation, but an idea to consider.

Another possibility is that in the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast"
groups, it is OK simply to live together and when they break up, there is no
need for divorce since they were never married in the first place.

I think I remember reading that Margaret Meade had proposed a system where
there would be a "trial marriage" for a period of time before having a
regular marriage. If I remember correctly, the trial marriage would have an
automatic expiration and one would have to go through the marriage ceremony
or whatever to continue the marriage. The idea being that one could better
determine if this was the person with whom they really wanted to spend the
rest of their life. I've always thought the idea had some merit.

One way or another, marriage customs grow out the needs of the particular
society. In times and places where the number of men and women is
approximately equal and there is not a great discrepancy in the wealth of
men in the society, monogamy tends to be the norm. Where there are
significantly more women than men, polygamy becomes quite common. Or if
there are a few very wealthy men, polygamy may develop as part of showing
off their wealth or power. In some American Indian tribes, monogamy was the
norm yet a man was required, if his brother died, to take his brother's wife
as his own even if he had a wife already.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple
spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when
divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made
legally difficult in most places. That's all changed.

Yes, it has...and it shouldn't have, but then that's a
trade-off to
civility that we surrendered for the "Sexual Revolution"
in the 60's.

Please explain "tradeoff to civility"?

As for the sexual revolution, I'd say the climb in divorce
rates
is/was much more connected to women's liberation and changing
expectations.

And here's a fun fact: The divorce rate in the USA tends to be
*highest* in the "red/conservative/Bible Belt" states, and
*lowest* in
the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast" states.

Perhaps that is because some of the conservatives push too hard on their
children to "save themselves" for marriage so they rush into
marriage
without knowing their partner well enough? Of course this is
just speculation, but an idea to consider.

I'd say that's one factor. Expressed perfectly in the
classic Meat Loaf hit, "Paradise By The Dashboard Light"

Would you buy a car that you'd never driven, or a pair of shoes
you'd never tried on? Particularly if they were supposed to last
you for the rest of your life?

Another possibility is that in
the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast"
groups, it is OK simply to live together and when
they break up, there is no
need for divorce since they were never married in
the first place.

Sure.

I think I remember reading that Margaret Meade had proposed
a system where
there would be a "trial marriage" for a period of time
before having a
regular marriage. If I remember correctly, the trial
marriage would have an
automatic expiration and one would have to go through
the marriage ceremony
or whatever to continue the marriage. The idea being
that one could better
determine if this was the person with whom they really
wanted to spend the
rest of their life. I've always thought the idea had some
merit.

Heck, go the whole route: Allow marriage licenses to expire every so
many years, and both parties would have to agree to renew them.

One way or another, marriage customs grow out the needs of the particular
society. In times and places where the number of men and women is
approximately equal and there is not a great discrepancy in the wealth of
men in the society, monogamy tends to be the norm. Where there are
significantly more women than men, polygamy becomes quite
common. Or if
there are a few very wealthy men, polygamy may develop as part of showing
off their wealth or power. In some American Indian tribes,
monogamy was the
norm yet a man was required, if his brother died, to take his
brother's wife
as his own even if he had a wife already.

I did not know that!

IIRC there was a similar requirement in the Bible - if a man with a
brother died with no male heir and left a wife of childbearing
age, the brother was required to...ummm.... step in for his dead
brother until a male heir was produced, so the dead brother's
line would not be wiped out. After that the widow could marry
again if desired. That practice was abandoned long ago.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

And here's a fun fact: The divorce rate in the USA tends to be
*highest* in the "red/conservative/Bible Belt" states, and *lowest* in
the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast" states.

Why is that "fun?"

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
nobodys_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter
shoudl polyandry be banned?

There are some points I forgot to include in my previous response.

The reason such arrangements are against the law is that our
society has decided to define "marriage" as one woman and one man
joined in a legally-sanctioned way, protected by the
laws of the
various levels of government.

And part of the reason they have done this is to prevent
intra-family breeding.

There's nothing to prevent a

*simultaneous*

multi-spouse arrangement, as
long as
those involved don't demand government sanction and
protection.

In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple
spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when
divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made
legally difficult in most places. That's all changed.

However Christian principles were the
basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early
American law.

The polygamist folks you mention are all Christians. Not Muslims,
Jews, pagans, agnostics, Wiccans or atheists.

Do you know of any nonChristian groups in the USA advocating polygamy,
Steve?

I beleive Steve would claim that the Mormans are not christain, and he
would have a point based on the academic view in saying that Chtrians
of the Ctahloic Orthodox and prodestant strips are a dirrent religion
than the mormon based on having very defferent diety concepts

--

The main obstacles to simultaneous-multi-spouse arrangements that I can
see a

- Peer/societal pressure

not as much as you might think (or perhaps not as much as may have
been)
I know plenty of gruops that are in most terms in multi spouse
arrangements, mostly chrisatian though

- Personal preference of most people regardless of religion
- It's tough enough for two people to get along in a marriage (how many
US marriages end in divorce?). How are three or more
supposed to make it work?

but they are general good point

I'm not saying that polygamy or polyandry or any other
multi-simultaneous-spouse situation should be legal or illegal. All I'm
saying is that the laws governing marriage are not so much derived from
"Christian" principles as they are derived from
society's overall concept of family structure, regardless of religion.

which was set down and enforced by the Church in the Middle ages

73 de Jim, N2EY

nobodys_old_friend wrote:

I beleive Steve would claim that the Mormans are not christain, and he
would have a point based on the academic view in saying that Chtrians
of the Ctahloic Orthodox and prodestant strips are a dirrent religion
than the mormon based on having very defferent diety concepts

"believe" "Christian" "Christian [a different abuse of]

"Catholic" "Protestant" "different" "different [again]"

Markie.....

H O O K E D O N P H O N I C S

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
nobodys_old_friend wrote:

I beleive Steve would claim that the Mormans are not christain, and he
would have a point based on the academic view in saying that Chtrians
of the Ctahloic Orthodox and prodestant strips are a dirrent religion
than the mormon based on having very defferent diety concepts
cuting your spelling cop again

H O O K E D O N P H O N I C S
better to need than Hooked on being a control freak

You need to control the way everyone in the nation is allowed to live
their lives

Steve, K4YZ