The New Trend of Threesome Marriages - Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and Polygamy
tj
Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
Polygamy)
The Daily Beast ^ | May 7, 2009 | Abby Ellin
Posted on 09 May 2009 07:13:24 by 2ndDivisionVet
First came traditional marriage. Then, gay marriage. Now, there's a
movement combining both—simultaneously. Abby Ellin visits the next
frontier of nuptials: the "triad."
Less than 18 months ago, Sasha Lessin and Janet Kira Lessin gathered
before their friends near their home in Maui, and proclaimed their
love for one another. Nothing unusual about that—Sasha, 68, and Janet,
55—were legally married in 2000. Rather, this public commitment
ceremony was designed to also bind them to Shivaya, their new 60-
something "husband." Says Sasha: “I want to walk down the street hand
in hand in hand in hand and live together openly and proclaim our
relationship. But also to have all those survivor and visitation
rights and tax breaks and everything like that.”
Maine this week became the fifth state, and the fourth in New England,
to legalize gay marriage, provoking yet another national debate about
same-sex unions. The Lessins' advocacy group, the Maui-based World
Polyamory Association, is pushing for the next frontier of less-
traditional codified relationships. This community has even come up
with a name for what the rest of the world generally would call a
committed threesome: the "triad."
Unlike open marriages and the swinger days of the 1960s and 1970s,
these unions are not about sex with multiple outside partners. Nor are
they relationships where one person is involved with two others, who
are not involved with each other, a la actress Tilda Swinton. That's
closer to bigamy. Instead, triads—"triangular triads," to use precise
polyamorous jargon—demand that all three parties have full
relationships, including sexual, with each other. In the Lessins case,
that can be varying pairs but, as Sasha, a psychologist, puts it,
"Janet loves it when she gets a double decker." In a triad, there
would be no doubt in Elizabeth Edwards’ mind whether her husband
fathered a baby out of wedlock; she likely would have participated in
it.
There are no statistics or studies out there, but according to Robyn
Trask, the executive director of Loving More, a nonprofit organization
in Loveland (yes, really), Colorado, dedicated to poly-education and
support, about 25 percent of the estimated 50,000 self-identified
polyamorists in the U.S. live together in semi-wedded bliss. A
disproportionate number of them are baby boomers. (Paging Timothy
Leary: Janet Lessin claims on her Web site that she's able to travel
astrally.)
As with a couple, the key to making a triad work is communication. The
Lessins' group specifically advocates something called "compersion":
taking joy in another person's joy. Thus, they know how to process
jealousy. “We don’t have anything take place off-stage,” says Sasha
Lessin. “You witness your lover making googly eyes and you share your
feelings. It’s not difficult for most people to be compersive once
they feel they’re not being abandoned.”
Like most people in the poly community, the Lessins, who also helm the
school of tantra (they take pleasure of the flesh quite seriously),
take great pains to discuss pretty much everything. Some people even
write up their agreements like a traditional prenup, detailing
everything from communal economics to cohabitation rules. And buoyed
by an increasing acceptance of same-sex unions, others want more legal
protections. "We should have every right to inherit from each other
and visit each other—I don’t care what you call it, we’re not second-
class citizens!” says Janet Lessin. “Any people who wish to form a
marriage with all the rights and duties of a marriage should have the
legal right to. The spurious arguments of marriage being for
procreation of children is ridiculous.”
That said, Valerie White, executive director of the Sexual Freedom
Legal Defense and Education Fund, a legal-defense fund for people with
alternative sexual expression in Sharon, Massachusetts, says she
believes that triads are actually a great way to raise a family.
"Years ago, children didn’t get raised in dyads, they got raised with
grandparents and aunts and uncles—it was much looser and more village-
like," says White. "I think a lot more people are finding that
polyamory is a way to recapture that kind of support.” For a year,
Loving More's Trask and her then-husband were both involved with
another woman, who was a part of the family. Trask's three children
knew all about it. “I’m totally out,” says Trask.
Many others aren't. Larry, Rachel and Andie would only talk to me
anonymously, due to the fact that Rachel, 47, works at large,
traditional financial institution in Manhattan. Larry, 56, met her on
a commuter ferry two years ago. At the time, Larry was a member of
Poly-NYC, a polyamory group in New York; on their first date, he told
her about it. Rachel had just gotten out of a year-and-a-half-long
relationship with, unbeknownst to her, a married man. “I was so
overwhelmed with Larry’s honesty," she says, "I said to him, ‘I need
to look that up and understand it.'"
A few months later, they met Andie, 56 at a poly retreat in upstate
New York. Andie has been has practiced "multi-partnering" since the
early '90s, and was giving a talk on the subject. Rachel turned to
Larry and said ‘Wow, that’s someone I would turn poly for!’ “She was
so elegant and classy. I just felt she was a beautiful person.”
While Larry, on the other hand, was not especially attracted to Andie,
he was fully supportive of Rachel exploring her attraction. She
didn’t, but ran into Andie at a few other events. Andie, in turn,
began noticing the quality of the relationship between Larry and
Rachel. “They didn’t just go to those meetings and do what happens to
other poly partners, that they disappear from each other,” she says.
“They stayed together.”
Three months ago, they reconnected at yet another retreat, and this
time the three bonded on an emotional level. So they decided to figure
out how to make a three-way relationship work. This involves weekly
conference calls where they discuss the tenets of the relationship
(honestly, respect, communication, jealousy) and agree to undergo
blood tests for STDs. They talk about what they want out of life, and
each other. “There are people who’ve been married 20 years and never
had these kinds of conversation,” says Andie. “I feel blessed.”
Akien MacIain and his wife, Dawn Davidson, have been counseling dyads,
triads, quads and once even a quint, in San Francisco for over a
decade. On their Web site, they offer tips for creating agreements—
among them, “Use Time Limited Agreements Where Needed” (i.e., two
weeks, two months, and so on) and “Check in Periodically; Renegotiate
if Needed.”
“A triad is a series of dyads, but it’s more complicated because if
I’m in a relationship with one other person, there’s my relationship
with the other person, her relationship with me, and the relationship
that each of us has to the couple,” says MacIain. “When you make it a
triad there are four factorial connections. It’s very hard.”
And yet some make it work. Doug Carr, Robert Hill, and Paul Wilson
have been a happy threesome for 29 years. The three men, who live
outside Austin, Texas, share a bed, a checking account, and joint real-
estate properties in each of their names—“a left-handed form of
cementing the relationship in a legal context,” says Hill, 69, a
retired financier (because of their arrangement, they, too, requested
I use pseudonyms). Their ranch is split three ways; they call
themselves “husbands” and wear matching wedding bands. Back in 1980,
when they met at a furniture store in Dallas, Hill and Wilson were a
confirmed dyad for 10 years. Carr, now an assistant dean at a local
college, fell for both of them; they developed a friendship, which
soon turned to love.
Wilson, 61, a consulting engineer for the health-care community,
admits that initially he was less gung ho. “I thought, how is this
going to turn out? You can’t read an article in Readers Digest,
‘Twelve Ways to make a Triad Work.’" He finally saw the light on a
trip to Vienna the three men took. “I decided to go for it. I turned
to them and said, ‘I love you,’ and I love you,’ and let’s make it
work.”
They held a commitment ceremony in 1984 for 20 friends, and then a
reception for 200 in their house, where we “introduced ourselves to
the world as a triad,” says Carr, 49. They would like to marry
legally, though they are not holding their breath that it will happen
any time soon.
“As far as we’re concerned, in the eyes of God we’re already married—
and from an economic standpoint, we’ve taken that as far as we can, ”
says Hill.
Despite the fact that they are also “Dad, Daddy and Pappa” to the 4-
year-old quadruplets Carr sired with a lesbian couple, they actually
see themselves as quite traditional. “We’ve patterned our relationship
on the relationships of our parents,” says Hill. “So many gay people
throw away all the values they learned at home. Some are worth
throwing away, but a lot are not."
“The crux of all this,” he says, "is commitment.”
jcon
Yes, much healthier to have a spouse and a homosexual
lover on the side, like a good Christian would.
-jc
raven1
wrote:
>Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
>Polygamy)
And anyone should care why?
JohnN
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2247423/posts
>
> Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
> Polygamy)
>
> The Daily Beast ^ | May 7, 2009 | Abby Ellin
>
> Posted on 09 May 2009 07:13:24 by 2ndDivisionVet
>
> First came traditional marriage.
Wrong from the get go and not surprising. Historically and ,more
importantly, Biblically, men have had multiple wives and concubines on
the side. All with the blessings of God.
JohnN
LC
One trick pony's ass "tj" <timjo...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:443c7548-14dc-46dc...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
<another idiotic Freeper piece>
Hey Timmy, they're here, they're queer, and there's _nothing_ you can do
about it.
Stew on that.
haiku jones
Good. Glad to hear it.
Thanks for the good news.
Haiku Jones
Anlatt the Builder
person mixed-sex marriage (what they're calling "traditional
marriage") - for several thousand YEARS before the current flap over
same-sex marriage.
A number of highly respected Biblical patriarchs, beloved of God, had
more than one wife.
This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
Budikka666
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2247423/posts
>
> Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
> Polygamy)
I don't see any atheists having a problem with that, although what
this has to do with your SPAMMING rec.arts.sf.composition,
alt.abortion, and alt.california with this is a mystery.
Budikka
--sexkitten--
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2247423/posts
>
> Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
> Polygamy)
Sounds great! So...what's the problem here, exactly?
Frito Pendejo
Well, for one, gay rights advocates viciously denounced
suggestions that legalization of same-sex marriage would
eventually lead to legalization of polygamy, alienating
polygamous Mormons and losing a potential ally in their legal
crusade.
And after Proposition 8 won in California, gay rights advocates
responded by attacking the 'mainstream' Mormon church, making
fun of its former polygamist practices, and further alienating
the polygamist splinter faction that would have made a good ally.
Since the debate on gay marriage began, the position of the gay
rights activists is that same-sex marriage is a natural
extension of 'traditional' heterosexual marriage, and that
polygamy - which has existed since ancient history and is still
practiced in many cultures today - is somehow 'unnatural' and
should remain illegal.
Jimbo
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2247423/posts
>
> Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
> Polygamy)
>
> The Daily Beast ^ | May 7, 2009 | Abby Ellin
>
> Posted on 09 May 2009 07:13:24 by 2ndDivisionVet
>
> First came traditional marriage. Then, gay marriage. Now, there's a
> movement combining both—simultaneously. Abby Ellin visits the next
> frontier of nuptials: the "triad."
You do know that threesomes and moresomes marriages has been around
for thousands of years, right?
Jimbo
> > wrote:
>
> >> Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
> >> Polygamy)
>
> > And anyone should care why?
>
> Well, for one, gay rights advocates viciously denounced
> suggestions that legalization of same-sex marriage would
> eventually lead to legalization of polygamy, alienating
> polygamous Mormons and losing a potential ally in their legal
> crusade.
No, gay rights advocates have viciously denounce no such thing. Gay
rights advocates have stated time and again that poligamist marriages
are not tied to same sex marriage, and those that want it would have
to prove their case for it.
>
> And after Proposition 8 won in California, gay rights advocates
> responded by attacking the 'mainstream' Mormon church,
Possibly because the Mormon Church pumped millions into their
political arm to push prop 8 thorugh.
Frito Pendejo
> On Jan 6, 9:26 pm, Frito Pendejo <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote:
>> raven1 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:33:13 -0800 (PST), tj <timjone...@hushmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
>>>> Polygamy)
>>> And anyone should care why?
>> Well, for one, gay rights advocates viciously denounced
>> suggestions that legalization of same-sex marriage would
>> eventually lead to legalization of polygamy, alienating
>> polygamous Mormons and losing a potential ally in their legal
>> crusade.
>
> No, gay rights advocates have viciously denounce no such thing. Gay
> rights advocates have stated time and again that poligamist marriages
> are not tied to same sex marriage, and those that want it would have
> to prove their case for it.
I seem to remember hearing them denounce those who suggested
legalization of gay marriage would lead to legalization of
polygamy as 'bigots.' A Google search on "same-sex marriage
polygamy bigotry" turns up numerous links containing the same
accusations.
- - - - - -
http://www.defendingthetruth.com/gay-marriage/20389-dont-accuse-gay-marriage-opponents-bigotry.html
"To draw the connection that homosexuality and polygamy are
linked is a bigoted view."
- - - - - -
It was only after their opposition to polygamy was exposed as
hypocritical that the gay rights activists tried to rectify
their previous position, claiming that it was a "separate issue"
that they did not pass judgment on, but that it was totally
unrelated to the gay marriage debate.
>> And after Proposition 8 won in California, gay rights advocates
>> responded by attacking the 'mainstream' Mormon church,
>
> Possibly because the Mormon Church pumped millions into their
> political arm to push prop 8 thorugh.
Maybe so, but it does not change the fact that the 'mainstream'
Mormon church no longer practices polygamy, nor does it change
the fact that same-sex marriage advocates used accusations of
polygamy as an insult.
Ironically, by comparing the Mormon church's former practice of
polygamy to same-sex marriage, the gay rights activists blew a
gaping hole in their own argument.
Irony:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3004/3035985588_01cee18706.jpg
More Irony:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3251/3034616714_4ef98a8d85.jpg
Mitchell Holman
b79ef7...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
Some stuff the religious fundies don't like to think about.
Or don't even know about..........
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of
women without any limits to how many he can marry.
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David
had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300
concubines.
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had
18 wives and 60 concubines.
In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he
loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."
In Deuteronomy 25:5 if a woman's husband dies, and she
didn't have any kids from him, then she must marry his
brother regardless whether he had a wife or not.
Jimbo
> Jimbo wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 9:26 pm, Frito Pendejo <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote:
> >> raven1 wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:33:13 -0800 (PST), tj <timjone...@hushmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
> >>>> Polygamy)
> >>> And anyone should care why?
> >> Well, for one, gay rights advocates viciously denounced
> >> suggestions that legalization of same-sex marriage would
> >> eventually lead to legalization of polygamy, alienating
> >> polygamous Mormons and losing a potential ally in their legal
> >> crusade.
>
> > No, gay rights advocates have viciously denounce no such thing. Gay
> > rights advocates have stated time and again that poligamist marriages
> > are not tied to same sex marriage, and those that want it would have
> > to prove their case for it.
>
> I seem to remember hearing them denounce those who suggested
> legalization of gay marriage would lead to legalization of
> polygamy as 'bigots.' A Google search on "same-sex marriage
> polygamy bigotry" turns up numerous links containing the same
> accusations.
For the reasons I've given. Polygamists would have to build their own
case, and such a case may stand with or without legally recognized
same sex marriage.
>
> - - - - - -http://www.defendingthetruth.com/gay-marriage/20389-dont-accuse-gay-m...
>
> "To draw the connection that homosexuality and polygamy are
> linked is a bigoted view."
> - - - - - -
>
> It was only after their opposition to polygamy was exposed as
> hypocritical that the gay rights activists tried to rectify
> their previous position,
Nonsense.
>
> >> And after Proposition 8 won in California, gay rights advocates
> >> responded by attacking the 'mainstream' Mormon church,
>
> > Possibly because the Mormon Church pumped millions into their
> > political arm to push prop 8 thorugh.
>
> Maybe so,
Definitely so.
Wayne
"Jimbo" <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d6c68db-04a6-493a...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 6, 9:26 pm, Frito Pendejo <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote:
> raven1 wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:33:13 -0800 (PST), tj <timjone...@hushmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
> >> Polygamy)
>
> > And anyone should care why?
>
> Well, for one, gay rights advocates viciously denounced
> suggestions that legalization of same-sex marriage would
> eventually lead to legalization of polygamy, alienating
> polygamous Mormons and losing a potential ally in their legal
> crusade.
No, gay rights advocates have viciously denounce no such thing. Gay
rights advocates have stated time and again that poligamist marriages
are not tied to same sex marriage, and those that want it would have
to prove their case for it.
**********************
Well polygamy makes much more sense than homosexual marriage, because people
of the opposite sex are involved in polygamy. That is, unless you are
promoting homosexual clusterfucks as marriages.
juanjo
> Jimbo wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 9:26 pm, Frito Pendejo <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote:
> >> raven1 wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:33:13 -0800 (PST), tj <timjone...@hushmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
> >>>> Polygamy)
> >>> And anyone should care why?
> >> Well, for one, gay rights advocates viciously denounced
> >> suggestions that legalization of same-sex marriage would
> >> eventually lead to legalization of polygamy, alienating
> >> polygamous Mormons and losing a potential ally in their legal
> >> crusade.
>
> > No, gay rights advocates have viciously denounce no such thing. Gay
> > rights advocates have stated time and again that poligamist marriages
> > are not tied to same sex marriage, and those that want it would have
> > to prove their case for it.
>
> I seem to remember hearing them denounce those who suggested
> legalization of gay marriage would lead to legalization of
> polygamy as 'bigots.' A Google search on "same-sex marriage
> polygamy bigotry" turns up numerous links containing the same
> accusations.
>
The simple fact is that polygamy has been around for as long as there
have been organized societies. It is still a common practice in the
world, including the United States. The claim that legalizing same
sex marriage would somehow provide further legitimization of polygamy
is typically tied to a "slippery slope" argument and that such
marriages would lead in addition to polygamy, to incestuous marriages,
necrophilia and bestiality. That argument is absurd and bigoted. By
suggesting that gay couples should be accorded the same rights as
mixed sex couples does not provide support for multiple partner
marriages nor incest etc.. As for the arguments against polygamy.
these are religiously motivated and probably are truly
unconstitutional but that is a separate issue entirely.
John Jacob Petry, Child Molester
ec30c3...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
Except in the case of homosexuals, where it's called a group
grope or fisting orgy.
Jimbo
<childmoles...@sanfagcisco.ca> wrote:
> In article <e7c3e360-fdb2-45d1-98c1-
> ec30c3e7c...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Heterosexuals also engage in both of these activities.
Jimbo
> "Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Only in your house.
Brian E. Clark
@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, ladyha...@gmail.com
says...
> > Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
> > Polygamy)
>
>
> Sounds great! So...what's the problem here, exactly?
No self-designated liaison for God approved of it
beforehand. Therefore, it's wicked, it will send you to
hell, and it will give you acid indigestion.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
David Friedman
I don't follow that. Old testament law clearly permits a threesome, as
long as it's one husband and two wives.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
JohnN
wrote:
> In article <MPG.25b43cf3da794a8d98a...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Brian E. Clark <brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <3ea5c4c1-59f1-49e0-bc10-3ab62dc6b694
> > says...
>
> > > > Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
> > > > Polygamy)
>
> > > Sounds great! So...what's the problem here, exactly?
>
> > No self-designated liaison for God approved of it
> > beforehand. Therefore, it's wicked, it will send you to
> > hell, and it will give you acid indigestion.
>
> I don't follow that. Old testament law clearly permits a threesome, as
> long as it's one husband and two wives.
Just two wives? The Bible lets you have a hundred wives and countless
courtesans. This one woman one man shit is against God's holy and
everlasting law.
JohnN
JohnN
Of course not, that would require actually reading the damn Bible and
no decent Christian would ever so that!
JohnN
David Friedman
<c409f80d-8b20-4532...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
JohnN <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you have more than two wives it isn't a threesome, which was what was
being discussed.
And the Old Testament clearly doesn't require more than one wife, it
merely permits more.
Mitchell Holman
31C406.164...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com:
> In article <MPG.25b43cf3d...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Brian E. Clark <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <3ea5c4c1-59f1-49e0-bc10-3ab62dc6b694
>> @v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, ladyha...@gmail.com
>> says...
>>
>> > > Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
>> > > Polygamy)
>> >
>> >
>> > Sounds great! So...what's the problem here, exactly?
>>
>> No self-designated liaison for God approved of it
>> beforehand. Therefore, it's wicked, it will send you to
>> hell, and it will give you acid indigestion.
>
> I don't follow that. Old testament law clearly permits a threesome, as
> long as it's one husband and two wives.
>
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of
David Friedman
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in news:ddfr-
> 31C406.164...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com:
>
> > In article <MPG.25b43cf3d...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Brian E. Clark <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3ea5c4c1-59f1-49e0-bc10-3ab62dc6b694
> >> @v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, ladyha...@gmail.com
> >> says...
> >>
> >> > > Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
> >> > > Polygamy)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sounds great! So...what's the problem here, exactly?
> >>
> >> No self-designated liaison for God approved of it
> >> beforehand. Therefore, it's wicked, it will send you to
> >> hell, and it will give you acid indigestion.
> >
> > I don't follow that. Old testament law clearly permits a threesome, as
> > long as it's one husband and two wives.
> In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of
> women without any limits to how many he can marry.
I did not suggest that there was any limit. "clearly permits a
threesome" neither implies nor suggests "forbids a foursome."
> In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David
> had six wives and numerous concubines.
>
> In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300
> concubines.
>
> In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had
> 18 wives and 60 concubines.
>
> In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he
> loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."
>
> In Deuteronomy 25:5 if a woman's husband dies, and she
> didn't have any kids from him, then she must marry his
> brother regardless whether he had a wife or not.
Although under Jewish law as it actually existed, there was a mechanism
for getting out of that obligation.
Jimbo
wrote:
> In article
> <c409f80d-8b20-4532-a743-98d520965...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 7:45 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article <MPG.25b43cf3da794a8d98a...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > Brian E. Clark <brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <3ea5c4c1-59f1-49e0-bc10-3ab62dc6b694
> > > > @v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, ladyhawk....@gmail.com
> > > > says...
>
> > > > > > Threesome Marriages (Samesex "Marriage" ushers in Polyamory and
> > > > > > Polygamy)
>
> > > > > Sounds great! So...what's the problem here, exactly?
>
> > > > No self-designated liaison for God approved of it
> > > > beforehand. Therefore, it's wicked, it will send you to
> > > > hell, and it will give you acid indigestion.
>
> > > I don't follow that. Old testament law clearly permits a threesome, as
> > > long as it's one husband and two wives.
>
> > Just two wives? The Bible lets you have a hundred wives and countless
> > courtesans. This one woman one man shit is against God's holy and
> > everlasting law.
>
> If you have more than two wives it isn't a threesome, which was what was
> being discussed.
>
> And the Old Testament clearly doesn't require more than one wife, it
> merely permits more.
>
The Torrah and Midrash both require men to, and I'm paraphrasing,
"Have as many wives, and father as many children as a man can afford
to feed..."
Frito Pendejo
Polygamy would make sense in some contexts, such as a war which
wiped out lots of men in a tribe. Since ancient Israelites were
involved in lots of battles, it is no wonder their religion
would condone the practice.
The opposite situation exists in China, where sex selection of
fetuses and murder of infant girls has led to a shortage of
women for men to take as wives. Because of this, many Chinese
women have multiple male partners, even if the legal system
doesn't recognize their relationships.
Mike
> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote in news:b7789850-43b7-496e-91b7-
> b79ef7ad4...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
When Utah wanted statehood, it was allowed to do so only after
dispensing with polygamy. Therefore, the institution of marriage and
its accepted form for the last few hundred years of Western culture
means something in this country. Spare the endless Bible quotes that
people already know.
Mitchell Holman
665d25...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
If people want to defend "one man one woman" based
on the Bible then they will have to face the fact the
Bible does NOT support that position exclusively.
David Friedman
<06e2c6bd-d2b1-4963...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Mike <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When Utah wanted statehood, it was allowed to do so only after
> dispensing with polygamy.
It's more complicated than that. Congress passed laws making polygamy in
various ways illegal starting in 1862. In the 1880's, various mormons
were arrested and imprisoned for polygamy, while others went into
hiding. In 1890 the church president agreed to give up polygamy, in 1896
Utah became a state.
There was a series of Supreme Court cases in the meanwhile, which the
LDS lost. So far as I can see, it was a striking case of the triumph of
prejudice over constitutional interpretation, there being nothing in the
Constitution that gave the federal government any authority over forms
of marriage.
Anlatt the Builder
>
> If people want to defend "one man one woman" based
> on the Bible then they will have to face the fact the
> Bible does NOT support that position exclusively.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
"Have to face the fact"?
You mean the way they face the fact that the same chapter of the Bible
they use to condemn homosexulaity also has prohibitions against
tattoos, eating shrimp, touching a woman who is menstruating (she is
unclean!), and wearing clothes made of two kinds of fibers?
Don't make me laugh. These guys never face facts.
Frito Pendejo
> In article
> <06e2c6bd-d2b1-4963...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Mike <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When Utah wanted statehood, it was allowed to do so only after
>> dispensing with polygamy.
>
> It's more complicated than that. Congress passed laws making polygamy in
> various ways illegal starting in 1862. In the 1880's, various mormons
> were arrested and imprisoned for polygamy, while others went into
> hiding. In 1890 the church president agreed to give up polygamy, in 1896
> Utah became a state.
>
> There was a series of Supreme Court cases in the meanwhile, which the
> LDS lost. So far as I can see, it was a striking case of the triumph of
> prejudice over constitutional interpretation, there being nothing in the
> Constitution that gave the federal government any authority over forms
> of marriage.
I am currently residing in Utah (I hesitate to call it 'living') and
there are lots of polygamists in the area, members of a splinter sect of
Moronism called the FLDS.
The 'mainstream' Moron faction or LDS renounced polygamy in 1890, but
the some Morons believed this was heresy and split off so they could
maintain the tradition of polygamy. Each sect claims to be the true
descendant of the cult founded by Joseph Smith, and each believes the
other to be false and heretical.
Polygamy remains illegal in Utah, though, but the church-state hasn't
enforced the law since the 1950s, after attempts to raid an FLDS
compound ended in bloodshed.
This leads into why the 'mainstream' LDS Morons are such fierce
opponents of gay marriage: if same-sex marriage were legalized, it would
set a precedent for legalization of polygamy. If polygamy were
legalized, the LDS would lose its moral and legal authority over the
FLDS - since this 'outlaw' group would no longer be breaking the law.
Freed from the stigma of illegality, polygamist Morons would be able to
participate in Utah government, challenging the authority of the LDS
church-state and diluting its power. It is this sectarian conflict
between Morons in Utah which is the reason they are so concerned about
same-sex marriage in California.
Oddly enough, gay marriage advocates have chosen to reject a potential
alliance with polygamist Morons, by insisting that the two issues have
nothing in common, and even attacking the 'mainstream' LDS by insulting
polygamy. It may very well be that same-sex marriage is eventually
legalized after a court rules that the Utah law against polygamy is
unconstitutional.
huge
> David Friedman wrote:
>> In article
>> <06e2c6bd-d2b1-4963...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Mike <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> When Utah wanted statehood, it was allowed to do so only after
>>> dispensing with polygamy.
>>
>> It's more complicated than that. Congress passed laws making polygamy
>> in various ways illegal starting in 1862. In the 1880's, various
>> mormons were arrested and imprisoned for polygamy, while others went
>> into hiding. In 1890 the church president agreed to give up polygamy,
>> in 1896 Utah became a state.
>>
>> There was a series of Supreme Court cases in the meanwhile, which the
>> LDS lost. So far as I can see, it was a striking case of the triumph of
>> prejudice over constitutional interpretation, there being nothing in
>> the Constitution that gave the federal government any authority over
>> forms of marriage.
>
> I am currently residing in Utah (I hesitate to call it 'living')
You might want to read the novels of Edward Abbey, which
will give you a good laugh at their expense.
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
anonymous
The significant difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that
homosexuals are adults and consent to sex and consent to marriage being
of sound mind and of age.
Polygamy is a group of people usually run by a guy who acquires women of
interest. Usually there is sex tween men and young girls as young as 12
or 15 who must marry older men and produce offspring. It is the women
being under age and having to have sex with older men that makes it
illegal whether prosecution takes place or not. It is unclear whether
the women and perhaps young men are able to get a good education, and
have sufficient free time and freedom as other young children outside
the compound.
There is no way that homosexuality and polygamy are similar.
Nice try though.
Anlatt the Builder
>
> Oddly enough, gay marriage advocates have chosen to reject a potential
> alliance with polygamist Morons
Somehow I can't see this as very odd. "Fundamentalist" (polygamous)
are, ingoring their marriage habits, extremely conservative - they're
against women's rights and they despise homosexuals. They also have
virtually no political power, and are constantly in trouble with the
law (largely because of their tendency to marry off their "women" very
young, under the age of 15 - often to men old enough to be their
grandfathers - and because of the secretive, cult-like nature of their
communities). An allaince with them would immediately lose gay
marriage advocates about 10% in the polls.
In addition to which, no such alliance was ever offered. As I
mentioned, they hate gays.
David Friedman
Frito Pendejo <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote:
> Freed from the stigma of illegality, polygamist Morons would be able to
> participate in Utah government, challenging the authority of the LDS
> church-state and diluting its power. It is this sectarian conflict
> between Morons in Utah which is the reason they are so concerned about
> same-sex marriage in California.
It's an interesting theory, but my understanding is that the membership
of the FLDS, or even of all the polygamist splinter groups taken
together, is much less than that of the LDS, so I find it hard to
believe that the challenge would be a serious one.
> Oddly enough, gay marriage advocates have chosen to reject a potential
> alliance with polygamist Morons, by insisting that the two issues have
> nothing in common, and even attacking the 'mainstream' LDS by insulting
> polygamy. It may very well be that same-sex marriage is eventually
> legalized after a court rules that the Utah law against polygamy is
> unconstitutional.
I will be very (pleasantly) surprised if a high court rules that way in
my lifetime.
David Friedman
anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> The significant difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that
> homosexuals are adults and consent to sex and consent to marriage being
> of sound mind and of age.
>
> Polygamy is a group of people usually run by a guy who acquires women of
> interest. Usually there is sex tween men and young girls as young as 12
> or 15 who must marry older men and produce offspring. It is the women
> being under age and having to have sex with older men that makes it
> illegal whether prosecution takes place or not. It is unclear whether
> the women and perhaps young men are able to get a good education, and
> have sufficient free time and freedom as other young children outside
> the compound.
When polygamy was made illegal, I don't think the pattern you describe
existed. I'm not sure it's all that common even now. I followed the FLDS
flap in Texas pretty closely, and it became clear that the authorities
were deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to exaggerate the
degree to which the group's practices involved the sort of thing you
described.
Thus, for instance, it was announced that they were holding two pregnant
women who were both under eighteen. After the babies were born, the
authorities conceded that both mothers were actually adults. The older
was 26. Prior to that, the authorities simply refused to accept birth
certificates and similar documentation, and, so far as I could tell,
made up ages for the women to suit their own purposes. They claimed, if
I remember correctly, to have 31 women who were either pregnant or had
children and were under age. By the time the case got through the
appeals court, the number was down to five.
You might consider that the sort of things you are asserting about
polygamists are routinely asserted about gays by people critical of
them. Consider all the attention that NAMBLA gets.
>
> There is no way that homosexuality and polygamy are similar.
They are both sexual patterns that have been to various degrees illegal,
even when they involved consenting adults.
Do you believe it should be illegal for two adult women to marry one
adult man?
Mike
wrote:
> In article
> <06e2c6bd-d2b1-4963-b861-665d25b9f...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When Utah wanted statehood, it was allowed to do so only after
> > dispensing with polygamy.
>
> It's more complicated than that. Congress passed laws making polygamy in
> various ways illegal starting in 1862.
Was this largely in response to the the Mormons?
In the 1880's, various mormons
> were arrested and imprisoned for polygamy, while others went into
> hiding. In 1890 the church president agreed to give up polygamy, in 1896
> Utah became a state.
>
> There was a series of Supreme Court cases in the meanwhile, which the
> LDS lost. So far as I can see, it was a striking case of the triumph of
> prejudice over constitutional interpretation, there being nothing in the
> Constitution that gave the federal government any authority over forms
> of marriage.
So is there anything in the Constitution that prevents states from
making laws regarding forms of marriage? Aren't the states allowed to
make laws as long as they do not violate the Constitution? If so,
then wouldn't the Supreme Court justices find that the states were
within their rights to outlaw polygamy, since the Constitution makes
no explicit statement as to what states can and cannot do regarding
the marriage custom?
>
> --
> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
David Friedman
<4157071b-933b-4617...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Mike <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 10:50�am, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <06e2c6bd-d2b1-4963-b861-665d25b9f...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > When Utah wanted statehood, it was allowed to do so only after
> > > dispensing with polygamy.
> >
> > It's more complicated than that. Congress passed laws making polygamy in
> > various ways illegal starting in 1862.
>
>
> Was this largely in response to the the Mormons?
I think entirely.
> In the 1880's, various mormons
> > were arrested and imprisoned for polygamy, while others went into
> > hiding. In 1890 the church president agreed to give up polygamy, in 1896
> > Utah became a state.
> >
> > There was a series of Supreme Court cases in the meanwhile, which the
> > LDS lost. So far as I can see, it was a striking case of the triumph of
> > prejudice over constitutional interpretation, there being nothing in the
> > Constitution that gave the federal government any authority over forms
> > of marriage.
>
> So is there anything in the Constitution that prevents states from
> making laws regarding forms of marriage?
I don't think so. My point was about the federal government.
> Aren't the states allowed to
> make laws as long as they do not violate the Constitution? If so,
> then wouldn't the Supreme Court justices find that the states were
> within their rights to outlaw polygamy, since the Constitution makes
> no explicit statement as to what states can and cannot do regarding
> the marriage custom?
I think you are correct. It's the federal law that I'm arguing ought to
have been found to be unconstitutional.
On the other hand, under the doctrine of incorporation--which didn't
exist in 1862, possibly not even in the 1880's--states are limited in
the degree to which they can restrict the rights of their citizens. I
can imagine a case being made that laws against polygamy (or against gay
marriage, for that matter) violate those limits.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Jimbo
Agreed, although in a supposedly free society one would think that a
person's harmless contractual agreements where there human love
interests are concerned would be more or less decoupled from "what
makes sense", assuming that all participants are consenting adults.
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
The US is not a christian theocratic state, ergo bible quotes are just
so much noise.
Mike
wrote:
> In article
> <4157071b-933b-4617-af7b-ef4b9a591...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> Author of
> _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
> Cambridge University Press.
Oh, so you are right in saying that the anti-polygamy mandate for Utah
to become a state was federal, since it was Congress telling Utah to
lose the polygamy if they wanted statehood. Yes, interesting. If
Utah would have forget it, we like our one-man, multiple wives, Utah
would have been surrounded by states by now.
Anyway, it looks like we have polygamy in the U.S. now, and I'm not
talking about the isolated splinter-cults of the LDS. There was a
broadcast a while back that there were about 50,000 to 100,000 U.S.
households practicing polygamy. Not officially, but they get a
religious wedding in a mosque and don't bother to get a license. It
makes me wonder what if they will agitate for full legal status on the
basis of discrimination because of religion.
WangoTango
says...
>
> The significant difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that
> homosexuals are adults and consent to sex and consent to marriage being
> of sound mind and of age.
>
> Polygamy is a group of people usually run by a guy who acquires women of
> interest. Usually there is sex tween men and young girls as young as 12
> or 15 who must marry older men and produce offspring. It is the women
> being under age and having to have sex with older men that makes it
> illegal whether prosecution takes place or not. It is unclear whether
> the women and perhaps young men are able to get a good education, and
> have sufficient free time and freedom as other young children outside
> the compound.
>
> There is no way that homosexuality and polygamy are similar.
>
> Nice try though.
LEGAL polygamy would not have underage sex in it, just because some
religious cults have done such things doesn't mean that there is no
valid or consentual way to have a polygamous marriage. You are making
generalized statements that have no bearing on the matter as it pertains
to consenting adults, and that is where the rubber meets the road.
James A. Donald
<anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> The significant difference between polygamy and
> homosexuality is that homosexuals are adults and
> consent to sex and consent to marriage being of sound
> mind and of age.
>
> Polygamy is a group of people usually run by a guy who
> acquires women of interest. Usually there is sex
> tween men and young girls as young as 12 or 15 who
> must marry older men and produce offspring.
As became apparent in the Texas bust of the FLDS, this
is a load of pure bunkum. It is frequently true of
Muslim polygamy. It is not true of Mormon polygamy.
James A. Donald
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> They claimed, if
> I remember correctly, to have 31 women who were either pregnant or had
> children and were under age. By the time the case got through the
> appeals court, the number was down to five.
And those five married to kids close to their own age, likely a result
of shotgun marriages to remedy illicit pregnancies.
David Friedman
<640901fa-89eb-4732...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Mike <mgcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, so you are right in saying that the anti-polygamy mandate for Utah
> to become a state was federal, since it was Congress telling Utah to
> lose the polygamy if they wanted statehood.
Actually, Congress had told Mormons long before that that if they
practiced polygamy they would be jailed. There was actually a military
occupation of Utah for a while to try to enforce the law.
> Yes, interesting. If
> Utah would have forget it, we like our one-man, multiple wives, Utah
> would have been surrounded by states by now.
>
> Anyway, it looks like we have polygamy in the U.S. now, and I'm not
> talking about the isolated splinter-cults of the LDS. There was a
> broadcast a while back that there were about 50,000 to 100,000 U.S.
> households practicing polygamy. Not officially, but they get a
> religious wedding in a mosque and don't bother to get a license. It
> makes me wonder what if they will agitate for full legal status on the
> basis of discrimination because of religion.
I wouldn't be astonished if that were the case, although the number
seems high and I'm not sure how the broadcaster would know. As best I
can tell, most Muslims are monogamous, even though the religion permits
up to four wives. On the other hand, I've heard of cases of de facto
polygamous households that had nothing to do with any particular
religion.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
anonymous
Well, firstly David, the local paper just had a posting indicating that
the polygamy church leader who was charged as I recall and then the
case/charges dropped is suing the
government for prosecuting him.
On the question of two adult women marry one adult male, I have no
issue. But it is based on the fact that most guys can't afford one
woman, much less two. I hear guys complain all the time that their
pension is only 600 to 800 dollars a month to live on and the guys have
health problems. But you, David, need to know that when husband or wife
divorce in Canada regardless of whether the wife refused sex or didn't
scrub is skidmarked underwear clean, the woman is entitled to half the
assets of the marriage and that includes his employment penison/military
pension, etc. while they were married. Now, most canadian guys who
marry rich women can look foreward to the same treatment of half the
assets of the marriage including half of her penison while they were
married. But the problem is that most, like 99 percent of them only
marry women who earn less, are less bright and have less education. It
doesn't hurt the guy in the good times, but trying to find another guy
to take over the life-time responsibility of a used wife on Craig's list
seems like an impossible task to this point in history. Not a lot of
women in their 50s today have or had robust pensions if they had any at
all. And today pensions for guy's jobs and women's jobs are going bust
globally. Now if a guy married two women, would there be anything of
his pension left for him or, I suppose, it would be equallly devided by
three, but then caution, there would probably need to be 3 laywers
instead of two so that each party could legally protect what was their
portion of the relationship/assets.
You see, women want money going into the marriage and women want money
leaving the marriage. Women know better than most men the market of
recycled woman/wife. Guys want sex before marriage, during marriage,
outside of marriage and after marrige. And that is always an expensive
demand to make upon anyone.
Jimbo
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:05:39 GMT, anonymous
>
It's not supposed to be true of Mormon polygamy, officially there is
no mormon polygamy, however it has been true of some individuals that
engage in polygamy and still claim ties to the mormon church.
David Friedman
<1593cc34-a76b-4222...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
As best I can tell, in part by talking with someone who had first hand
experience of one of the polygamist splinter groups, the pattern of one
older man with several much younger wives exists but isn't the norm and
isn't thought highly of within such groups. That's consistent with what
I could make out of the Texas FLDS case. In the case that ended up
putting the head of the FLDS in jail--convicted of rape on the grounds
not that he had had sex with anyone, but that he had helped convince a
woman to enter into an (I believe legal) marriage which she later said
she hadn't wanted--the husband was older than the wife, but not a lot
older. One of the supposed pregnant minors in the Texas case--who was
actually an adult--had a husband who again was within a few years of her
own age.
Incidentally, "still claim ties to the mormon church" is a bit
ambiguous. As I understand it, the FLDS and similar groups regard "the
Mormon church"--i.e. the ordinary LDS--as heretical. They don't claim
ties to it, they claim that they are the real mormons and it isn't.