--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:57 PM > > To: Killer Bs Discussion > > Subject: Re: the Hate Amendment compared to Gov't actions > > Against Polygamy > > > > > > I'm not religious, (not morman) and I know of many triples who live > > very happily. I don't know of many quads who last long, they usualy > > end up in smaller groups, but 3 does seem to be the magic number for > > many. > > > > I take issue with the assumption that this is always sexist. What > > about 2 males and one female? Is that sexist against men? After all > > when it works it is usualy an equal kind of love in all directions. > > (That means at least 2 are bi.) But I don't think that the mormans > > are this way. > > I have meet some people in a polig' arraingement of multiple men and > women... > While visiting their home, a young boy answered the door. I asked, "Can I > speak with your dad?", the boy replied "Which one?"
I asume you are reffering to Mormans...if so,... I Did not know that. Still, they are not mutualy bonded, are they? > These situations are allways one man and many women, > > and the women generaly do not have a kind of life-bond love for > > eachother. So that is where the sexism comes in, but that doesn't > > mean that all relationships envolving to women and one man are > > structured that way. > > > > It is ammazing to me that in a country claiming to be free that these > > types of conversations even still happen. Who or who-all, one decides > > to fall in love with, raise a family with, bond for life with, should > > be absolutly no concern of the state. > > > > Now I agree, everyone has their limit of understanding. I could not > > see a marriage of 12 as having anything to do with love and bonding, > > and life commitment. > > 12 is excessive for polig's. A man usually has up to 6 wives, adding one per > generation (at 20, 40, 60, 80, and so on....) > Multiply this, by say, an average of 6 children per wife, it adds up. Note > that this man would have multigenerational children. It makes for a very > flat Geneological tree. Once again, I believe you are refering specificaly to Mormans, I most certainly was not. Still, 12 is excessive, that was the point of choosing that number, to show to someone who does not find trigs moraly reprehinsable how it looks,,,feels, to those who would only couple, or who only accept the idea of 1 man 1 woman. > > Maybe a residency scam... But who is to make the > > decision? I wouldn't know how to look at an arangment of more than 4 > > and understand if their was truely love and bonding there. And I am > > mearly a sympathetic person in a 2 person bond. How would your > > average social worker be able to look at a relationship of more than > > 2 people and know whether or not it was real? > > Again, if a man at 60 has 3 wives, only one is producing children > (generally). There is a heirarchy between the wives, formulated by the > serialized basis for plural marriage. Generally, it is frowned upon for a > man to sleep with more than one wife at a time (a criminal offense in some > parts of Utah - especially if one of the wives is underage.) Again you seem to be refering to Mormans specificaly, I was not. > > There are many examples of parallelized plural marriages within Arab > communities. This is widely accepted in many arabic countries. Each wife is > entitled to IDENTICALLY what the other wifes are entitled to (economically, > at least). Historicaly, they were entitled to ....everything else in equal portians as well. >I am sure that there would be many arabic men that would take > offense to your statement. Which statment would that be? > Polygamy is really only found unacceptable within Western culture. Well, it was acceptable in chinese culture at one time, but it is not any longer acceptable. In Japan, many expect husbands to cheet, and even to get a permanent girlfriend later in life, but poligamy is not accepted....so I have been told anyway. > > > > So, simple, dont base residency, or any other problematic concern on > > life bonding. Where does that leave Gay marriage? > > I think your point is made, that we humans do form bonds in other fashions > other than the typical Man/Woman arraingement. It is unfair to say polygamy > is acceptable, but gay marriage is not. > > Nerd From Hell > > > > Or even hetero mariage? That point, and in addition, the qestion of how acceptance of non traditional relationships and life bonds will alter society. One more thing. I think that the main concern for most social concervatives.. (hate that term becouse it can mean so many differnt things to differnt people) ..so errr... -religious right- is that if something is legal that ~their~ children might engage in the practice. Much of the reason many Americans ancestors came to this country was to shelter their children from concepts. Of course genocide and slavery were not 2 of those concepts, but still, I have to accept that if a group of people want to maintain a particular society, they should be allowed to do so, just not at the expense of the same rights all. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
