Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum   
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » Archives » Gay Relationships, Next: Polygamy? (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Gay Relationships, Next: Polygamy?
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Actually, I think that most women now would rather stay single and promiscuous, rather than commit to a man who defines commitment as having multiple sexual partners. Since I am religiously conservative, in the traditional Lutheran sense, I would rather stay single and abstinent.
something about this just bothers me, and i think it's that you've created a false dichotomy where there is none...
a woman is rarely (if ever?) made to choose between being "single and promiscuous" and "married to a polygamist". obviously most women aren't into polygamy, or else there'd probably be more of it around- but then, most men don't like the idea of their lady having other partners either. i don't think monogamy is going to fall by the wayside, so monogamy will likely always be a third (and often winning) option.

i think my particular problem here is that you added the word promiscuous... i think it's a much more valid statement to say, "most women now would rather remain single than be married to a polygamist". this statement better addresses what (i think) your point is- women are much more independent now, and do not feel the need to get married when the circumstances of the marriage do not suit them. whether a woman is promiscuous or not when she is single doesn't really enter into this debate, unless you want to discuss entering into a marriage solely because you want to have sex, which is not what this is about.

edited to fix a bunch of typos.

[ January 18, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: simplybiological ]

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Locus
Member
Member # 540

 - posted      Profile for Locus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
FIJC,

You keep setting up modern polygamy as if it's inevitably an abusive relationship.

Abusive relationships are bad no matter the number of participants.

Posts: 678 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
most men don't like the idea of their lady having other partners either.
I think this statements validity is predicated on the assumption that the ladies other partners in question are male partners. [Wink]

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
While most men fantasize about lesbians, and many might even think he idea of their girlfriends/wives involved with lesbians is a hot fantasy, I doubt most would consider the reality as nice as the fantasy.
Posts: 7190 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
I guess that all depends on the guy. But if you're saying that most men wouldn't want their wive's having a relationship with a lesbian woman, I agree. That's why I put the winking smiley face.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"On a personal note FIJC, reading your posts I can't help notice how close minded you are on this subject."
Yes, I was aware from the the moment I posted my position on polygamy, homosexual marriage, etc., that the majority of people on this forum would think that I am backward and very close-minded. But honestly, I am quite used to attitudes such as yours. It is my view that Orthodox Christianity is under spiritual attack everyday, and I have just learned to not let it bother me. At the age of 21, I have already realized that the majority of people will reject the teachings of traditional Christianity, and that people will ultimately live however they like.

I think that it is worthwhile to point out that God first made Adam and Eve. The practice of polygamy came to be adopted after the pagans came and influenced God's people in the Old Testament. Polygamy, as many other pagan customs, is a good example of how Christians all too often allow culture to overrule traditional religious beliefs and practices. Basically, polygamy is a good example of God's toleration, not His original plan or approval.

I think you should take note that I have never stated anywhere that polygamy or gay marriage should be illegal. At this point in my life, I am quite ambiguous. I care about what people choose to do with their lives, but at the same time, it is not worth the effort--people have free will and thus, decide their own destiny here and after.

quote:
"Obviously, you have been raised Christian and adhere to your beliefs, which you have every right too, however, that doesn't mean that way of life is right for other people, or in anyway better than other life styles."
Yes, I was raised in a Christian home. I went to a parochial school through junior high and then attended an Assemblies of God highschool. After I graduated, I started to attend an Evangelical Free university, but then promptly transfered to a Lutheran university, because I wanted to return to a traditional Lutheran education. In short, I have chosen to immerse myself in a traditional Christian atmosphere since I was young. But I think that it is good for me to post on a forum such as Ornery, because my view is no longer the majority, and I have the opportunity to see how other people think.

Yes, I do believe that living the Christian life is God's original plan for man. However, I do not believe that people should be forced to live one way or another. God has given man free will and man is solely responsible for his fate from then on.

quote:
"Judge not lest ye be judged, or unitl you've walked a mile in someones shoes, or something like that."
That is one of the most abused passages in the entire Bible; it is abused because it is almost always taken out of context. Sure, God tells us not to judge people over petty things that do not matter, but no where in the Bible does God tell us to not make moral judgements. God also tells Christians to not "throw pearls to swine", and that does take a serious judgement calls. I do not know where you got the last part of your quote from, but it isn't from the Bible.

(Edited for Clarity)

[ January 20, 2004, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think that it is worthwhile to point out that God first made Adam and Eve.
You don't actually believe that man came from just two people do you? It's not genetically feasible. And how can God's plan for man be to live the Christian way when Christ wasn't born until thousands of years after civilization began? I wasn't questioning your right to post on OA, and I admit that you have not advocated negative actions toward homosexuals or polygamists, just negative attitudes. It's always nice to be compared to swine. I too was raised in a Christian household, as were the majority of people in the USA. That being the case I don't see how Christianity is a persecuted religion here. However, if it's your assertion that Christianity is not as prevalent as it used to be, I'd have to agree, why do you think that is?

quote:
I believe that monogamy and marital fidelity is a committment that comes with a marriage ordained in the Christian Church, which is a sacrament between the couple and God.
So my sixteen year civil marriage is not a commitment of monogamy and marital fidelity? I'm sure my wife would love to argue that with you.

quote:
If people want to have blasphemous relationships, that is their choice. In an ideal world, that wouldn't happen
In your opinion. In mine all marriages would be legal unions rather than religious or cult marriages.

Has it ever even occurred to you that what you have been subjected to since birth might not be the end all be all truth? And since the answer to that is obviously no, how can you be sure when you've never had the opportunity to decide or choose for yourself? I hope you are not so condescending in real life. If you are then you are going to bring a lot of that religious persecution you seem to be looking for down on yourself. Then again, I, like most people, was very sure about everything when I was twenty one. I guess I was around thirty when I realized a lot of the things I had been sure of were either wrong or not the way I felt about things now. It really makes you question the certainty of your beliefs. Of course by the time I was twenty-one I had been living on my own for four years, and I had a wife, a son, a job, a dog, and a house. So since it sounds like you have so little real life experience it may take you a little longer, or maybe it will never happen to you at all.

KE

[ January 18, 2004, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"It's always nice to be compared to swine."
I wasn't comparing you to swine. I was just using that passage in the Bible as an indication that God does indeed require Christians to make moral judgements.

quote:
"Has it ever even occurred to you that what you have been subjected to since birth might not be the end all be all truth? And since the answer to that is obviously no, how can you be sure when you've never had the opportunity to decide or choose for yourself? I hope you are not so condescending in real life. If you are then you are going to bring a lot of that religious persecution you seem to be looking for down on yourself. Then again, I, like most people, was very sure about everything when I was twenty one. I guess I was around thirty when I realized a lot of the things I had been sure of were either wrong or not the way I felt about things now. It really makes you question the certainty of your beliefs. Of course by the time I was twenty-one I had been living on my own for four years, and I had a wife, a son, a job, a dog, and a house. So since it sounds like you have so little real life experience it may take you a little longer, or maybe it will never happen to you at all."
As for your other statements concerning my religious beliefs and whether or not I have ever doubted them, I think you should understand that having strong faith does not at all indicate one's being uneducated, brain-washing, or a youthful indiscretion. I may be young, but have experienced many joys and pains that often come our way during life. I was born in South Korea and promptly orphaned. Luckily, a Christian family (whom I consider my "real" parents) chose to adopt me and bring me to this country. There have been many opportunities where I could have cursed God, but I never did, and I pray that I never will.

I realize that you and I will not see eye to eye on many aspects of life, and because of this, I cannot tell you to live one way or another. All I can do is explain to you why I believe and act in the way that I do, and let you make your judgements from there.

[ January 18, 2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
IMO, I don't think that FIJC is close-minded on poly, homosexual marriage, I think she's fairly moderate and I know that she's been very forthcoming about why she thinks what she thinks and very willing to consider other viewpoints.

Query whether being 20-something-young and intentionally following the path of your ancestors means anything, dog or not.

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Locus
Member
Member # 540

 - posted      Profile for Locus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"My father has a doctorate in Theology and Ancient Languages; learning the teachings of the Bible and Catechism was a very important value in my family, and learning such was never trying for me."

Interesting how many bright people have studied the Bible .. and how many different conclusions they reached from the contents.

Posts: 678 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
She's moderate? Yeah she believes their marriage, and mine, don't mean anything, and that they are living in sin, doomed to spending eternity in hell. I'd hate to see someone that wasn't moderate.

quote:
Query whether being 20-something-young and intentionally following the path of your ancestors means anything, dog or not.
If this is indeed a question, I'd say that it's pretty indicative of brain washing and a closed mind. Just because something is a tradition and was practiced by former members of one's family line doesn't mean they are valid. The world is round, and people couldn't have possibly evolved from just two people. And if you don't have a dog, none of it means anything.

Since this is written in barely translatable English I hope I'm answering what you were asking. Although you might want to ask yourself what's the point in asking a question if you ask it in such a way that only someone that speaks your special brand of English will understand it.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"She's moderate? Yeah she believes their marriage, and mine, don't mean anything, and that they are living in sin, doomed to spending eternity in hell. I'd hate to see someone that wasn't moderate."
I did not state anything on that order. I stated that marriage in the Christian church brings with it, the values of monogamy and fidelity. How this applies to you, I do not know. Quite honestly, I think you aren't reading my posts correctly.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yea, IMO, she's moderate. And compassionate. And very respectful of all viewpoints, while willing to explain where her own departure from the apparent median at ornery.

Former members?

[ January 18, 2004, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Zyne ]

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It's not genetically feasible
THEORETICALLY, it could be. if adam and eve had no deleterious mutations, there would be very little problem with the subsequent generations of inbreeding. in fact, even if there WERE deleterious mutants, they would be eliminated very quickly from the breeding population ... many species thrive under extreme inbreeding (including my favorite term paper topic, fig wasps) because deleterious mutations cannot persist for any period.

since we do not REGULARLY inbreed, we accumulate recessive deleterious mutations that go largely unexpressed because we have little chance of contact with another carrier. were we to start inbreeding again, most of these would be eliminated rapidly, aided by the recombination of sexual reproduction (theories such as Muller's ratchet and Kondrashov's hatchet explain the how this is possible).

the popular secular theory of human evolution also involves relatively few individuals coming out of africa and populating the earth in bits... all the things we associate with "race" being regional adaptation. so even then you have a small number of individuals spawning a lot.

disclaimer: i don't actually believe the whole adam and eve hoopla, but it IS possible in theory. i'm not affiliated with religion in any way.

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
SB, are you sure about this? Everything I've ever read has set a minimum number of men and women to perpetuate the species. I'm not sure of the exact number, but I know it wasn't two. Is this a new theory? I would love to see the link just for my own edification.

Zyne, FIJC, I agree that she is politically moderate on the issue. I guess our views just differ on her attitude towards non-traditional marriages and life styles. While I agree she is verbally open towards them, IMO her acceptance is couched in condescending and belittling plaitiudes. But, like I said, just my opinion. And since my views have changed so much since I was tweny-one, perhaps in ten years I too will be an Orthodox Christian. [Smile]

KE

[ January 18, 2004, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"IMO her acceptance is couched in condescending and belittling plaitiudes."
Look in the mirror.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Locus
Member
Member # 540

 - posted      Profile for Locus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
simplybiological,

Wasn't there some work being done on the human genome attempting to work backward to nail down how many "parents" the species had? Do you know anything about this?

Posts: 678 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
How refreshingly childish.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
SB, are you sure about this? Everything I've ever read has set a minimum number of men and women to perpetuate the species. I'm not sure of the exact number, but I know it wasn't two. Is this a new theory? I would love to see the link just for my own edification.
just using theory, as in, general evolutionary theory. genetically, the only MAJOR reason not to inbreed is the potential combination of recessive deleterious alleles into one individual. you can also make some arguments about robustness, but it really depends.

removing it from the religious stuffola, imagine you have two people with no deleterious alleles. those two people have, say 4 kids (2 boys and two girls). each of those pairs has four kids. you're up to 8. the population can continue to grow in this manner. if a deleterious mutation arises, it will quickly be eliminated from the gene pool if it harms the individual before reproductive age.

i'm operating entirely from theory here, cause that's what i know about. i know that one male and one female fig wasp could EASILY populate the world with fig wasps. Darwin actually does some math in Origin that proves that two elephants could spawn elephants aplenty such that they could cover the world in a short amount of time, if there were unlimited resources,etc. i think this is true for most species.

the only argument i can think of against two people populating the world is that it would require buttloads of inbreeding, and inbreeding is bad- right? all i'm saying is that inbreeding is completely feasible in a situation where there are very few deleterious alleles, and that sexual reproduction (and inbreeding) are fairly efficient at removing any mutations that would arise. beneficial mutations that did occur would account for some genetic variability among this population as it grew.

like i said, this is all theory- i gots no links, only the following facts:
1. inbreeding isn't bad (genetically) unless you don't do it very often. lots of species on earth do it.
2. one asexual individual can make an entire population, as can 2 sexual ones, in theory.
3. sexual reproduction is adept at keeping deleterious mutations to a minimum (some even postulate this is why it evolved). repeated inbreeding also keeps em low.

i don't really follow this stuff as a rule, it doesn't interest me so much- i feel like it's pretty difficult to prove any of it. keep in mind that i said *theoretically* in big tall letters- i have no idea (does anyone) if this is feasible in actuality, since those kinds of experiments aren't very kosher (Methods: first, i bred a purebreeding line of humans. next, i...).

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
You know, I think that I have been very respectful in stating my opinions and beliefs on this matter. I am willing to acknowledge that we will not agree on this matter and that is fine.

You, on the other hand, have been calling me such names as "condescending", "childish", and in otherwords, too "young" and "naive" to have a legitimate opinion on this subject. Even though I am young comparatively to others on this forum, I do not need to be treated as disrespectfully as you have treated me.

I am willing to have dialogue with those who disagree with me, but very unwilling to attempt to converse with those who have no concept of how to be civil to others who have different beliefs from their own. I honestly have nothing more to say to you on this forum at all.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just to chime in on this subject (again), with the suggestion I always make:

The government should get out of the marriage business, and should simply allow any number of adults to enter into personal corporations with each other.

Posts: 21363 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
FIJC

You have used your relationship to a religion to serve as the foundation of your position and brought theology into the discussion. This is about a legal matter. Theology (I so wish I could refer too it as mythology.) simply does not apply.

quote:
I find it hard to sort out in my mind, the added benefit or disadvantages to children living in a polygamous family situation. It is hard for me to look at life, absent the presence of religion, but regardless of religion, it is of a significant concern to me what lifestyle is the most condusive to family life. Having had very happy childhood memories in a traditional family, it is hard for me to picture childhood happiness in any other type of living situation.

It is hard for you to look at life absent of religion because you have never looked at life absent of religion. And as I tried to illustrate earlier, there are many types of family life. There is no one cookie cutter mold for families. There is no single lifestyle that is measureablely superior to every other lifestyle. You have had a good childhood in what is considered a "traditional" family in this century and in your christian sub-culture. Good for you. That is not the only way nor is it the best way. I would argue that it is not the best way simply because you have accepted fully the truths your parents found in their lives and not found your own truths.

Until you could provide credible documentation supporting how a Christian sanctioned husband/wife model as conceived of in this century is superior to everything else I would advise leaving your religion and canon of said religion out of the discussion.

KE

You said how you couldn't "help notice how close minded you are on this subject." A better way of handling that observation might have been to ask how any religion has any bearing on the subject on hand. Or explain how personal beliefs in a higher moral authority is inapplicable to the matter.

Anyway

Assuming most people would not engage in polygamy that is still not a reason to keep a minority from doing so.

True, it would be complicated to sort out how it would all work for tax, property, divorce, and other such purposes, but that shouldn't be hard enough to prevent us as a society from going there.

What, then, is the harm to society in allowing polygamy?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
kelcimer wrote: There is no single lifestyle that is measureablely superior to every other lifestyle.... Until you could provide credible documentation supporting how a Christian sanctioned husband/wife model as conceived of in this century is superior to everything else I would advise leaving your religion and canon of said religion out of the discussion.
Now that's just silly. Of course certain lifestyles are superior. Tolerance of other lifestyles does not require blindness to objective facts that show the superiority of one over another in certain areas. When it comes to effectively raising kids, for example, there are a host of studies proving the superiority of the two-parent home over the single-parent home. That doesn't mean they're ALL better. Only that it is an objectively superior situation overall. Another example: There is plenty showing the general superiority of homes where one spouse stays at home.

Should people who didn't live in these circumstances be made to feel that they are "objectively" inferior? Should we force such ideal situations by law? Of course not. But laws should not be blind to the data that shows us, for example, that eating lettuce is better than drinking Absolut. They're not equal, and we shouldn't pretend they are. Nor should the law be blind to other weightier preferences. Tolerance requires human decency and respect of one another regardless of objectively less-than-optimal circumstances. Tolerance does not require relativism.

[ January 19, 2004, 05:19 AM: Message edited by: drewmie ]

Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"While I agree she is verbally open towards them, IMO her acceptance is couched in condescending and belittling plaitiudes."

I have been observing this conversation, and I think you are seeing what you expect to see, rather what is actually there. She has not been condescending; she has simply stated what her beliefs are. She is apparently a real Christian. Very unusual.

Posts: 7190 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps I should have said, "There is no single family lifestyle that is definitively superior to EVERY OTHER family lifestyle." I'm not trying to equate a single crack-head mother and a "Leave it to Beaver" nuclear family. One is definitely going to be more pleasent to grow up in.

FIJC's position seems to me to be "A mum and a dad sanctioned by God is the best way. I don't see how it could work any other way." So that means two mums who are as committed are right out. Two dads who are as committed are right out. Two mums and a dad are right out. A mum and an uncle is right out. A single parent who pulls out all the stops doesn't count either. Especially if they aren't sanctioned by God.

FIJC has experienced a way that she believes has worked very well her.
She is then saying that it is the only way a family should be.
That looks like a logical error to me.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"It is hard for you to look at life absent of religion because you have never looked at life absent of religion."
Actually, I have looked at life absent of religion and then realized in 9th grade, that I didn't want to live without God in my life. I guess I really do not see anything hampering or distasteful about one's having religious beliefs. I suppose that I could turn your argument around on you, but I honestly dislike assuming so much about a person's background, especially on an internet discussion board.

quote:
"And as I tried to illustrate earlier, there are many types of family life. There is no one cookie cutter mold for families. There is no single lifestyle that is measureablely superior to every other lifestyle."
Obviously, alternative lifestyles have been what this thread is ultimately about; I am very aware of your worldview and the alarming relativity of it. Of course, the great paradox of relative truth is that there are supposedly no absolutes this world, other than the absolute that there are no absolutes. I suppose it is hard for me to understand this, but you do understand the confusing nature of it, don't you? And I have never stated that certain lifestyles should be made illegal by the government; I acknowledged several times on this thread that people will ultimately act in the way which best pleases them, regardless of what government condones or not. I believe that people ulitmately decide their own fate in life, and perhaps this is a consequence of man's having the ability of free will.

quote:
"You have had a good childhood in what is considered a "traditional" family in this century and in your christian sub-culture. Good for you."
Yes indeed, good for me. When I meet the right man, we will raise our family the way we see fit.

quote:
"That is not the only way nor is it the best way."
Praytell, how do you know this absolutely for sure? You reason that one cannot know exactly what way of life is the best, but are quick to tell me that my way of life "is not the best way"? How utterly confusing.

quote:
"I would argue that it is not the best way simply because you have accepted fully the truths your parents found in their lives and not found your own truths."
That is very presumptuous of you. Have I not observed, read, or simply seen for myself? Of course, people will have their opinions, and I have indeed left myself wide open by telling the forum of my own childhood experience, but please do not think for once, that I have not pondered the complexities of life. Why is it always presumed by people, that if a young person has not rebelled against their parents, that they have not thought out the ideas and complexities of life themselves? That they have no mind of their own?

quote:
"Until you could provide credible documentation supporting how a Christian sanctioned husband/wife model as conceived of in this century is superior to everything else I would advise leaving your religion and canon of said religion out of the discussion."
I honestly do not understand why I must be required to leave my religion out of this debate, but that you do not require yourself to do the same, and demand of yourself, the same standard that you are currently demanding of me. As to the appropriatness of my religion on this thread, that is up to the moderator to decide, and not you.

quote:
"help notice how close minded you are on this subject."
Actually, I didn't say that, someone else on this thread did. Thank-you for your comments, but it seems as if the same two people are repeating what they believe over and over to me, and I keep stating my beliefs over and over. That's okay, but I have grown very weary of this subject and feel that I have nothing more of use to give to this thread.

[ January 19, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
KE is short for KnightEnder. I was addressing KE not you.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ray Bingham
Member
Member # 1456

 - posted      Profile for Ray Bingham   Email Ray Bingham   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
FJIC: You asked if there were conservative and liberal mormons. Short answer, not really.

The basic guidelines and standards of the church are easily available, publicised, and discussed to all members and it's up to the individual members to apply them to their lives.

People apply these principles with varying degrees of zeal, just as anyone does with a set of guidelines.

Much of the LDS faith is forward-looking, and based upon "continuing revelation and inspiration from God," and thus it is with Polygamy. It was a law, commanded of God, that early LDS practice it. It was practiced only by a small percentage of members when it was practiced, and even then, it was a challenge. People romanticize, or demonize it, because they don't understand it. You may assume it was about power, and control, and sex. I believe it served two purposes. One, it humbled the priesthood of the church, presenting them with a very serious spiritual challenge. Secondly I believe it was ultimately a compassionate practice which allowed for the caring of widows and single women in a frontier era.

I am biased, having benefitted personally from polygamy, in that I would not have been born were it not for a polygamist ancestor.

Having said that, I have absolutely no desire to live such a challenging practice today. It is not suited for this time, and with how little time I find myself with to spend with my own family, I am aghast that someone would think that such a thing would be a good idea. It would only serve to distance children from their parents (whereas that may not have always been the case).

Fortunately, I don't have to worry about that. Polygamy is banned in the LDS faith, and to practice it is a serious sin, outside direct authorization from God--it is grounds for immediate excommunication.

I am sufficiently challenged by God's current prophet, and by my covenants with the Almighty. I really don't think on all this other stuff all that often. I do find that people are curious about it, or they grossly misunderstand the impractical nature of it. Since I'm not ashamed of it, nor am I a proponent of it, I don't have a problem talking about it either. But it's an exceptional thing... not the norm... a bit like some advanced curiosity of mathematics with layered intricacies and based upon all sorts of theorems, but in the end it's not very useful when your goal is simply to balance your daily checkbook...

Best regards,

--Ray

Posts: 589 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"I am sufficiently challenged by God's current prophet, and by my covenants with the Almighty. I really don't think on all this other stuff all that often. I do find that people are curious about it, or they grossly misunderstand the impractical nature of it. Since I'm not ashamed of it, nor am I a proponent of it, I don't have a problem talking about it either. But it's an exceptional thing... not the norm... a bit like some advanced curiosity of mathematics with layered intricacies and based upon all sorts of theorems, but in the end it's not very useful when your goal is simply to balance your daily checkbook..."
Thanks for the helpful answer. For a while, I did not know a lot about the Mormon Church (still do not) and didn't personally know any Mormons at all. When I lived in Virginia, I met two fantastic people who were Mormons. Not to mention having read many of Card's books and his columns, I found a deeper respect for the faith of Mormons.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Now that's just silly. Of course certain lifestyles are superior.
Not always. I will agree that monogamy is superior to polygamy most of the time, and is what the human race is "hardwired" for through romantic love (or pair-bonding" as zoologists call it), but in a situation where you consistently end up with larger than normal numbers of dead males, polygamy works better.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Locus
Member
Member # 540

 - posted      Profile for Locus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"Not always. I will agree that monogamy is superior to polygamy most of the time, and is what the human race is "hardwired" for through romantic love (or pair-bonding" as zoologists call it), but in a situation where you consistently end up with larger than normal numbers of dead males, polygamy works better."

For that matter species improvement occurs more quickly when breeding males are culled intensively in a polygyny type setup.

Posts: 678 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
locus,
hurrah for bringing sexual selection into the thread! i'd hesistate to say it's always improvement, though...there are a lot of hypotheses about what sexually selected traits are communicating to the choosy sex, and some of them do contribute to rapid evolution in a particular direction.

some evolution IS in a beneficial direction, and some isn't. in some cases, intense selection by females on a male trait results in something that greatly hinders male survivorship. sometimes, the trait that females select on is an indication of male quality, and sometimes it isn't. it all depends.

evolution is all relative too. what may be good this year may be bad next year. but in general, i agree that polygyny/polyandry do often result in the greatest number of offspring having the "best" parent.

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Locus
Member
Member # 540

 - posted      Profile for Locus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
simplybiological,

How would the selection process work in polyandry? Seems like the males would be the best portion of the population to cull through as their numbers are more elastic for breeding purposes. *grin* ..funny thing is ..the implication that polygyny would be deleterious to women when in fact it would enhance their value. It's the men that would suffer.

I didn't mean to imply that selection would always select the best merely that it generally should.

Posts: 678 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
Man, this thread really exploded over the weekend.
quote:
Leto: That is hillarious. You are saying that if gender is not limited, the number is logically not limited? You are saying that number is equal to gender? Are you joking? Eqplain that to an insurance agent, a divorce lawyer, a tax consultant, or a local Surrogate.
I’m saying that the same argument about limiting the number of individuals in a marriage as has the one about gender.
quote:
Leto: I'll give you the same reply I gave Doug: Explain that to an insurance agent, a divorce lawyer, a tax consultant, or a local Surrogate.
You need to explain this a little better Leto; exactly how does the number of individuals taking part in a legal contract bear any relation to how an insurance agent, a divorce lawyer, or a tax consultant uses numbers? My life insurance policy, for example, has no legal limitations on the number of individuals I can name as beneficiaries.
quote:
Anonymous: Regular marriage is between two and only two human beings. Homosexual marriage is between two and only two human beings. How will homosexual marriage, then, lead to polygamy and other supposed perversities?
Except that regular marriage – as defined for centuries, is not between “two human beings”, but between a man and a woman. If it's wrong to redefine marriage by removing the gender specifics, why is it wrong to further redefine it by removing the numbers involved?
quote:
Leto: One would have to begin from some erroneous assumptions—like that whole "number of spouses means the same as gender of spouse" thing—that are, logistically, just not going to happen.
Why Leto? Because you say so? The problem is that removing the ‘gender of spouse’ thing from the legal definition of marriage changes what that definition is. By the same token then, the same argument can be made regarding the ‘number of spouses’; you are legally redefining marriage to include a union that it never included before. That’s all removing the limiting number does, so how if it ‘different’?
quote:
RayB: FJIC: You asked if there were conservative and liberal mormons. Short answer, not really.
Um. Ezra Taft Benson and Steve Benson (or Drewmie [Wink] ).
quote:
FJIC: Thanks for the helpful answer. For a while, I did not know a lot about the Mormon Church (still do not) and didn't personally know any Mormons at all. When I lived in Virginia, I met two fantastic people who were Mormons.
We can fix that; all that’s necessary is an address you can be reached at. [Big Grin]
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
locus
works the same. females that have the best...whatever (territory, some trait, etc) tend to do better and have more kiddos because they get more boys. it's often resource-defense, where a female guards a territory in which there are many males. a good example is the Jacana, a water bird. female jacanas maintain a territory and attract males into their territory. they mate with each male, lay eggs, and the male takes care of the eggs while the female maintains the territory. in this case, the female gets much greater mating success than she would otherwise, if she just mated with one male, particularly because there is high egg predation. i'm tempted to say polyandry is often correlated with high male parental care, but don't quote me on that.
short video about jacana polyandry

quote:
Seems like the males would be the best portion of the population to cull through as their numbers are more elastic for breeding purposes. *grin* ..funny thing is ..the implication that polygyny would be deleterious to women when in fact it would enhance their value. It's the men that would suffer
polygyny is more common, yes, partially because one male can fertilize innumerable females, while female can only have babies at some constant rate based on incubation/egg production. in general, the more times a male mates, the greater his reproductive fitness. if the number of times he mates is correlated with how "good" a male he is, then it should mean that there will be more "good" males (and females) in the next generation.
however, there are lots of reasons for female polyandry and promiscuity (i gave my class a lecture on this this semester).
1. resources. often males will bring the female something to eat in order to induce her to mate- sometimes, the bigger the food item the longer she'll mate, and the greater percentage of offspring will be his. however, if you can mate with guy A and get a nice worm, and then mate with guy B and get a nice worm, etc etc, you would want to mate as much as possible. very common in insects.
2. sperm competition. not all sperm are created equal. if a female mates with many males in succession, she initiates a contest of "may the best sperm win"... good sperm may correlate with some other positive trait, or it may only ensure that her sons have the fastest sperm, which means her genes have a better chance of being passed on. closely related to this is
3. egg choice. no one knows how often this might happen, but in comb jellies it definitely does. the egg admits many sperm, and then the nucleus of the egg "visits" each sperm and decides which one to fuse with. apparantly it's obvious under a microscope. CRAZY.
4. paternity confusion. in situations where there is high infanticide, OR where males are needed to help with offspring care, females will often mate with many males to confuse them as to who is the father of the offspring. in the case of infanticide, rival males won't know whose kids is whose and are more likely to leave them alone. in the case of parental care, males are apt to take care of all offspring if they thing ANY might be theirs. genetic tests show that usually an "alpha" male will have fathered up to 90% or more of offspring, but the "beta" will feed them all as long as he mated sufficiently with the female to think some might be his.

the sort of paradox you noted is true- females, because they put more resources into producing and caring for offspring, are often the "choosy" sex (jacanas are an example of role reversal, the evolution of which is an interesting question in bio right now). this gives them evolutionary power, so to speak, because they decide which males pass on their genes and which don't. in some species, females also are allowed to determind the sex ratio of their offspring- even MORE power!

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Locus
Member
Member # 540

 - posted      Profile for Locus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
simplybiological,

That is very cool stuff! Thanks

Posts: 678 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
you're welcome. seriously ANYTIME. this is what i do, i love it, and i'll talk about til i'm blue.

if you think that stuff is interesting, you should check out a fabulous book...
"Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to all Creation" by Olivia Judson.

it's a book about evolutionary biology of sex, written as though it is an advice column for animals with sex issues. it is written to be accessible to anyone, no biology background required. i used it extensively in my discussion class for non-majors, and many of them bought it and loved it. some of the examples (the comb jellies and egg choice in particular) that i cited above are directly from the book.

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
FIJC wrote: Do Mormons have a lot of religious splits within the church? In otherwords, are there theologically "liberal" and "conservative" divisions in Mormonism? Or is it pretty united?
quote:
Ray Bingham wrote: FJIC, You asked if there were conservative and liberal mormons. Short answer, not really.
quote:
Dan Allen wrote: Um. Ezra Taft Benson and Steve Benson (or Drewmie [Wink] ).
Ouch! [Big Grin] I've read ETB's An Enemy Hath Done This (a collection of his ultra-conservative writings and speeches), and it's terrifying! Just so everyone knows, I'm a liberal Mormon, NOT an Eagle Forum, McCarthyist, Communism-is-Satan's-tool paranoid like some. Just look at the chapter entitled "Civil Rights Movement: Tool of Communist Conspiracy." Yikes!

While I agree that there isn't much theological division among Mormons (given our belief in modern prophets and apostles who receive direction from God in directing the Church), there is plenty political division. I'm both a devout member of the LDS Church, and a member of Mormons for Equality and Social Justice (MESJ) (pronounced "message"), a group for progressive Mormons. Luckily, the Church makes a point of focusing on individual spiritual progress, and typically stays far away from political things that erode the purposes of so many religions.

[ January 19, 2004, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: drewmie ]

Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think the original question about liberal and conservative Mormons was about the existence of liberal and conservative organizations dedicated to pushing the Church as an organization one way or another (the original question was some way back, so correct me if I'm wrong). Someone mentioned Sunstone and FARMS - I think I might agree about Sunstone, but I'm not so sure about FARMS. While I would be the last person to deny the existence of liberal and conservative individuals, you aren't going to really find Mormon political organizations because the Church mostly avoids getting involved in political wrangles as an organization. It does encourage political participation but doesn't usually its members to vote a particular way on a particular candidate or referendum.

quote:
2. sperm competition. not all sperm are created equal. if a female mates with many males in succession, she initiates a contest of "may the best sperm win"...
According to one episode of The Human Animal, men actually have three types of sperm - one that does the actual fertilization, one that seeks out other men's sperm and kill them, and one that curls up and acts as a blocker for follow-on (and presumably another man's) sperm.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
in other species, male sperm is completely freaky... in one species of fruit fly, the male produces one sperm that is much, much bigger than their body, and it effectively plugs up the female. male bees leave their genitalia behind to plug up the female to try and keep her from mating again... other strategies include secreting a waxy plug to close off the female, or ahem, REMOVING that which was there before you. lots of male animals have some seriously funky looking penes (plural of penis, i swear) that will scrape out any previous, um, deposits.

thus proving my point- boys don't like it when girls try to play elsewhere.

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1