posted on June 23, 2002 11:09:57 PM newSALT LAKE CITY, Utah (Reuters) -- An avowed Utah polygamist who has become the nation's best known advocate of multiple marriage goes on trial Monday for raping a 13-year-old child -- to whom he was married.
This is something that has always been a mystery to me. In modern times, does it really matter how many males marry how many females in Holy Matrimony? I never did understand why one man, one woman was the law or even ancient law in some cultures. Certainly, polygamy is the rule in history, rather than the exception. And Child Brides are nothing new. I recall back in the late 1970's that the Age of Consent for the State of Kentucky was 10 years old at the time and that didn't change until about 1985, if I remember right. In Tennessee where I was living at that time, the Age of Consent was 12 years old and that changed in about 1979 or 1980 if I also recall correctly. In my studies of human history, I have come across these two points over and over again: that pluralistic marriages were largely the norm and the taking of brides at around age 10 or even 8 were often common (although, for Child Brides that age, the new bride would live in the husband's household and wait for several years before deflowering.) And these days or Science and Reasoning, it makes me wonder what the fuss is all about sometimes (although I don't believe anyone should marry before the age of 25 or have kids before the age of 30, IMO.)
posted on June 24, 2002 01:49:52 AM new
Consenting adults are exactly that. What they do and who or how many they do it with should be their business. But children can't be consenting adults by definition, and although there may be some 15-16 year olds who are more mature than some 18 year olds, the laws to protect minors from being taken advantage of are appropriate and necessary. The fact that Tennessee was in the Stone Age or that "taking of brides at around 10 or even 8 were often common"(when and where?), doesn't make it right in an enlightened society. Are you wishing this was still allowed?
posted on June 24, 2002 04:58:25 AM new
I agree we need a reasonable age of consent. 8 or 10 is as ridiculous as 21.
However he does have a valid point that the government is not supposed to make any law respecting religion - and the laws against polygamy are blatant enforcement of Christian religious standards. As much as the Blue laws they are still enforcing in Canada.
posted on June 24, 2002 06:36:33 AM new
gravid- Polygamy is one thing, age of consent is another. The consenting adult argument is much more likely to be credible. As much as I am a very ardent supporter of the separation of church and state, to say that simply because a certain behavior is part of a certain religion's beliefs means that government should allow it is dangerous. What if a religious belief was to starve or otherwise injure one's child to bring them closer to God? Should that be allowed? Of course not.
posted on June 24, 2002 09:05:21 AM new
I agree - That's what I was trying to say - that the two issues are seperate.
One is a cultural matter and the other is religious. What does a fellow do that has two legal wives fron say Sengal or Saudi Arabia and moves to this country? Does anyone know?
posted on June 24, 2002 09:09:53 AM new
Borillar, I didn't read the article, partly because there has been so many articles about polygamists or bigamy (sp?) the last few years, decade...
I don't think it has anything to do with religion when they arrest these guys. The law as it stands today, for 9, 10, 13 year old girls it is not legal for them to marry, because the consensus of people when making the laws, decided that it is not right. (I didn't make the laws! )
If your looking at historical references where very young girls were married, of course. Way back, in biblical times and before, the lifespan of a person was much less than it is today, making it 'right' and normal to marry and have children at a very very young age. And to start having babies, as people didn't live as long as they do today.
They are arresting female teachers up here for 'raping' boys of 14-17 and one is going to jail for it. Is this wrong? Well I think it is (though I have a hard time seeing a forcible rape of a male of 15 years old by a 30 something female )
I believe the Mormon Church has definitly REVERSED their polygamy practice long ago, and they do not support it at all. Most of these guys have broken off from the main Church and started their own little sects of it, and have many wives, but its still illegal, though they don't arrest all these guys, just the ones that have children as brides
posted on June 24, 2002 10:02:57 AM new
Certainly polygamy would make our already overburdened and overcomplex legal system even more of a mess. You would need a complete rewrite of much of property and child custody law to recognize the possibiity of multiple spouses.
I agree the origins of anti-polygamy was based on religious and cultural prejudice, but until the legal code supports it, I'd just as soon avoid adding more stress to the legal system.
Polygamy - at least meaning "one man, many women", works great when the world is divided into "men" and "property", the latter category including women and children. Polygamy imposes very few problems as long as women and children have no rights. Its simple - the man makes a decision, and the others put up with it.
[ edited by captainkirk on Jun 24, 2002 10:06 AM ]
posted on June 24, 2002 10:31:21 AM new
gravid, in answer to your question on one man having 2 or 3 wives of consenstual age, well, I have to agree with captainkirk here, the legal issues involved. But if they are from a country where it is their culture, the women, most likely would not have a problem with it, thus not getting it involved with our legal system.. I guess!
IMO only, it just seems like a big mess for someone to have one or more spouses at one time. Though you read and hear about these huge 'families' that all 'get along great'.
The ones I've seen on the news, the wives are the ones that go work, some stay home, or take turns watching all the children, and the guy sits around 'supervising' his world ... sounds great for the guy
edited to change 'many' to 'man'
[email protected]
[ edited by NearTheSea on Jun 24, 2002 10:33 AM ]
posted on June 24, 2002 11:21:15 AM new
It's using a religious basis to treat women as property. Even though the women "agree", they do so based on cultural pressure or as an accepted place for them. What it amounts to is artificially assigning a mandatory job of daycare worker to people based on sex. If poligamy was allowed, the law might technically say a woman has full access to being a doctor or lawyer etc, but the defacto effect would be pablum spooner.
One of our salesman always comments that Utah is a fabulous place to visit and he'd go again tomorrow if offered, but that it's a nightmare to stay.
posted on June 24, 2002 01:03:50 PM new
gravid, you know it just doesn't seem 'fair' that there isn't more polyandry, and you hear more about polygamy (I'm joking, I myself don't believe in either)
But! yes some still do,two principal forms of polyandry exist today. There are some women, who inhabit India's Malabar Coast, a woman may marry several men of equal or superior rank. (so it is nothing to do with their religion) In areas of Tibet, a woman may marry the eldest brother of a family and then also take his brothers as mates. But then in most countries, polyandry is illegal.
posted on June 24, 2002 01:12:35 PM new"Are you wishing this was still allowed?"
stusi, what kind of a sick comment is that? Can't you read even basic English? I said, "although I don't believe anyone should marry before the age of 25 or have kids before the age of 30, IMO." I think that it is YOU who has some sort of fascination with that idea!
As far as Child brides go, I haven't specifically researched WHO and WHEN, although history both East and West is replete with references to children being treated as property and trading pieces to make alliances between families. How did the common person do it? Unfortunately, the history of Humanity is filed with the ignorant and only those who could afford a scribe, usually for legal purposes, were the ones who left any written records. While in most Western cultures, all references to child being deflowered in these Child Bride marriages is largely non-existent, what is said is that the females were often left until age 13 or 15 or even 17 sometimes before the husband could consummate the marriage. What the real story is we may never really know.
I think that it is the notion that children have some right to NOT be treated as the property of their parents that has changed in our society. In fact, there are still large segments of our society that still believe that the children are the property of the parents; therefore, they can beat them, whip them, starve them, etc "for the Good of them" they say. Maybe, what we have here is a problem about the status of children.
As far a polygamy goes, it means one male of one, multiple partners of the opposite sex. In this day and age, who says three guys can't marry one woman if they all agree? (Polyandry) I mean, with DNA testing, it's easy to determine whose child each one is. So, although the common role is for multiple women to one male, there is no reason that it can't work the other way Ladies!
And what about Group Marriages? That's where multiple males marry multiple females. It's what the Early Christians often did. No jealousy there, or need to go outside the group for sex.
Why not One Man, One Woman? Look at the divorce rate! No one should get married until AT LEAST they are 21! and no kids until they are 25 (although I prefer an even older age requirement). Even so, older people get married and divorced.
The Question that I have is, is there any biological, scientific or safety reason why we can't have pluralistic marriages? Should there be different classes of marriages, since not everyone has a fortune and large amounts of property to protect?
posted on June 24, 2002 01:34:04 PM new
Heinlein proposed several interesting forms of marraige in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
Line marraiges seemed interesting. A group marries individuals by unanamous consent. They try to keep a balance of male /female and since they never have everyone die out and new members are added it never ends and is very good at conserving property, and providing a stable environment for children as they would never be orphaned if one or two of their parents are killed in an accident.
Also since many marraiges seem to end in divorce how about a set term marraige for a set number of years with option to renew?
Might keep the old boy (or gal) on their toes so you wouldn't decline the renewal!
posted on June 24, 2002 01:40:20 PM new
"Should there be different classes of marriages, since not everyone has a fortune and large amounts of property to protect?"
You'll have to be more specific what you are thinking here, since people can squabble endlessly about $1, and every marriage can have that priceless item...children...that need to be protected above all else.
"is there any biological, scientific or safety reason "
Just as an observation, the only societies that I know of that are based solely on these criteria are the Vulcans and Borgs.
By the way, from websters: (a general comment)
polygamy: "marriage in which a spouse of EITHER sex may have more than one mate at the same time"
polyandry: having more than one husband to one wife
polygyny: having more than one wife to one husband
Not sure if there is a "poly" word for group marriages (polychaos?)
posted on June 24, 2002 01:49:50 PM new
Borillar- you did say "it makes me wonder what the fuss is all about", which led to the question which was in jest.
captainkirk- Spock says " I can't believe my ears Captain Kirk". Kirk says " I can't believe your ears either, Mr. Spock!"
[ edited by stusi on Jun 24, 2002 01:53 PM ]
posted on June 24, 2002 01:51:05 PM newThe Question that I have is, is there any biological, scientific or safety reason why we can't have pluralistic marriages?
Answer: No, there are no biological, scientific, or saftey reasons to having more mates, spouses, husbands, wives whatever.
(well, maybe saftey, as some may get jealous )
So why bother with marriage at all? Just have however many ladies, or in the case of women, as many men, as you want, and go with it, thats not illegal
Thats just something that I could not and never would do, I just don't like the idea, I don't believe its 'right'(my own personal beliefs) and I do believe in monogamy only.
posted on June 24, 2002 02:18:13 PM new
Actually, a Group Marriage does not seem to be that bad. Think TRIBE, although most tribes end up with too many similar shared genes, it does form the basis of a workable unit. Seeing as how in the 1950's, the Husband could go to work and bring home enough money for the family to live on and by the 1980's, that had changed to taking both the husband and wife to make ends meet. In the future, it may not be possible to make ends meet unless you are part of a tribe.
It just seems silly to me that the government has anything at all to do with regulating marriages. Certainly, the issue of property gives them the right to get involved, but does it give them the right to say what arrangements between adults is OK and which is not? In Heinlein's book mentioned by gravid, a person wanting to divorce themselves from the group had to rely upon the prenuptial agreement which gave them a lump sum to get rid of them. I imagine that if one person is too much of a bother in a group marriage, the others could unanimously vote that troublemaker out (the Group divorces that person).
posted on June 24, 2002 02:25:57 PM newI imagine that if one person is too much of a bother in a group marriage, the others could unanimously vote that troublemaker out (the Group divorces that person).
posted on June 24, 2002 03:04:46 PM new
auroranorth- What is it about my using the expression "enlightened society" that prompted you to issue a personal attack? I wasn't referring to a mass lighting up of bongs and pipes! Or are you just having your daily acid flashback? Why don't you take your pseudo-intellectual, dazed and confused doublespeak over to ePier where you are admittedly more in your element?
http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=5&thread=3055
[ edited by stusi on Jun 24, 2002 03:19 PM ]
posted on June 24, 2002 04:27:23 PM new
I guess I don't want a 50's life style.
From what I remember of it -
No health insurance. Had to be scared of dying to go to emergency.
Nearly bare home with a black and white TV my Uncle bought in my Dad's name and before he drown.
One beat up old car that we were always afraid would break down and we could not fix it.
No central heat - just a kerosene heater in the living room.
At one time I had one pair of jeans and had to wear my "dress" pants to wash them.
I would wear shirts until they had holes through them.
No - no thanks to the 50's.
Well they do have that one, my daughter used to watch it, Temptation Island. I watched it once with her, and it was really strange to me. You have a seemingly 'happy' couple, not married, but been together awhile. Then put in these lavish tropical places with a bunch of gorgeous singles to try to 'lure' them away from their relationships.
So hey, Group Marriage Survivor doesn't seem too far out there!
posted on June 24, 2002 06:41:05 PM new"Or, more properly today's lifestyle. I'm sure the husband only scenario would MORE than pay for the '50's lifestyle."
So, what your position is, DeSquirrel, is that family income over the decades has risen ahead of the cost of living and it's only the extravagant lifestyles of Americans that makes it seem like less? Yes or no.
)
doesn't sound very good