Polygamy

[Bravus]

Ed - those stats are pretty impressive, but they might need to be contextualised by looking at what proportion of the 'normal' population now grows up in fatherless homes, and also by other factors such as poverty. I'm not diminishing the role of father in any way, shape or form: it's the second most important life role (after husband) that I have in my own life, and I take that extremely seriously. I'm not sure that fatherless stats are relevant to polygamy though, even if they're relevant to lesbian couples raising children (and I'd bet those stats don't take that kind of situation into account). How is giving attention to two wives, each with two kids, that different from giving attention to one wife and 4 kids? And the kids would have more mothers, yielding more total parenting time and involvement.

I'm not promoting polygamy as a choice, and it's certainly not one I'd make for myself. I'm just arguing that we need strong grounds before legislating what I'd argue are matters of personal preference, and I'm not seeing the evidence that those grounds exist...

[there buster]

It is my hope that I think carefully about every answer.

Once again, I'm not certain I understand your question. Why would I or anyone else want to force anyone to reproduce? That doesn't make sense to me.

As far as that goes, there are plenty of heterosexuals I wish would not reproduce.

[Guest]

The touchy spots:

Stomach

Crotch

Bank Account

TV/VIDEO remote control

[cricket]

In response to Bravus,

Quote:

---

How is giving attention to two wives, each with two kids, that different from giving attention to one wife and 4 kids? And the kids would have more mothers, yielding more total parenting time and involvement.

---

Parenting time is not a linear measurement. As parents, we are not limited to spending our time with our children in a one-on-one environment. We over-lap our time with our spouses and children.

I don't believe for a moment that a man can give equal attention to two wives. As you've said in your previous post, one of your most important roles in this life is the role of husband. As a husband of two wives, your time would be more than split in half with each. (I'm assuming they do not live together--but, even if they did, your time would be lessened by the time it takes to go from one bedroom to another.)

Another issue is this idea of "total" parenting time. Defining total parenting to being the raising of a child by both a man and a woman is truly what total parenting is about.

I won't suggest that it isn't possible for a woman/woman, man/man, woman/man/man, woman/woman/man, or any further combination or lack of combination thereof parental unit to raise a child into a healthy/mature young person. I will suggest, however, that this will require additional "education" for the young person. In no way can a woman/woman parental unit "naturally" cater to the development of the whole person. It isn't logical, it isn't possible. In a natural setting, they can only transfer the education that they've learned themselves: the essence of being women. In the same sense, a parental unit of man/man cannot convey a "total" parental upbrining of a child. There must be further education for the young child.

This is not to say that an uncle, an aunt, a friend or other relative cannot fulfill these roles for the young person. It is simply to say that a young person cannot receive "total" parenting without two members of the opposite sex guiding them.

Now going back to the man with many wives and many children. His time will have to be split between families. When his time is split, the total time of "total" parenting lacks.

And when this happens, this happens:

Quote:

---

# Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems

[uS D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999.]

---

[there buster]

Quote:

---

How is giving attention to two wives, each with two kids, that different from giving attention to one wife and 4 kids?

---

My experience is that a wife's need/desire for her husband's attention is directly proportional to the number of children they have.

My wife wanted/needed/required three times the attention when we had three children as she did when we had just one.

As far as two wives, my observation (and affirmed by the case of Jacob's two wives, for example) is that each wife requires as much attention as the other(s) plus 20%.

I actually did a good deal of study into Mormon society during my grad and undergrad training (My M.A. is in Religious Education with emphasis on home/family life). I've read pro and con on "plural marriage." It seems pretty clear to me, even in the "pro" literature, that the undercurrents between/among wives is very destructive.

[cricket]

Uh, I think Nico was just saying that if we were to require homosexuals to go back into hiding because of their sins, that they would feel compelled to stay in heterosexual relationships and therefore reproduce to continue a life of hiding their sexual orientation.

(How's that for a run-on sentence?)

[there buster]

Quote:

---

contextualised by looking at . . . factors such as poverty.

---

Actually, that gets it backwards

Quote:

---

Research now shows that the percentage of fatherless families in a community more reliably predicts that community’s rate of violent crime than any other factor, including race. The same can be said for rates of child poverty. In fact, interestingly, white children in fatherless families are significantly more likely to live in poverty than African-American children who have a father in the home.

http://www.thehill.com/op_ed/061604.aspx

---

[Bravus]

That's correlation, not causality - as easy to say that poor white children are more likely to be fatherless than middle-class black children.

Edit: Is two parents of the opposite sex the ideal? Absolutely. But read the 'Ideal and the Real' thread for my pespective on that. Is a two mums or two dads family better than a single mum as a child-raising environment? The evidence is not in, but I suspect it is. As Christine points out, it requires a role model of the opposite sex somewhere in the child's life, and a good one, but that's quite doable, and I suspect most gay couples know that and make allowances for it.

Ed, I don't want to keep arguing about the stats - my point was that your argument was that the reason the state should value and protect heterosexual marriage and not homosexual was about reproduction, and making the case purely in reproductive terms, I'm not convinced that you can rule out polygamy. There may be (and are) other excellent grounds.

[there buster]

But my argument was never solely about reproduction. In that case, unmarried mothers or harems would do just as well.

You missed a crucial phrase:

Quote:

---

Only heterosexual couples can provide those children,

and civilize them.

---

Any fertile male/female pairing can produce offspring, but only intact homes can consistently produce productive citizens.

Quote:

---

That's correlation, not causality - as easy to say that poor white children are more likely to be fatherless than middle-class black children.

---

Yes, quite facile. But when you look at all the factors cited, you will in fact see quite a bit of "contextualization," with fatherlessness being the common factor.

And the "ideal vs. real" argument has been a driving factor in the campaign to "define deviancy down." As more and more of these "realistic" solutions have been applied, the reality of society has become worse and worse, justifying even more radical "realistic" solutions. The necessity for the few becomes the convenience for the many.

I have actually formulated and helped enact legislation, changing the legal reality in my state. Like no where else, the legislature is forced to deal with reality. The worst case scenarios become realities that must be accounted for in legislation. So I bow to no one in my grappling with real world problems.

In my state, 25 years ago, a new governor took office. He wanted to improve things, and initiated a move to get pari-mutual horse racing here. He didn't particularly like gambling, but was banking on the horses, the breeders, the veterinarians--the general infrastructure required by horse racing-- to stimulate the economy. He was being "realistic."

The legislature, taken over by the opposite party, went along with his horse race idea provided he would acceed to a state lottery. All the proceeds from the lottery would go to "education."

I had lived in a neighboring state 10 years earlier, which had adopted a lottery with precisely the same reasoning. But in ten years that pot of money had been thrown into the general revenue stream.

Some of us warned the governor, but he said we were "idealistic," that gambling would come, one way or another, and he could blunt its force by building up the horse industry.

Well, the horse racing never took off, despite massive state subsidies. Even dog tracks (another realistic compromise) didn't survive. Today we have the lottery, riverboat casinos, slot machines, crime problems near the gambling facilities. That governor left office after having served longer than any other. He was a good man, an excellent governor-- but his unintended legacy is the gambling he didn't want.

As I've written elsewhere, even God compromises. I understand "reality." I also know when certain "realities" are simply conveniences to forward a political agenda.

For example: It isn't realistic to think that teens won't engage in sex. That's reality.

Well, I've worked with teens and young people all my life. They're not unreasoning animals; for the most part, they're as responsible as we expect and allow them to be.

When we expect them to behave irresponsibly, and excuse it, they do.

Of course, a small percentage will violate the norms of society. Some people commit murder, you can't stop them. Does that mean you normalize murder? Just expect it to happen and shrug your shoulders. Ridiculous!

But that's what society has done regarding teen promiscuity. Indeed, we aren't even supposed to use the word, "promiscuous," as it's "judgmental." Of course it is. It characterizes a type of behavior which is destructive to everyone.

If anyone was thinking seriously about children, about the next generation, then these topics would be moot. Instead of looking for ways to normalize less than ideal behavior, we'd be looking for ways to promote what's best.

But that wouldn't be "sophisticated."

[Bravus]

OK - except that for gay couples (except those who adopt), the 'consider the children' argument doesn't hold, since there aren't any. And of course, legalising gay marriage is not going to turn the 90-98% (depending on whose stats you read) of the population who are straight gay, so the 'next generation' argument is really pretty hollow: two of this world's big problems are over-population and over-consumption by those of us in the first world, so a few less percent of energy guzzlers and consumers isn't going to destroy the state - assuming the gay people would have bred had they not been able to marry their partners anyway, a highly suspect proposition. So basically, the 'children' card is completely irrelevant in this debate. And there's good evidence to show that a loving, monogamous relationship is beneficial to individuals and therefore to society - are we seriously suggesting that keeping gay couples in de facto relationships helps anyone with anything much?

Ed, you do tend to come across as prickly - when I encourage a realistic approach, it's not my intention to claim that you're being unrealistic, so there's not really a need to rebut that impression. I'm just trying to explain my own ideas clearly (as they're forming), not to attack you personally. I will adduce evidence to challenge some of the claims you make, but it's in a spirit of discussion and discovery. And I know, from your discussion with Nico, that you don't mean to come off as hostile, but the language kinda does. I'll read it as (I believe) you intend it.

I still haven't seen *any* strong, convincing evidence for why gay marriage harms straight marriage or the state. I'm willing to be convinced, but it's not happening so far...

[Dr. Shane]

Actually the acceptance of the gay lifestyle has increased the percentage of the population engaging in gay sex. Cosmopolitan did a study this past year, although I don't remember the exact numbers. I believe it was around 40% of women had kissed another woman, over 50% had thought about having sex with another woman and about 13% had actually had a sexual encounter with another woman.

When you think about it, exposure to any sin lessens our resistance to it. So as society is more exposed to the gay lifestyle the resistance to it becomes less. Let's face it, If a man performs oral sex on another man or a woman on a woman the one on the recieving end is going to enjoy it regardless their "sexual orientation"

[cricket]

Quote:

---

Let's face it, If a man performs oral sex on another man or a woman on a woman the one on the recieving end is going to enjoy it regardless their "sexual orientation"

---

Ahem. Speak for yourself. Under no circumstance whatsoever would I enjoy this; it would be the most psychologically challenging point in my life if I even tried to enjoy this.

Now, your other points are well taken with me. I'd been having a difficult time trying to put it into words.

Bravus, when any sin is allowed to continue, it degrades the mind and body. When the mind and bodies of our neighbors are degraded, it affects us all. Perhaps not in the immediate sense, but in the "big picture" sense it will ultimately affect us all.

The real issue, then, is whether or not we believe homosexual practices and the practicing of polygamy to be sinful. If it is something we believe to be sinful, then it is something we need not to condone.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Ed, you do tend to come across as prickly

---

John 16:12

Quote:

---

two of this world's big problems are over-population and over-consumption by those of us in the first world,

---

Quote:

---

I still haven't seen *any* strong, convincing evidence

---

Yet you follow Malthus (continuously wrong since 1798) and Ehrlich (continuously wrong since 1968). Probably there's no point in continuing this.

Ehrlich predicted that, by the end of the 20th century, human want would outstrip available resources; whole areas of human endeavor would screech to a halt due to resource scarcity; England would, in all likelihood, cease to exist; India would collapse due to its inability to feed itself; and "inevitable" mass starvation would sweep the globe (including the US). We were on the brink of disaster in 1968, and the future looked very, very dark. In fact, he asserts, "it is now too late to take action to save many of those people."

Unless I am the victim of a vast conspiracy, I traveled to England in 2003, which seemed very much in existence. And I've sent more than a dozen articles there for which I received payment.

The evidence concerning the dangers to marriage is plentiful for those who want to know. In 1989, Denmark had legalized de facto gay marriage (Norway followed in 1993 and Sweden in 1994). Now:

Quote:

---

In Norway, half of all children are now born to unmarried mothers. In Pettersen's county, 82% of couples have their first child out of wedlock. The numbers are similarly high for Sweden and Denmark. While many couples marry after having the first or second child,

it's clear marriage in parts of Scandinavia is dying.

---

The right-wing source of that quote? USA Today

Yeah, I know, it's not causation. But I've been through this in my lifetime, already. By the time the real research gets done, a whole generation will have been damaged. Last time it was "Divorce Doesn't Hurt Children." Anyone who worked with families, as I have all my life, could see that was false.

In the meantime, whole forests will be sacrificed for articles, studies, and books pandering to popular sensibilities. To paraphrase Mencken, "No one ever went broke telling people what they want to hear." Eventually the damage will become both self-evident and undeniable, and another really bad idea will be proposed to make things better. After all, how can it hurt an institution already so damaged?

So, through a variety of means, the Scandinavian countries have de-coupled child rearing from marriage. Welfare for unwed mothers, removal of the "stigma," easy divorce, gay marriage-- all of these treat marriage and child rearing as unrelated activities. Did any one of them kill marriage? No, but--

Quote:

---

[T]he link between marriage and having children has all but disappeared. USA Today 12/15/2004

---

And most cancer patients don't die from cancer. They die from pneumonia, caused by an interaction of the anti-cancer therapy and the cancer.

I hope you read the article. It's spiced with grim and unintended humor. For example:

Quote:

---

Social welfare policies in Scandinavia treat all parents the same, married or not.

"

The government does not think it is their place to show people how they are supposed to live,"

says Maria Lidström, a co-coordinator for family policy for Sweden's division of children and family affairs.

[then much, much later. . . ]

Scandinavian governments are now considering changing the laws to require men to take more of their share of child leave after the baby is born.

"Ultimately (the government) wants to help women in the workforce to make them more competitive," says Lidström, the Swedish co-coordinator for family policy,

"The other reason is to make men more involved in the family life."

---

Wonder if she changed her mind, or just her rhetoric?

[there buster]

Everyone please forgive me, but I just have to ask.

Quote:

---

If a man performs oral sex on another man. . . the one on the recieving end

---

Which one do you consider "on the receiving end?"

Never mind, I don't want to know.

OK OK OK, I'll go to my room. Sorry.

[Bravus]

Nope, not a fan of Malthus or the other fellow - I'm not predicting large scale disaster through overpopulation. I believe we're already seeing the consequences though: global climate change is exactly the cost of too many rich Northerners (ncluding me) using much more than our share of energy. (Heh, and we can threadjack off into climate change debate at this point too if you like! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />)

And the main reason that the recent tsunami was so devastating was that those very poor countries are also massively overpopulated, and that's where the waves went through. This world has more humans than are really sustainable, and the population is set to double (again) in the next generation. So looking at it from a nationalist US perspective, maybe lots of reproduction is an unreservedly Good Thing, but from a global perspective, not so much...

And you've moved the ground of the discussion yet again... and I'd argue that gay marriage is also the correlate of the out-of-wedlock rates in Scandinavia, definitely not a cause, and that the common cause is liberal social values in those countries.

Finally, your argument is simply social conservatism: don't try anything or change anything, because it takes a generation to find out the consequences. Just stick with what we know. Oh, what we know includes lots of suicides of gay teens, and Matthew Shephard beaten and left to die, and sham marriages of people who are not attracted to their partners, and... but those consequences all fall on sinners...

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

The touchy spots:

Stomach

Crotch

Bank Account

TV/VIDEO remote control

---

Another JB classic.

Seriously though, it dissolves, as far as I'm concerned, at this one core point: ... every "spot" is each just yet another piece of me that is part of the whole of me and either all of me is given to Jesus or it is not. If it is, then whatever it is, it is His. And as Scripture would have it:

[:"red"]"If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you."[/] -- 2 Cor. 5:13

[there buster]

Quote:

---

don't try anything or change anything, because it takes a generation to find out the consequences. Just stick with what we know

---

When you're ready to actually read what I wrote. Let me know.

Bye!

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Yeah, I know, it's not causation. But I've been through this in my lifetime, already. By the time the real research gets done, a whole generation will have been damaged. Last time it was "Divorce Doesn't Hurt Children." Anyone who worked with families, as I have all my life, could see that was false.

In the meantime, whole forests will be sacrificed for articles, studies, and books pandering to popular sensibilities. To paraphrase Mencken, "No one ever went broke telling people what they want to hear." Eventually the damage will become both self-evident and undeniable, and another really bad idea will be proposed to make things better. After all, how can it hurt an institution already so damaged?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> This isn't saying 'don't try it, it will be a disaster'? Maybe I over-stated by saying 'don't try anything', but your argument here is essentially that it's *your opinion* that this is a bad idea, and you don't think we should go looking for the evidence.

Anyway, maybe we just put it aside... seems to be getting us annoyed, and that's not the intention. We can amicably agree to disagree on the gay marriage issue, and I think in any practical terms we're on the same side on the polygamy one.