Monogamy , one partner to many???

[333]

Peace

The philosophy behind how and who we choose to "partner " up with surely is gained through life experience as we are raised , yet in the end we come to the repose that just because "this is the way it has been for how ever long" is a fruitless argument. Why is there such a phobia against the polygamist, or more over why is there such a wide acceptance of state and church sanctioned monogamy??

The removal of choice (marriage) should be a personal private life decision yet the industry and gain by many "offices" and "coffers" seem to be the proponent for this self inflicted life sentence. One is hard pressed to find the truly happy monogamous "couple", there are countless satiric sitcoms and movies to support this yet we seem to believe that this is the best system of perpetuating our species.

Philosophically what argument can be made for or against this private choice, further more why in the world would rational human empower any office the abilty to sanction or condemn your private liberty???

Peace

[daphodil]

"self-inflicted life sentence" ;D
I will answer that while marriage is less than ideal at times, as far as romance and general bliss, it is still very beneficial if you choose to procreate.
In regards to polygamy, I think it is biblically based--men took many wives in the OT. *The tribes were small back then and men likely wanted to spread their seed. *They were 'building' in a way, as men are wont to do.
Now, if a man can find many wives and can afford to support all their children, I suppose you could make a fine argument to support polygamy.
There is a Jewish saying that may fit here: *"one wife is enough for any man."

[333]

peace

," it is still very beneficial if you choose to procreate."

Marriage is not a neccessity for procreation, obviously, ;) yet the need for a "marriage" as well is not a neccessity. Admittedly with the way people are raised and (depending on culture) theri beliefs "we" are inudated to the supposition that "marriage" is the only (cultural) acceptable course to this effect.

Humans being the emotional entities that they are there would be obvious difficulties arising from "multi-partner" units. ie. the way we choose our "partners", nature would undoubtedly rule here in as much as the "individual" would likely choose the stongest, smartest, most attractive, etc etc. This would leave those of "less" disireable traits with out while those with the most disireable with "many". Could be problematic to say the least.

I believe "choice education" here is the key , most people dont even know how to make pragmatic choices (lack of philosophy) hence resort to that what "culture" tells them they should do, supported by oppressive/ restrictive legislation. (see seperation of "church" and state.
)

Well educated and practical individuals are paramount in any relationship long term. Hen pecking and seed spredding are good examples of the stereo types that incline one to choose "marriage" as a way to stop "unscrupulous" behavior yet does it?

Gotta love philosophy, thanks

Peace

[tn_junk]

People are waiting longer and longer to make that big decision. They are getting all of their "playing" out of the way and waiting until they are ready for a commitment. The average age of first marriage is way up based on 100 years, or even 50 years, ago.
But people still get divorced, a lot of them. Maybe it's just that we, as a society, don't understand the concept of "till death do us part".
Are we slowly moving into a time where we will leave monogomy behind? Will marriage itself become outdated?
Is it all about the change in our society to "me" based instead of "us" based.

[333]

Peace,

People are waiting longer and longer to make that big decision. They are getting all of their "playing" out of the way and waiting until they are ready for a commitment. The average age of first marriage is way up based on 100 years, or even 50 years, ago. *
But people still get divorced, a lot of them. Maybe it's just that we, as a society, don't understand the concept of "till death do us part". *
Are we slowly moving into a time where we will leave monogomy behind? Will marriage itself become outdated?
Is it all about the change in our society to "me" based instead of "us" based.

I believe that "we" as a society do not understand the concept of a great many choices we make. we seem to do things just because it s the next accepted step in a well structured life (birth ,feeble education,taxation, marriage, mortgage, children, taxes, retirement ,taxes, death.)

Again i would debate that marriage or the such and politics and the like should be completeely private and unimpeded or unsanctioned by any authority or state.

Liberty with out privacy is a vain attempt at sovereignty.

What one does in ones private life and mind are no body elses buisness. that is freedom, that is sovereignty, and as long as it does not directly harm ones neighbor , that is *one of the principle cornerstones of that which is "American".

Peace

[Gwynyvyr]

If I had to make the choice again...I never would have married either of my first two husbands...hell, I wouldn't have even lived with my first two!
I regret none of my children...
But given the choice again, I would have had all the kids---sans matrimonial *bliss*.
My third husband I would have at least lived with.

In the future, I would prefer never to marry again under the auspices of a state-approved government sanctioned matrimonial partnership. If I choose to have a *husband*, it will be in the true sense of the word and it's definitions. I may join with someone in a religious ceremony of my faith, but that is a private decision the government has no business in.

[333]

Peace,

agreed , just think of all the revenue that would be lost ,to the state that is, getting in is relatively cheap , but getting out, the courts and lawyers would be reeling. Why are divorces so expensive? Cause their worth it. :o ;D ;)

Peace

[wax]

333- philosophically what arguement can be made for or against this private choice

Wax- You have a definition problem (not slamming on you of course just trying to define better).

What you appear to be addressing is the societal institution of marriage.
This is a contractual obligation which society uses to insure stability and support.
Monogamy is the choice to mate with one (and only one) other entity.

While some theologies involve a "till death do you part" clause all marriage contracts allow for (and one could argue modern marriage encourages) a form of serial monogamy in which one remains "faithful" for the period that the contract is in affect and then is free to move on so to speak.

Classic monogamy is not the norm in modern society (in which one man and one woman experience sex only with each other during the period from birth till death).
In fact it is extremely rare to meet a man who married the only woman he has ever had sex with and remained faithful to that woman until he died.

So what are we really discussing;
Monogamy or marriage? * *

[333]

Peace,

Its an open question to stimulate conversation, you can choose that which you wish to discuss.

333

[wax]

333- Its an open question to stimulate conversation

Wax- That's cool, I didn't intend to be negative, sorry if it came off that way.

Most modern marriage contracts are based on theological regulations from the past, and strangely those often do not deal with monogamy.

It appears (to me of course... everything I post is my perception obviously) that most ancient rules concerning marriage were designed to insure a support structure and limit violent competition over spouses.

Thou shall not covet: is an important rule in society for the obvious reasons, and combining that with rules concerning fidelity insures that stability can be maintained.

But the Bible has some very odd entries concerning marriage and many scholors have decried its patriarchal ( pat = father) and arch = rule)) foundation. But up until very recently (extremely recently in fact, one could argue the last three decades in fact) this sort of societal structure made the most sense.

The question has always come down to the ability to provide support, even concerning modern marriage contracts.

Early societies really didn't care if a man had one woman or twelve, as long as he could support twelve wives financially. In fact Biblical text supports wives bringing other women into a family structure (usually for child bearing purposes but sometimes for fnancial need) and this would appear to have been the norm in ancient days in almost al cultures.

The Bible even outlines some odd (to modern eyes) rules: You can have sex with a female slave but after you are done with her you either must marry her and treat her as any other wife or free her.
This example alone shows quite clearly that "God" is not the prude some claim he is concerning sex and pro-creation.

But it is easy to understand why the modern contract for marriage became more constrained and started to move away from polygomy.
There must have been many problems concerning support itself, raising one family is hard enough imagine having six wives and more than twenty children!
So what happens if you go broke?
Now almost thirty people are destitute and asking for a hand out!
So even if all questions of patriarchy are removed (assuming that all wives are perfectly happy with the situation) society will claim that financial restraints should prevent polygamy.

But society has always sort of fooled itself on this entire issue, and some of the examples of this are quite famous.
What society has actually done is promote serial monogamy, not true monogamy.
And in some very important moral ways the old style is much better.

A polygamist might take another wife, but he could not simply dispose of the old one. She was (presumably) loved and financially supported until she died.
But in a serial monogamist society this is not encouraged, in fact one could argue it is not officially allowed.
So we have a King who must dispose of each wife in succession in order to marry the next, the example of Henry the VIII can not be overlooked as a real negative concerning monogamy.

But today modern marriage contracts almost make it worse.
Back then a rich man could dispose of one wife after another, but the rich can always do as they wish.
But today, more than fifty percent of marriages end in a void of the contract.
This is a disposal just as Henry's example, there is materially no difference (though the women in question are not executed at least!)

[wax]

Modern polygamy has some very strange aspects for me at least.

Our modern marriage contracts assume the fact that the male bears 51% of the financial obligation and the female assumes 51% of childhood possession. Classically this has meant that if a divorce takes place the female will retain the children and receive child support payments until they are of age, she will also receive alimony payments which simulate the lifestyle she became accustomed to while married.

This of course was to preven richer men from marrying then simply disposing of women in a systematic manner.
Even the richest men would eventually run out of money doing this.
But this system is very clear in that it only applies to couples who enter into a contract.

It is perfectly legal to marry one woman and have children with her while bearing children with any number of other women as long as you do not legally marry them! And that causes a strange problem.

There are actually two seperate institutions of marriage in this country... legal and theological.
And society can only realisticalle regulate the legal aspect of marriage.
So think of it this way (because this is the way it is often done in off-shoot Mormon sects).

I am Troy Miller and I marry Sherry Roberts in my church. We get a marriage license through the state.
We are legally recognized as Mr and Mrs Miller by the state.
I then marry Kim Rosza by standing in front of my church and declaring our love, the church sanctions the marriage but we do not get a marriage license from the state.
Kim applies for a name change through the state (becoming Kim Miller) and my name goes on all the childrens birth certificates as the biological father.
No laws have been broken right?
According to the state I have one wife... but I could have many wives outside of the states review.

Of course this sort of arrangement is not the norm, but the norm is very close to it.
It is extremely common for a husband to support mistresses without any question of legality.
So society (the one in which we currently live) seems to have no problem with a man saying, "This is my wife Sherry, and this is a chick I sleep with Mona".
But it freaks out if the man says, "This is my wife Sherry, and this is one of my other wives Mona."

To me this can not be explained in any other way as a control issue.
Society declares "Thou shalt have one wife" and "Thou shouldn't... but can if you must... have sex with women other than your wife... but you better only have one wife!"

[333]

333- Its an open question to stimulate conversation

Wax- That's cool, I didn't intend to be negative, sorry if it came off that way.

Peace,

Wax, no sweat, I tend to be pretty mellow, so offense thresholds are high to non existent, that is not to say I am incapable of being offended or going ballistic. ;) ;D

But please understand my duties here are a little extensive sometimes, so a one liner is all you got, please forgive.

So lets discourse....

It appears (to me of course... everything I post is my perception obviously) that most ancient rules concerning marriage were designed to insure a support structure and limit violent competition over spouses.

Wonder who's idea it was man or woman's , ;) but still the pagans (those that worshiped the nature around them) ruled the earth a long time.

Not so sure monogamy was the rule of thumb then as the strongest and most capable of providing survival would have had choice, and most likely several choices depending on his ambition.

Thou shall not covet: is an important rule in society for the obvious reasons, and combining that with rules concerning fidelity insures that stability can be maintained.

I am not a fan of keeping up with the Jones' and their new cars, etc either, forgive the expression but if by covet you mean desire what the Jones' have then I would call it envy, and envy is not a bad word when I drives one to achieve and requisite the object of their desire or motivates them to procure said desire on their own.

Ok so I have read and re read your post and I cant help but affirm your view that its almost hypocritical to have church sanctioned marriage and state sanctioned marriage, it is obviously clear that the only reasons for either is exactly the money involved or if they go bad and again is the money involved. Your right that its about social semantics.

Here is my humble view, whether or not you marry, state or church, or just legally change a surname, the choice is a private liberty. Sanctioned taboos, social, state or canonical of anyones personal liberty is invasive and oppressive. Truth be told it is always about someone getting your money, profiling, taxing, role filling all organizations rely on it.

Think of the tax loss ramifications alone if every man had 3 wives to deduct possibly 9 children to deduct as well, or if no one married at all it would swing the other way.

Society and the State need to butt out of our bedrooms and households.

Great conversation thank you.

333

[wax]

333- if by covet you mean desire what the Jones' have then I would call it envy

Wax- Yes but...
I should have completed the passage I guess.
Thou shall not covet is many times extended to be: Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife.

This would go a bit farther than envying the neighbor for having such a "hottie" in his household, it implies that covet as used includes an attempt to obtain in some way.
Covet as used in the Bible appears to include scheming to take that thing away for oneself.

Of course times change, it makes sense that the rules would have been this way in a culture in which looking a woman in the eye and talking to her away from the protection of one of her male relatives could get both of you in a great deal of trouble!

333- the pagans (those that worshiped the nature around them) ruled the earth a long time

Wax- Whether matriarchal societies might have existed at some time in the distant past is controversial.
Modern feminism groups have claimed evidence of pagan and shamanistic proofs but they have never held up as far as I know.

Please... enlighten me.
But remember that proof of religion does not show leadership; a shaman is not a chief even if the shaman might be a woman.
There is no doubt that neolithic females held a much greater power role in daily life than eastern examples and the Celtic influence led to great empowerments for females.

My own ancestors (The Vikings and Russ) led the way in this arena and women not only owned property but held sway by voting as well as taking a leadership role in some instances.

Of course this was two thousand years after Judeo laws were written.
And it can not even be suggested that modern western society was not influenced by Judea-Christan law to a much greater extent than pagan "law" (though few realize how much pagan culture was absorbed by Christianity upon contact... Soltices anyone???)

And of course that is what we are discussing when we talk about current societal rules against polygamy: Judeo-Christian condemnations against it contained within societal rules and laws.

[333]

Peace,

Wax,

Good points, thank you.

The house of representatives was based on the rule of women in the Native American Indians I believe. Ben Franklin wasn't alone on this one. England had its King, House of Lords, House of Commons.

The Pagan Influence was in escapable if the Roman Empire was to become the Holy Roman Empire, to convert, capitulate, and install Christianity and many folk peacefully, this was brilliant stroke of strategy the romans had mastered for centuries, borrowed from Alexander the Great. Occupy, Infiltrate, Maintain the local bureaucracy, incorporate local customs.

Great discourse thank you.

333

[Txanne]

I believe its then herd mentallity! ;D

And I have no problem with an adults personal choice to marry more than one---evidently the women agree.

333--its a 3 liner --I am sorry.

Txanne

[wax]

Txanne- And I have no problem with an adults personal choice to marry more than one...

Wax- I do have a "problem" with it from the sense of the legal definition by the State (and I think I know you well enough by now that you were not suggesting a violation of the legal aspects concerning the marriage contract).

Here is what often happens to cause a problem:
I am Troy Miller and I marry Sherry Roberts in my church. We get a marriage license through the state.
We are legally recognized as Mr and Mrs Miller by the state.
I then marry Kim Rosza by standing in front of my church and declaring our love, the church sanctions the marriage but we do not get a marriage license from the state.
Kim applies for a name change through the state (becoming Kim Miller) and my name goes on all the childrens birth certificates as the biological father.

I reach a point in which I can no longer support two wives and however many children (let's assume that Kim and I have six and Sherry and I have five because many polygamists also believe in the "multiply and prosper" declarations in the Bible).

So Sherry and I apply for welfare and receive quite a bit considering that we are a married couple with six children to support... and if it stopped there we would legally be fine no matter how one feels about the welfare state.

But it doesn't stop there.
According to the State Kim is a poor single mother with five children and she can apply for much more welfare because of this.

In some places of Montana (Utah has suffered so much form this problem that welfare fraud is actually quite rare there... but more on that later) there are groups of polygamists who look very similar to the following:

Husband and wife collect welfare for six children.
Husband pays child support to single woman who possesses five of his children: That money of course comes right back to him because she is is "wife".
14 people enjoy medical assistance.
11 children receive reduced meals at school (if public) and no State or local fees are paid for programs because they are below the poverty guidelines.
Single woman receives cash assistance and federal funding which reduces her rent... which goes to her "landlord" (husband).

To be fair we are talking about fraud.
Polygamy can not be made for such a choice in any way... but... a pattern has been established within the polygamy community.

So I agree with Txanne one hundred percent in that personal choice should be upheld with one caveat: that choice should be publicf and monitored just as any other.

The way the laws are right now it actually makes fraud upon the system easier.

[wax]

Another social problem:

Utah has suffered so much from this problem that welfare fraud is actually quite rare there... but more on that later

Ok.. now it is later..

I have seen young women tortured both physically and emotionally by a polygamist system which was forced to go underground in Utah.
The problem of course is making involvement in such a group "illegal" and yet only enforcing the legality from the standpoint of fraud.

What that does is create an entire community within our system which does not exist: this is wonderful from a libertarian standpoint because I wish I didn't exist quite often concerning the State!

But it can certainly cause a problem in communities when one individual is encouraged to guide without abusing power.
I could do it correctly right?
Of course... maybe!

Should a sixteen year old girl be forced to marry a sixty year old man because his youngest wife hasn't provided him with a child?
There are so many issues concerning "wrong" in that question that it boggles the mind!
But I know for a fact that it happens.
And I know that some of the mechanisms involved in stopping the girl in question from turning somewhere for help are created by the very society that condemns polygamy.

Does she stand up for her rights as a human being?
The reader might declare, "Of course she does! Why wouldn't she?" without considering what that might mean.

She has been raised from her earliest moments not to "betray" her family and the chosen way of life they lead.
It is her duty to God himself to protect the community from exposure.
What is more important, her body or her soul?
And would she avoid a few moment of revulsion and self hatred in order to have everyone she has ever loved hate her?

Now I want to make it clear that this particular problem is one that our current society has created. If polygamy were not illegal and despised this young woman could turn to anyone for assistance without fear of her parents being punished.
Theology of course can not be solved by society but at least she would have recourse above what she has today.

[bookwormom]

if all goes well and there is not a major kill off of males

A good marriage is what you make it. I know several couples that I would consider successful at marriage. I know a bunch who failed, some more than once. I know about the hurt, heartbreak, economic upheaval, damaged children from having observed the breakups, most recent of two couples that I knew from when they were kids. Nothing comes from nothing. My heart goes out to one woman who was a good wife, raised four kids and then her husband fell for another woman and broke the whole thing. The old throw a rock in the pool analogy works, as the rings reach even into our quiet homestead as I share the pain of my good friend whose daughter and grandchildren it involves.

who says you have to be romantically on cloud seven in marriage until you die?
what about caring, trust, faithfulness? what about growing in wisdom?
Of course you can learn in the school of hard knocks. (been there done that).
It seems since the invention of the pill it has been mostly forgotten that sex is what causes babies and sex has been reduced to another consumer article and spare time activity, at least it seems to be so represented in the entertainment media.
what about responsibility, what about LIFE? Sex has to do with love and life. If life comes into existence with love it makes a difference for all involved.
It also makes a difference, usually of the negative kind, if mom and dad do not stick together through the thick and the thin and children learn that they can not trust implicitely because sooner or later there will be betrayal, abandonment by one or the other. Instead of working and accomplishing together, fighting, and suffering harm for all involved.
I just came back from visiting my parents, who have been married for 60 years. (it was a great party) They still have a sparkle in the eye and sit and hold hands. I have deep love and deep respect for my parents. Likewise for all my grandparents, whom I honor greatly. In my mind, though they are long dead, I have bowed to them and said , I honor you , I thank you.
Contemplating the issue, I realize that I grew up without fear and a feeling of security. That means the fear of my parents leaving.
I grew up very poor, but also very optimistic. It seemed to be the modus operandi to be good to your mate as that is what I witnessed most. Mom was always good to dad and dad always gave mom the feeling that she was the best and the greatest. I really think it is what you make it. It is a challenge, a giant project. It is not about the most fun you can have. It is also about learning. this is what I have learned through observation.
I hope nobody thinks I am trying to show off and want to be better than others or proud. quite the contrary, I realize that I had it easy. (but we all have our load to carry and so do I).

[bookwormom]

dang, a big part of my post right off the top has gone missing.
what I was saying is:
if all is normal and not a major kill off of males takes place, there is a lid for every pot. Now there are some pots, mostly rich, who want more than one lid. the effect would be that some poor pots will not get a lid at all.
If there has indeed been a big kill off of the males, one could argue that all the females need to be bred to build up the population. Of course the ones doing the breeding will most likely again be the the big shots.
One can argue about the most dominant males spreading their genes among as many offspring as possible, etc. which does not hold water today. The basic motive I would say is lust and selfishness. call a spade a spade.
drats I lost that part, have to rush off now, husband fried us a hamburger and then I have to load up a truck full of mulch (he has a bad back and I can do it just fine).

[wax]

BWM- what about caring, trust, faithfulness? what about growing in wisdom?

Wax- I am with you sister, I really am!
I hold those who take oath and then set it aside as I would a guard dog who bites his master... excuse me? What were you protecting if not your master?

A "successful" marriage appears to have become something very different than it once was.
It is almost as though there were no possibility to "grow" to one another any longer, as if all measures are instant and any gratification must also be instant.

As an adult male I must ask myself:

Would I rather see my daughter with someone she does not love, who would protect her in all things and provide for her... who would give to her first even if he had not and wait for her to see his worth?

Or to the "worthless man" that she proclaims love for? Who will defile her at every turn and abandon her for the "next greatest thing"? Who will abuse her kindness and attach himself to the better parts of her soul as a leech does to a child?

Man... it seems simple but it isn't is it?

[333]

Peace,

So no state involvement, since its a spiritual or private choice.

No state involvement then,... no other issues as this is the cornerstone of the rest.

hmmmm

333

[Rancher]

The subject is Monogamy. By definition, Monogamy is "The state or custom of being married to one person at a time, and/or the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time".

In our country the state, custom, and condition of Monogamy is regulated by law. Both Federal and State laws regulate and define what is, and is not, legal.

Persons are free to enter a Monogamous state through marraige, under the laws of each state by any means chosen, so long as the action is legally defined. Religious ceremonies are accepted, as are other ceremonies, but not required. Some states, such as Colorado and others, accept Common Law Marraiges without any ceremonies, or even a license (permission of the state), so long as the Monogamous condition is present.

[wax]

Rancher- In our country the state, custom, and condition of Monogamy is regulated by law.

Wax- Right... and that is what we are discussing... so what is your stance?
Common law and judicial law are well... basically law.

As I pointed out the "law" is easily circumvented, legally wed one while keeping many in the "flock".
No man-made "law" has been broken.
Perhaps sadly... nowadays... no theological law has been broken (though I could argue a few most so called theologians don't do so).

There is no easy fix, simply read the text when it was perfectly acceptable to treat women as "possessions" (Genesis through well... 1964 maybe?)

Yes... there is no doubt we are talking about subjection.
We are talking about hegomony.
We are talking about loss in many ways.
But we are also talking about responsibility.
We are also talking about the loss of any option concerning the ignorance of need concerning responsibility (at one time my brother's wife would automatically become mine if he died).

Again...
What does a good husband make?
A good wife?

For a Puritan based society we have lost something there very important!

My wife completes me...
But it has been ten years since our vows were taken.
They were not taken lightly!
In fact, it was declared, that those particular vows would only be taken once!

But you see that means something that most vows don't today.
It means that there are no other options, there are no quick fixes to any problem.
I will declare you my wife and you will declare me your husband.
There is no force on earth that can negate that declaration.
There is no human law and I can not stand before a diety and accept that diety as mine without the knowledge that this declaration is honored!

One or many? ... Hmm...
Does it matter?

I would say no.
If a man declares such and holds it as true then that is more important to me than a man who "lies" once and pretends his oath was a "mistake" or worse... a joke!

Like most Americans I have "Freinds" whose marriages have not held up to time.
They include both men and women.
But they share a trait to be sure.
They fought like "cats and dogs" to block the mate from receiving a divorce.
They demanded counciling!
They demanded reconcilation!
They demanded an explanation!

Don't get me wrong I am not blessed by observant associates but the fact is that I have a standard.
"What did it mean to you to stand in front of whatever God you may have and whatever freinds and relatives observed you to declare "until death does us part""?

You did say it as if you might mean it.

So what did it mean?

[WileyCoyote]

A certain small town in ID is very progressive. All who live there have multiple wives - yet they support them by working either on the ranch owned by residents or working in the town's businesses. Unlike many who preach about multiple marriages, they have strong cohesive family units that are not dependent on Welfare, Food stamps, etc. Since they practice what they preach, I have no problem with their multiple marriages - I consider it none of my business. (The only problem was, of course, that when this country had a major flu epidemic, their little town had to be quarantined - everyone had it!)

The problem enters in I think when people are forced to go into these marriages and to live like slaves rather than as equals and partners. But that is the problem with many marriages, even monogamous ones. I know many men who want their woman to "look" a certain way - short, tall, redheaded, young, large breasts, etc - and some to "act" a certain way - helpless, childish, silly, dumb. These men deserve exactly what they get - because they are not looking for life partners and companions, but accessories. They are looking for someone to fulfill their needs, and do not care about each growing into satisfying the other's needs for a lifetime. Shallow, superficial, and unthinking, they wonder why their dependent little girls grow up and away from them, or why they are not attracted anymore to the ones whose hair turns gray or whose breasts start to droop.

Sadly, it is the same with many women - they marry for money, prestige, empowerment, even looks in their men - and then are horribly shocked when they have troubles and lose those things.

Neither group is looking for a life partner with whom to grow and share both joy and sorrow. Neither wants to care for the other if s/he becomes sick or disabled. And so they will end their lives alone, after having gone from one partner to another to another, never figuring out why they can't be happy...

It doesn't matter if you have one wife or seven (although my main contention against "multiple wives" was that it always took more than one man to keep me in the manner to which my father had accustomed me! LOL). What matters is mutual honesty, fair treatment, matching values for raising the children as well as an approach and theology of life, and the ability to emotionally support one another. Or, as I told my kids over and over, "Love is Bull$&!# - be friends first, and foremost, and grow in understanding and respect."

[333]

Peace,

Love is Bull feather's lol that was priceless, thank you.

Be whole and complete yourself first before you merge with another, be wholly open and honest with yourself first, and then with another. LOL Bull feathers.

So the state should respect and reflect the policies of its people and not the other way around ???

333

[Txanne]

I had too hunt this thread dow--couldnt remember where it was---its been awhile.

And I have thought about it---seriously.

Do we marry out of conventional---apperances?
Trying to maintain a decorum of respectability?

Is it to protect the [[children]] from all apperance of immorality?


i know people that have NO [[government sponsered]]
marriage license and have Committed themselves to each other for life---they seem to move through [[marriage]] with a comfortable edge I dont see in [[married]] others.

And if marriage is for the children or apperances--why are there so many divorces and miserable kids?

For that matter---adults?

We rip and tear at each other---marriage doesnt protect us from infidelaty any more than gun laws protect us from being shot by a criminal.

I have often wondered--if people felt free-er in a relationship---if there would be less adultry? Misery?

We seem to demand--to seek the totally super/glued to me mentallty. Ever move questioned---

And I am for a one person relationship--for myself--but if I am committed to the other person--he me---why would i seek government approval---its like they MUST give me permission to procreate---have sex---etc etc.


Now for those with which it has to be a married--licensed situation--all power to you---but whar about letting people seek their own comfrort--level with their personall life.

Texas is one of the few States left--that reconizies common-law marriage.[[although you must go through a regular divorce to end it--stupid yes--But hey its government issued.


txanne

[WileyCoyote]

Well, after the first time I swore I would never marry again, and took my Daddy's name back. When I met the guy I wanted to live with "for awhile", we talked about marriage but I was agin it. So we moved in together. Finally, it was too hard for him to put me and the kids on his insurance (no relationship) and he wanted to adopt the kids from my previous marriage, so we married so that we would all have the same last name. I didn't want to be married, but after 25 years it is kinda comfortable now. ;D

[333]

Peace,

Why not just a legal name change?

I am glad your comfortable though. Stupid cultural rules. LOL

333

[Txanne]

Well, after the first time I swore I would never marry again, and took my Daddy's name back. When I met the guy I wanted to live with "for awhile", we talked about marriage but I was agin it. So we moved in together. Finally, it was too hard for him to put me and the kids on his insurance (no relationship) and he wanted to adopt the kids from my previous marriage, so we married so that we would all have the same last name. I didn't want to be married, but after 25 years it is kinda comfortable now. * ;D



COOL!!

25 years? Looks like you found your 's!! ;D

The warrantly runs out on mine about 14 years!! ;D


annie

[WileyCoyote]

LOL Yeah, he always said that when I turned 40 he was gonna trade me in for two 20-year olds, but I told him he wasn't wired for 220...

Alas, he gave up and agreed (he turned 40 eight weeks after I did)!

[Txanne]

WC--after the death of my husband--I had the mistaken --thought that widowed would be a very respectful state ---that I would be more likely to find another Mr. Right--not so!!

Not wired for 220---funny--though very true---and that i believe has been the bane of life from the beginning---do men think its their due--to spread their [[joy to all females]]?

Is it strictly a male--be all too all things[[speaking of women of course]]?
Is that why they have such a hard time being singularily true to one woman?

I --in my old age believe it to be true---egomanics all---

until they blow a fuse! ;D


annie--that ought to fire'em up

[RangerRick]

Well, Sweetie and I married Friday the 13th, 1972. Actually we were junior high sweethearts. Dated occasionally in high school and a bit in college and during Viet Nam. She was ready to marry way before me as I was not interested in too much limitation as I perceived it. After a period I finally determined I could live fine with out her but I just didn't want to spend the rest of my life like that. I think it was the right decision but it has taken frequent 2 way communication which means listening as well as talking. Mutual commitment to each other and the family we created was of paramount importance and an honest compassion for each others hopes desires and feelings kinda rounds it up for us.

Can't and wouldn't want to imagine a different life without my best friend Sweetie, we're a pair cause we work at it and it works for us.

Yea, I know I'm whipped. :)

Rick

[WileyCoyote]

Yup, know what you mean - if my VSO hadn't gotten it all out of his system before we hooked up I would have had the same trouble with him.

We had a Sun City build over in the next county ten years ago. Nice quiet place, hardly ever any trouble or cops called. Then came Viagra. Suddenly there are divorces, swingers' parties, and key clubs in that retirement community - and lots of cop calls due to cheating, wives walking in on hubbies and vice versa, even gunplay. Wild times.

My best friend was a perfectly normal human being, happily married grandfather - and then his wife found a younger man and kicked him to the curb. Suddenly he is dating sweet young things who are dipping into his pockets with abandon, he's going to clubs with people half his age and thinks that they all like him. They do - because the money pours outta his pockets like water and he pays $1000 bar tabs for tablesful of girls. He thinks he is still young and attractive, even though he's paunchy, wrinkled, and balding - and they let him think that.

There is no age limit on being a fool.

And I don't understand why a man wouldn't want a strong, mature, experienced woman beside him - unless he wasn't strong and mature himself. So don't give up hope - there are still real men out there who can enjoy you and respect you for who you are. The ones who don't or wouldn't - wouldn't be worth any investment of your time anyway. Just like you would never think of being a simpering barfly that rips off men, they would never think of dealing with those types...

If anything happens to my VSO, I plan to continue being a very mean, grizzled, stubborn, tough old lady; and if there isn't a man who can deal with that, then I can't be bothered.

[Txanne]

Yup, know what you mean - if my VSO hadn't gotten it all out of his system before we hooked up I would have had the same trouble with him.

We had a Sun City build over in the next county ten years ago. Nice quiet place, hardly ever any trouble or cops called. Then came Viagra. Suddenly there are divorces, swingers' parties, and key clubs in that retirement community - and lots of cop calls due to cheating, wives walking in on hubbies and vice versa, even gunplay. Wild times.

My best friend was a perfectly normal human being, happily married grandfather - and then his wife found a younger man and kicked him to the curb. Suddenly he is dating sweet young things who are dipping into his pockets with abandon, he's going to clubs with people half his age and thinks that they all like him. They do - because the money pours outta his pockets like water and he pays $1000 bar tabs for tablesful of girls. He thinks he is still young and attractive, even though he's paunchy, wrinkled, and balding - and they let him think that.

There is no age limit on being a fool.

And I don't understand why a man wouldn't want a strong, mature, experienced woman beside him - unless he wasn't strong and mature himself. So don't give up hope - there are still real men out there who can enjoy you and respect you for who you are. The ones who don't or wouldn't - wouldn't be worth any investment of your time anyway. Just like you would never think of being a simpering barfly that rips off men, they would never think of dealing with those types...







[[
If anything happens to my VSO, I plan to continue being a very mean, grizzled, stubborn, tough old lady; and if there isn't a man who can deal with that, then I can't be bothered.]]



LOL LOl Me too---Few camn handle that/this kind of women--i have never been a helpless --pale lily!!

annie ;D


Sorry I hyjacked--But this is a very interesting subject.

[bookwormom]

quote from WC

All who live there have multiple wives


what I don't understand is, where do they get the wives from? Is there such a surplus of women that they are desperately grabbing at anything that wears pants, even if it means sharing a man?

yeah, those older guys with money, they think they are so cool. In Germany they did a survey few years back, asking older men who married young women why a young woman would marry an old man. The old men said for love, the young women who were asked said for the money. And one young woman I talked to said it was because they are afraid of dying.
Oh my gosh, 1000 bucks bar tab. what couldn't we Back Wood Homers do with that kind of dough.

[RangerRick]

In defense of mongamous marriage is a condition of practice as I see it, resembles a pair of shears joined so that they can't be separated, often moving in seemingly opposite directions yet in harmony, always prunning anything that may come between them. Of course in self reflexsion, I also see myself somewhat as a bee that fixes his hive, augments the world, benefits the republic, and by daily diligence, without wronging any, profits all; but he who condems marriage, like a wasp, wandering as an offense in the world, lives upon spoil, distrubs peace, steals sweets that are none of his own, and meets misery as his just reward.

And yes, I do realize that I'm am whipped.

;D

Ranger Rick

[333]

Peace,

As long as you know it and like it , enjoy, and sincerely all my best LOL ;D

333

[clarkshomestead]

Though I am in a monogamous marriage I agree that man is always desiring others and the ideal would be that we could all have exactly what we want without harming others but in todays society either the male of the female will be put off by the others conquests. I am not even considering the fact that multi-partener relationships are possibly prone to infection by STDS. I would love to be able to have multiple wives but I would fear todays current cesspool of pathogens. We are an equal rights nation or atleast that is our ideal, so all your prospective wives would be able to find multiple parteners as well which would equal free range and would essentualy weaken the stock if all are breeding for the sake of pleasure and not production and honourable traits. Whether you believe it is in us to be monogamous or not it is! We choose from all the potential parteners for what we consider to be a long term GOOD and that makes our children GOOD! Atleast that is the way it would be without the influence of mass pop culture on ourselves and our children. So for the sake of all the traits you choose to be noble in mankind... PICK ONE. and use protection for the rest LOL

[daphodil]

Well, I'm a Romantic, so I believe in true love. I just don't think you can make it all that 'logical' or 'structural' in the end.

I like the idea of marriage. It doesn't always work out, but I think Nature and God intend for opposites to attract and reproduce.

[EarthMama]

333- philosophically what arguement can be made for or against this private choice

In fact it is extremely rare to meet a man who married the only woman he has ever had sex with and remained faithful to that woman until he died.

*heh* I never considered myself as "rare". ;D

I feel kinda special or sumpin'.

Hubby and I got married at 19 years old. I was Catholic at the time (not anymore) and he was athiest at the time (still is). We both have never slept with anybody else in our lives and we're now 52 years old and have been married for 32 years so far.

And sex has never been better between the two of us.

Rare? I dunno. There's probably more of us out there than anybody realizes. I hope there's more of us in the future.

Not knockin' anybody who's got divorced or whatever, mind ya. To each their own... everybody's gotta do what they gotta do. And some do what they wanna do too, which isn't always a bad thing either.

I'm just sayin'...

Many times over the years I've been in a huge room full of men and I can honestly say, with all my heart, that there's not ever been one man I'd trade for MY man here at home... not one... ever.

Maybe we're not rare... just lucky. :-*

[333]

Peace,

I think it is awesome that a thread can last this long and keep popping up. My folks just celebrated their 50th anniversary so more power to them.

I on the other hand seem to have not gotten the manual for recognizing miss right. I am an honest fella even to my own detriment at times, my life's dream has not changed for 24 years, but it seems that when the disclosure of hopes and dreams during courtship with potential miss right occurs, either miss right is lying to me or herself, cause when it was time to go realize "our" dreams, homesteading is not acceptable, and I feel cheated. I was honest and forth right, she was not to some degree to me and herself. It seems folks tend to do and say what they need to get what they want today, forsaking the reality of tomorrow. IMHO

Good stuff folks thanks

333