NEWS: Give Polygamy a Chance

That is such a cliche that because I am taking the side against marriage that I have been scorned. Societial influence says my ideas should then be dismissed as cynical. I am not going to pretend I haven't been hurt because I have but my ideas are only minimally effected by that. I was very much the cliche hopeless romantic after that "hurt" but I started noticing shared behavior among individuals who are married and then asked why. Years of observational learning and research have led me to these completely rational conclusions. My past "hurt" only reinforces my conclusions and it isn't the reason for them. My conclusions say that relationships should not be ritualized or defined because the result of doing so destroys the relationship as well as the individuals involved.

However I do leave a place for emotion, after all it is inescapable. I more or less embrace my emotion but try to only allow them to become action when they aren't going to result in destructive behavior. I can only minimally predict the results of my actions and make mistakes like we all do but just because I can't always ensure the optimum outcome doesn't mean I should not always try to do so. It is irresponsible (and often destructive) to blindly embrace any emotion. It wasn't our emotions which allowed mankind to evolved to the point he has, it was our deductive reasoning skills. The computer, the electricity, the clothes you may be wearing and your place of residence would all have been impossible without our deductive reasoning skills. If mankind is going to stand the test of time it will be his deductive reasonings skills that get him there not a blind indulgence in emotion.


P.S. Societal influence acts as both conditioned and unconditioned stimulus most often resulting in the societally desired emotional response. If you doubt this I recommend taking a Social Psychology course. It was quiet enlightening for me.

I was just using IQ as a basis for showing that experience is likely an unusual one when it comes to development of clear personal direction. However going back and read that it is kind of funny from that perspective.

IQ does not make you immune to idiocy, it only shows your logic and problem solving skills.

+1

I vote no.

I seriously have got to cook up my own modern day religion.

Oh and about IQ. I can testify to the idiocy factor having a high IQ myself.

Do they still give kids IQ tests? I don't remember getting one for my daughter when she was little. But IQ when it was tested on me anyway was when I was pretty young. It was a tool to let them know how fast I could learn things (logic and problem solving). All of that is obliterated as you age due to emotional baggage and other factors.

And 182 goes straight by "really smart" into "total loonytoons" anyway.

Don't mean to derail things.. just thought the iq drop was cute.

I may not be immune to idiocy but such a high IQ does say that I have highly advanced problem solving skills and as long as I use them properly and don't allow for flaws in logic the probability that I would be an idiot would be very small.

P.S. My ideas are not idiotic. Their is nothing rational about marriage and such blind emotional indulgence is destructive to self which is in turn destructive to society.

Glad you appreciate it!

By the by, anyone interested in a fairly balanced account of the origins of Mormonism, their fundamental sects, polygamy, Joe, Brigham, and all the gang, are encouraged to check out Under The Banner of Heaven by the guy that wrote Into Thin Air.

Pst, while blahing on about your IQ, make sure "their" is spelled "there." Or is the difference between possessive pronouns and adverbs not a logic problem?

Krakauer was his name. And I think a slash and burn peice indicting an entire religious sect for the murderous actions of a set of brothers might have been a stretch. Fairly balanced it is definitely not.
My I.Q. is not nearly as high some of the rest ofyou, but I'll weigh in on this as I have a disporportionate number of relatives active in the LDS faith, and even though I attend services maybe twice a year, they haven't shunned me, yet.
Polygamous marriage was originally handy in transient and warlike cultures as it facilitated population growth even when males of reproductive age were in short supply. Old Testament Israelites fell in that category, as anyone who has perused the blood bath that is the O.T. can vouch for. The founders of the LDS faith encountered a similar problem in the early years of the church, as they lost a mumber of men to lynchings, murders, and other squabbles with their Christian neighbors. Women in 119th Century America were not treated with anything resembling the equality they are today. Some states restricted their ability to engage in real estate ownership, purchase and other business contracts, also some states restricted how their deceased busbands estates were handles in probate cases. This led the church leadership to recognize plural marriage as ordained by God, even though there was a great deal of debate within church membership as to its viability. After J. Smith was killed in Nauvoo, Il, the ascension of Brigham Young to the head of the church with his 40 plus wives (some of the members probably enjoyed plural marriage as much as you boys fantasize) it pretty much squasheed debate.
By the time Utah was ready to enter statehood, the practical need for plural marriage was gone, and it was less common that you might imagine. Most families that practiced at that time fled to Canada or Mexico (I believe Romney is related to some of them).
Those who practice plural marriage today, I pretty much categorize as creepy, incestuous, pedophiles but that is just my personal opinion. Most of the LDS members I know feel even more strongly about it's aberrance than I do.

I think as long as it is between people of age then it should be ok. I figure as long as it does not harm anyone why should we all spend so much time fighting it. In the case of them doing it underage it is rather twisted.

What's 'really true' is 'mainstream' Mormons forfeited polygamy soley as a condition of statehood for Utah back in the day. They will tell you otherwise now because they want your money.

If we're going to get picky here, there is no such thing as a Fundamentalist Mormon. You are only supposed to refer to members of the mainstream LDS church as Mormons. If you pay attention to Big Love they address this.

This rule was created by the LDSers themselves, and most people ignore it, which is fine by me.

For someone with such a high IQ you have a hard time with the word 'there'.

If they are actually "Mormons," what's that got to do with polygamy? Mormons don't practice polygamy. "Fundamentalist Mormons" do. Two different groups entirely.

The best comparison I could make for you is Sunni and Shia. Hasidim and Reformed Jews. Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics. To complete outsiders from the faith of us they'd possibly seem somewhat similar. To one another, it's as different as night and day.

One side things it's REQUIRED to have multiple wives, the other side wants polygamists to be arrested, or at the very least go away and stop embarrassing them.

If your crazy enough to marry 12 women go for it! As long as there over 18 and everyone is in love go for it and send me pictures you lucky dog!!

That's P O L Y A M O R Y you morons.
Amen

Hey ! You forgot to tell us your IQ

There are laws against forcing people to marry, and against having sex with underage people.

I don't think it would be a bad thing if marriage were redefined so that those choosing anything other than 'traditional' relationships were no longer penalised by employees, taxation, home loans, etc.

If current laws were adjusted to allow legal marriage to several wives (or husbands) this would allow records of those marriages, and possibly greater access to domestic abuse assistance, counseling, etc which individuals in monogamous relationships can currently access.

funny i should read this story a couple of days after reading this one:

full article

my favorite snippets:

You got so much wrong in that post I don't even know where to begin.

Here's a start. It's MormOn, by the way.

If you're going to take swipes at a religious belief system, try and A) know the least bit about it B) make sure you've got the right religious belief system, and C) spell the name correctly.

If you miss out on C, someone might take you for a "moran."

That bit about underage brides is a seperate law, and seperatly enforced, so it is a non-issue as to whether or not the goverment has the right to make polygamy illegal.

And it came to pass that verbal reasoning tests were annulled, thus spake the Lord o'er thy cummune and gaveth the correct answer.

LOVE THY NeIGHBOUR, for he loveth thy wife, as he doth thy child