Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly reality

polyfi@comcast.net · Sat, 19 May 2007 01:49:11 -0000

Bill, and others,

The reality of it, is that it's two-sided.  Monogamy has the same "faults" as you point out.
In many states marriages are allowed where one of the couple may be as young as 12 or 13.  Check the minimum age standards in Kansas and Massachusetts, for example. (at that age parental consent is required)

Second, we know that monogamists also have arranged marriages, where one or the other, maybe both, have little say in whom they marry.  Parents often pick partners even in monogamy.  And, we know that age 12 or 13, legally, is  below the age of consent, but parents do the consenting for them, legally.

Finally, most of the faults of either polygamy, or monogamy cannot be witnessed and corrected when/IF it is underground, or illegal.  Things can only be regulated best when they are legal, and the community is aware of the different relationships, and people do not fear living openly in "public".

The worse abomination, for me, as a U-U, is having "one-way for all." (and that way put into legislation, making other choices criminal -- as monogamy is now the "one way for all")  
That's why, I feel, that if the UUPA doesn't support LDS Polygamy, then it doesn't have a leg to stand on, to support polyamory for other UU's, themselves, or anyone else.

You may notice that many conservative have already put forth the conclusion, that if gays and lesbians get the legal right to marry, then polygamy will be the next step in community acceptance.  Because if two lesbians or two gay men can marry, (that will do away with the old definitions, of marriage is between one man, and one woman).  
The point is, we have to be ready to fight for the next step, that is,  new pioneering forms of marriage in the future.  Just about anything, IMO is better than the current standard of serial monogamy, and more and more people living ALONE in single-adult communities, more isolated, consuming more resources, ect.

Dave (of K.C. Mo.)   

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: wabaldwin@aol.com 

> I have no problem *in theory* in supporting the right of a man to have several 
> wives. 
> 
> My problem with the Utah polygamists *begins* with, what they do seems to 
> include forcing teenage girls to marry them. 
> 
> And goes on from there -- they don't believe in allowing a woman to have 
> several husbands. Or for several men and women to all be married as a group. Or 
> in allowing dignity to gays, lesbians or bisexuals. 
> 
> In fact, while they insist that their men are religiously *obligated* to taken 
> several wives, they refer to us polyamorists as "abominations". 
> 
> Technically, I suppose I do support their desire to have mulitiple wives -- but 
> only equal, consenting, wives. 
> 
> ...when and if we are allowed polyamorous and gender-inclusive marriage. 
> 
> Bill 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: licorice.gumdrop@gmail.com 
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org 
> Sent: Fri, 18 May 2007 2:07 PM 
> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly reality 
> 
> no, no, no, and NO. 
> 
> support an institutionalized practice that is sexist, marginalizing, 
> and demeaning to women? within a religion that goes out of its way to 
> step on the toes of other belief structures? great cthulhu, NO. 
> 
> i completely reject the idea that the mormon polygamist struggle is 
> part of any struggle, real or otherwise, in which polyamorous people 
> as a whole (whatever that may mean) should be engaged. 
> 
> the argument that if mormon polygamists "do not win civil rights, 
> then we will never win them" is completely nonsensical. it holds 
> about as much merit as arguing that if NAMBLA's agenda isn't 
> legitimized, the oceans will surely rise twenty feet in the next decade. 
> 
> i'm sure others will do a much better job at describing the inherent 
> injustices of mormon polygamy. but how does working to legitimize a 
> practice that by its very nature denies gender equality affirm or 
> promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person? 
> 
> i apologize if i'm overreacting, but i'm going to go puke now. 
> 
> jenny 
> 
> 
> On May 18, 2007, at 11:38 AM, polyfi@comcast.net wrote: 
> 
> > I hope that the upcominhg uupa.org, and UU GA's in Portland, will 
> > AT THE LEAST, express their support for polygamists in Utah. I'm 
> > not saying we accept polyamy as part of the "normal" polyamory, 
> > because it in fact predated modern polyamory. But, the struggle in 
> > Utah, is also "our struggle", because if they do not win civil 
> > rights, then we will never win them, not even under the UU umbrella. 
> 
> > 
> > Dave (All Souls UU, Kansas City, Mo) 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives. 
> > Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about 
> > yourself. 
> > UUPoly-L mailing list 
> > UUPoly-L@uupa.org 
> > http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives. 
> Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself. 
> UUPoly-L mailing list 
> UUPoly-L@uupa.org 
> http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________ 
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL 
> at AOL.com. 
> _______________________________________________ 
> The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives. 
> Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself. 
> UUPoly-L mailing list 
> UUPoly-L@uupa.org 
> http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l 