Replies

It is clear that our society has difficulty in holding the line about any moral matter because it increasingly examines every question from abstract principles, most of which are themselves matters of dispute. And since the world is full of gradations, any dividing line between the permissible and the impermissible is bound to be arbitrary and therefore open to criticism, and each advance in permissiveness is used as a justification for the next.

To see this argument illustrated, just check out any FReeRepublic thread about a sexual issue. The porn threads are especially rich.

At least polygamy makes biological sense. Gay marriage makes no sense at all.

FYI, I hope polygamy is never legalized. I think it must be extremely hard on the wives.

Having said that, my great-great grandfather, a Mormon pioneer, had four wives. Three of them were from England, and he married them in the same year, 1867. The fact that he married all at roughly the same time suggests that he was asked to do so. Two were in their 40's, like he was at the time. One was 24, and she was the niece of one of the older wives. In those days, she was approaching spinsterhood at the age of 24.

All the plural wives were recent immigrants to the US, with no ties and no means of support. I'm fairly sure the older women were wives in name only. There were no children. He had a large family with the young wife, in addition to a large family -- already grown -- that he had had with his first wife, my great-great grandmother, who had immigrated with him to Utah.

I think A lot of the early Mormon polygamous marriages were arrangements by which women in this isolated place, with no prospects for monogamous marriage and no legitimate way to support themselves, were given a place in society.

It wasn't at all like today, in some of the modern sects, where young teens are pressured into marriage, and the wives live on welfare. In the early days, men with the means to support plural wives were often asked to marry some of the "excess" women who were immigrating into Utah from all over Europe. The percentage of men who actually entered into plural marriages was in the single digits.

But I wouldn't want to see it return. I wouldn't want my sons and daughters to have to deal with it.

Some of the problems I see with polygamy , interbreeding and the medical problems that come with it. Taxpayers picking up the tab for all theses wives and children. Young girls not being given a choice in who they marry. The lack of education or education that is geared just toward the church/cult. Women being told they must be submissive. Domestic abuse and sexual abuse. Boys being forced out of their homes and communities so the older men can get young girls. I could go on........

"These days, our society cannot just say no to almost anything short of robbery and murder. That is why, from the outside, it appears so deeply decadent."

I find this an interesting statement. By saying that "our society" (slippery terminology, that) looks "deeply decadent from the outside" implies that from the inside "our society" does not appear "deeply decadent" or perhaps not even decadent at all. Is not this point of view exclusionary? Discriminatory? Prejudiced? Judgmental? Arbitrarily excluding and ostracizing (and perhaps worse) many, if not most, good Americans?

I was born in this country and all of my ancestors were likewise as far back as can be traced (which is prior to to 1776). I willingly went to war back in 1966 when asked to do so by the United States Government. I believe in the Constitution and have sworn to defend it from all enemies both foreign and domestic. Whatever is meant by the term "American society" I find "American society" deeply decadent indeed.

For me it is very hard to watch the hopes and dreams of my ancestors, dreams of virtue rewarded, of justice and decency, brought to naught by fools and knaves. By evil men and women. By nihilist, scheming, power mad, vicious freaks.

So therefore I am not a member of "our society"? To Hell with that, Jack.