|
It's not paranoia if they're right.  I'm pretty sure our religious right used "what's next, polygamy??" as an argument against gay marriage. (The law passed nonetheless.  )
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
And in all honesty, I'm personally ambivalent about polygamy. It's something I have zero desire for and I don't think it's Christ's model for us, but I don't think religious values should shape government policy, which I believe should be purely secular. My reservations are more that our legal system has trouble enough with the idea of a man and a woman being equal partners and all that that entails legally, much less dealing with same-sex couples and polygamous marriages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
The RLDS...the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints, the people who stayed east under the leadership of Joseph Smith's wife and son when Brigham Young took the rest to Utah, are now called the Community of Christ, by the way, and they've become more mainstream Protestant, for lack of a better word. They're trinitarian, don't have restricted temple rituals, and recognize baptisms from other denominations. They also ordain women, and are currently in the middle of a debate whether to recognize gay marriage and gay clergy (they did in 2013, then walked it back). Groups have since split off of that, though, including the RLDS....the Restored Church of Latter Day Saints, that rejected a lot of the changes in the new Community of Christ. Basically, about LDS denominations, when Smith was assassinated, there was a lot of debate about who his successor should be....his son, or Brigham Young, the President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, or Sidney Rigdon, who was the only surviving First President, or James Strang, who was never particularly important in the LDS organization, but who was charismatic, and claimed that an angel visited him and said he should lead. He also had a letter of dubious providence that he said was from Smith, naming him as successor. The majority of the community backed Young, but Joseph Smith Jr., Sidney Rigdon, and James Strang all had followers who refused to get behind Young. That was the first major LDS schism. The second LDS schism came when the LDS renounced polygamy. A bunch of Mormons who rejected that, led by a local dairy farmer named Lorin Woolley set up a community in southern Utah/northern Arizona called Short Creek. Woolley claimed that, just before the LDS First President announced the end of polygamy, he said to Woolley and his father, "Hey, even though I'm ending polygamy, I don't really mean it. So I'm picking you two, and a few other people to make sure it goes on." Woolley then set up a group called the Council of Friends, or the Priesthood Council. This is generally considered the start of the Fundamentalist Mormon movement; a bunch of groups that practice polygamy and reject the mainstream LDS teachings. A lot of them tend to be pretty small and cultish. The biggest and most famous is the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, run by Warren Jeffs. Jeffs is currently serving life in prison for accomplice to rape, because he arranged marriages between adult men and teenage girls. Epicurius fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:Yep, most of the people in my Mom's family except her and her sisters are what's called RLDS: they stayed in Missouri when the Brigham Young faction went to Utah, and refer to the LDS people as "Utah Mormons." They're mormons without the polygamy, but to judge from overheard conversations involving my uncle they're sympathetic to polygamists...which in the mouths of the open-minded leads to a weird (for conservatives) sympathy with gay marriage, because they're paranoid about where attempts to legislate "one man one woman" will lead. Yes, they are the Trinitarian Mormons, the second largest Mormon denomination with about 1/50 of faithful compared to LDS. From what very little I've read, unlike LDS, they understand and acknowledge the theological problems inherent to Mormon movement Their canon is also different from LSD's in that it doesn't include the Pearl of Great Price, which contains the Book of Abraham I mentioned. It's interesting that all major Mormon schisms happened almost right after Joseph Smith's death, and at the same time so comparatively recently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
I'm happy to learn about non-trinitarian Christian churches. I've taken a break from hosting the two Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my door last year, because it made me sad to encounter them. There's such a mutual friendliness between us that conflicts with an equally strong mutual mistrust of one another's churches. I keep them fondly in my prayers It's the first I've heard of the RLDS, but it does not surprise me to learn about their story. JWs have also had schismatic breaks associated with changes in leadership since their inception as the Bible Student movement. Like Becket said, "Until the World to Come, that's how it is on this bitch of an earth." Cythereal posted:And in all honesty, I'm personally ambivalent about polygamy. It's something I have zero desire for and I don't think it's Christ's model for us, but I don't think religious values should shape government policy, which I believe should be purely secular. My reservations are more that our legal system has trouble enough with the idea of a man and a woman being equal partners and all that that entails legally, much less dealing with same-sex couples and polygamous marriages. I relate to your ambivalence. In any romantic relationship I witness closely (and I've never known a polyamarous or polygamous one), what jumps out at me is how the parties interact with one another. No doubt there are monogamous, heterosexual, intragenerational marriages that are nevertheless mortally flawed. But I also have no reason to doubt the stories of widespread abuses throughout the world of young brides coerced into polygamist marriages and/or marriages with far older men. However, I'm sure that the reasons for those abuses come largely from the temperament and actions of the man (the one who holds all the power) in those unjust, non-loving, and false marriages. I'm just a lay sinner and citizen, but the solution I see is to extricate the legal/fiscal recognitions of marriage so as to let it more freely be regarded as a spiritual venture. In US law, you can already practically have sex with as many or as few adults as you want, live with whoever you want, own property with anyone, transfer wealth to anyone, and list anyone as your emergency contact. I see no inherent threat to civil society to let folks file their personal taxes jointly with whoever they want. I want to see any home by the lens I believe Jesus used: does it radiate love, or does it radiate something else?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Polygamy is just a really bad idea, even from a secular perspective. There are numerous sociological arguments that in societies where polygamy is permitted, you end up with men supporting several wives, none of the reverse, and an inevitable population of young men with no hope of having a wife that can be easily radicalized.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Polygamy is just a really bad idea, even from a secular perspective. There are numerous sociological arguments that in societies where polygamy is permitted, you end up with men supporting several wives, none of the reverse, and an inevitable population of young men with no hope of having a wife that can be easily radicalized. There is no pretty way of dressing up polygamy that doesn't end up with it being a tool used by the wealthy to own group of all but in name sex slaves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
Didn't we have an ex-LDS member post for a short time in one of the older threads?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:There is no pretty way of dressing up polygamy that doesn't end up with it being a tool used by the wealthy to own group of all but in name sex slaves. I am inclined to agree. I have no problem with it being legal in theory, but in the overwhelming majority of prior and extant practice...
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Polygamy is just a really bad idea, even from a secular perspective. There are numerous sociological arguments that in societies where polygamy is permitted, you end up with men supporting several wives, none of the reverse, and an inevitable population of young men with no hope of having a wife that can be easily radicalized. Yes, because easily radicalised young men is never something that happens in every single society on the face of the planet. Young men are easily radicalised by the fact that they are young and the world seems both unfair and with no easy way to solve things. Ceciltron posted:There is no pretty way of dressing up polygamy that doesn't end up with it being a tool used by the wealthy to own group of all but in name sex slaves. A polyamorous relationship between various peoples with strict legal proceedings that requires the consent of all concerned. I do get that it has traditionally been shite, but then so has every attempt at building anything. Tias posted:My problem is that my own ego makes very bad plans. Since I stopped listening to them and prayed for guidance daily, I make good plans. I extremely rarely I let anyone down( except myself, but that's the actual psychic illnesses talking), and when I do, my guidance instructs me to make amends. How do you know the guidance isn't just thinking things though a bit more? We all hurt people just by existing in the way we do, every single second I spend on here is one not spent helping others. And yet here I stay. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Polygamy is just a really bad idea, even from a secular perspective. There are numerous sociological arguments that in societies where polygamy is permitted, you end up with men supporting several wives, none of the reverse, and an inevitable population of young men with no hope of having a wife that can be easily radicalized. Ceciltron posted:There is no pretty way of dressing up polygamy that doesn't end up with it being a tool used by the wealthy to own group of all but in name sex slaves. All of that holds water, and I've only ever met one person who thought having multiple wives was a good idea, and I did not advise him that such was the case. But what do you imagine you'll do if your neighbor lives with his wife and another lover? Is there something you would ask me to do differently with them than with the neighbors who I don't know have a lover? And I'm fortunate that this question is purely hypothetical to me at this time, but it's not entirely hypothetical to the country. We know that William Moulton Marston lived in a de facto plural marriage that continued as a family after William's death. As a nation, right now we're just inconveniencing those exceedingly rare arrangements, which kind of makes me shrug ambivalently. I think most folks in the US don't even consider polygamy because broadly both our secular and religious values have moved away from polygamy for the reasons already stated. (edit: relatedly, it has not fully moved away from adultery) I doubt those long-seeded values will crumble if the US were to further deregulate marriage, though it may separate wheat from chaff. I still (with all my modesty) aspire to be a Christian and a revolutionary. I have no admiration for exploitation or abuse. To me, it won't come down to the legal regulations of marriage. It's about a much grander project: the building of the spiritual kingdom in the physical plane. The Marstons are not my neighbors, but who knows what those guys are up to. I really want to know how each of us are compelled by our conscience to react when we encounter something unexpected like this. Caufman fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I think meaning is something people experience, and doesn't really have an existence beyond that. I think that struggling to assert meaning, irrationally and with full consciousness of that irrationality, against the reality of death and time, is a worthy task for a human being. If this thread has supported that statement, then I agree: you have been made a better atheist 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Yes, because easily radicalised young men is never something that happens in every single society on the face of the planet. Young men are easily radicalised by the fact that they are young and the world seems both unfair and with no easy way to solve things. Look man, don't take this nihilistic approach that there's nothing we can do, that society will always produce radicalization. The fact of the matter is that if you want a stable society, stable families are a good idea, and having a partner-less underclass makes things worse. Maybe things won't be perfect, and there will still be radicalized young men, but there will be less of them. One of my personal heroes, Wilkie Collins (from which I get my username) lived with two women in what history seems to judge as a fairly stable relationship, but that doesn't make it a good rule for society, and should be steered away from. CountFosco fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Look man, don't take this nihilistic approach that there's nothing we can do, that society will always produce radicalization. The fact of the matter is that if you want a stable society, stable families are a good idea, and having a partner-less underclass makes things worse. Maybe things won't be perfect, and there will still be radicalized young men, but there will be less of them. In theory, legalizing polyamory would also result in polyandry including all-male groups and all-women examples of polygamy. The point being made is that polygamy has throughout time and different cultures around the world been used by patriarchal societies to oppress and exploit women, and that this often has severe negative consequences for both women and for the have-not men in such societies. Either way it's such a legal mess and so politically unpalatable in most of the west that it's unlikely to be much of an issue to be concerned about except for cases like fundamentalist Mormon and Muslim groups who attempt to practice it regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Their canon is also different from LSD's in that it doesn't include the Pearl of Great Price, which contains the Book of Abraham I mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I think meaning is something people experience, and doesn't really have an existence beyond that. I think that struggling to assert meaning, irrationally and with full consciousness of that irrationality, against the reality of death and time, is a worthy task for a human being. And that's coming from a believer. "Man is a reed, but he's a reed that thinks." --Another theist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:A polyamorous relationship between various peoples with strict legal proceedings that requires the consent of all concerned. *For my personal religious reasons and what I can only assume is sheer instinct: I've found the person I love, I've never felt this way about anyone else, and I just don't want to be with anyone else. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I think meaning is something people experience, and doesn't really have an existence beyond that. I think that struggling to assert meaning, irrationally and with full consciousness of that irrationality, against the reality of death and time, is a worthy task for a human being. Well this was extremely good, thank you
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
I don't know guys, I just can't help feeling that the legitimization of polyamory represents the triumph of nominalism. Call me an old fuddy duddy if you will.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:I don't know guys, I just can't help feeling that the legitimization of polyamory represents the triumph of nominalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
I personally do not morally approve of polyamory and I think it's un-Christian. I do not think national laws should be based on religious values, however.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:I don't know guys, I just can't help feeling that the legitimization of polyamory represents the triumph of nominalism. Call me an old fuddy duddy if you will. I personally feel like polyamory must be really tough since it compounds the natural stresses and difficulties of a monogamous relationship. [huge caveat: personal opinion and experience] I think monogamy is the best option for most people, but polyamorous relationships do work for some. Not to put Tias on the spot but as I recall he's been polyamorous at times. Polyamory simply wouldn't work for me, I think. I'm mostly too much of a curmudgeon to get along with one person romantically. Frankly, I'm an irritable, passive-aggressive rear end in a top hat who's hard enough to get along with just as friend let alone lovers. That said, I'm in favor of any relationship that is equitable, respectful, and loving. edit: also gay relationships tend to have their own unique dynamics which I won't poo poo the thread up discussing unless there's interest Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:On top of that many more peculiar and questionable events in Mormon history were kind of kept if not in secret, but very rarely discussed even in seminaries (granted, from what I understand, it's more common for Mormons to attend a seminary, even for people who don't want to pursue a religious career, so it's more like a Sunday school for adults). It's more like Sunday school for high schoolers. You wake up really early, go to a Sunday school before school, and that's about it. (this is in addition to regular Sunday school and Young Mens/Womens, which are part of the Sunday service) It runs for kids about 14-18. I'm bad in the mornings and didn't like Sunday school anyway, so I routinely ditched it until my parents caught me and decided to let me sleep in if I'd stop cutting Sunday school too. I was not a great Mormon. But I will confirm that a lot of stuff is just...not talked about in Mormonism. Polygamy is a very awkward subject because they can't just ignore it, but it's also unacceptable enough they can't laud it. So there's this sort of quiet "well, it was a revelation for the times but we don't do that anymore..." that is not really convincing if you're not already willing to take whatever the Church says at face value. Other stuff just doesn't get talked about, or you're not allowed to question it, like horses in the Book of Mormon. Ask about that in Church and the teacher will just move on, very quickly. I never really thought about it in terms of having to reinvent theology, but that makes a lot of sense. Mormonism is different, but it's hard to appreciate how different until you find out how everyone else does things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
Pleased to make your acquaintance, Mars. Were there things from your time in the Church of Latter Day Saints that you're now grateful for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:That said, I'm in favor of any relationship that is equitable, respectful, and loving. I'm sincerely worried that in any poly relationship people will triangulate, and they can't be equitable a priori. This is, I can admit, probably an attempt to psychologize a culturally embedded distaste. Does anyone have scholarly research on this topic that we can be directed to?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Look man, don't take this nihilistic approach that there's nothing we can do, that society will always produce radicalization. The fact of the matter is that if you want a stable society, stable families are a good idea, and having a partner-less underclass makes things worse. Maybe things won't be perfect, and there will still be radicalized young men, but there will be less of them. I'm not saying that there is "nothing" we can do, giving people something positive to work towards societally and making social consciousness an attractive option is a great thing that should be done more of. I am however saying that "a lack of women folk" is something that a particular subsection of young men complain about now. It is usually justified in various ways but it is still often a kind of lunatic demand. I don't think noticing that, legally, there need to be some protections for people in none standard marriages is a bad idea. Accepting that fringe things can exist, probably will exist and that there should be some form of legal preparation for it to exist is just decent planning in my opinion. Same with other "edge cases" that probably won't exist but need analysis and preparation. HEY GUNS posted:I'm with Josef bugman here: although I can't see myself ever taking part in one,* there's nothing intrinsic to multiple relationships imo that necessitates abuse and sex slavery. Monogamous relationships have also been twisted and wrong. Thanks Hey Guns! The bit I highlighted is also a very large problem. How many people enter into marriage simply because it is societally expected of them and they don't want to die alone. Or if they feel they can't have an awkward conversation with their SO? They fact is that marriage now is not free from abuse, and noticing new legal definitions is helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Polygamy is just a really bad idea, even from a secular perspective. There are numerous sociological arguments that in societies where polygamy is permitted, you end up with men supporting several wives, none of the reverse, and an inevitable population of young men with no hope of having a wife that can be easily radicalized. That sounds like a feature, not a bug, for those of a certain theocratic bent. Thanks for all the LDS apologetics and history discussion, as someone above said it's cool to see all these issues of a young faith play out in real-time. Scientology has been really interesting to watch from a similar perspective, even though the CoS organization is an abusive disaster the fact that there are people practicing it independently suggests that the belief system will have staying power anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 13:27
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:How many people enter into marriage simply because it is societally expected of them and they don't want to die alone. Or if they feel they can't have an awkward conversation with their SO? They fact is that marriage now is not free from abuse, and noticing new legal definitions is helpful. And in the Deep South, you get young people getting married because they're horny teenagers who want to have sex but the oppressive and puritanical "Christian" culture of small-town society down here leaves only one outlet for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 14:30
|
|
|
MarsDragon posted:It's more like Sunday school for high schoolers. You wake up really early, go to a Sunday school before school, and that's about it. (this is in addition to regular Sunday school and Young Mens/Womens, which are part of the Sunday service) It runs for kids about 14-18. I'm bad in the mornings and didn't like Sunday school anyway, so I routinely ditched it until my parents caught me and decided to let me sleep in if I'd stop cutting Sunday school too. Hey! Welcome to the thread. If seminaries are for teens, what would be the institution that actually prepares priests? Is there such a thing at all? shame on an IGA posted:That sounds like a feature, not a bug, for those of a certain theocratic bent. Huh. I always thought Scientology was registered as a religion only to avoid taxes, and was basically just a set of (pseudo-)scientific psychological practices with a slight mythological and ethical bend. Are there really any Scientology theologians to speak of?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:What would that change about your life? what's the worst-case scenario here? It's not my life that I'm caring about here though? My life may not be personally affected. I'm more concerned about the zeitgeist shifting in a direction where as various words become redefined, the word humanity becomes redefined in its wake. I do believe in a pluralistic, tolerant society. I think that if people are in a polyamorous relationship, that shouldn't give the government cause to intrude and break up or jail/harass the participants. I just don't think that the label of marriage, once defined as a union between a man and woman, now defined as two adults, should be redefined further. CountFosco fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
"What's next, cats and dogs getting married??"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Hey! Welcome to the thread. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wd7xk4/into-the-freezone-practicing-scientology-outside-of-the-church-253
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 15:49
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:
I do not necessarily know that, but it only works when I pray, which suggests to me that my help is divine in nature. Your problem is one of perception. You seem to think that spending time onwinding on the internet( and leisure IS a human need) is wrong because you should spend more time helping others. How much is enough? Our society does not permit all our time spent on charity. Pellisworth posted:I personally feel like polyamory must be really tough since it compounds the natural stresses and difficulties of a monogamous relationship. Well, we love you grumpyface! And yes, that I have, and in fact my experience has been that it ameliorates problems inherent in relationships - there's a poly scene, and it has taught me to be unfailingly honest about my problems, needs and desires to the partners I've had, which in turn has made me a better partner in monogamous relationships.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:even though the CoS organization is an abusive disaster the fact that there are people practicing it independently suggests that the belief system will have staying power anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:It's not my life that I'm caring about here though? My life may not be personally affected. I'm more concerned about the zeitgeist shifting in a direction where as various words become redefined, the word humanity becomes redefined in its wake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo#Walking_marriages
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wd7xk4/into-the-freezone-practicing-scientology-outside-of-the-church-253 Interesting. Now that I think about it, I think I've seen a person like that in Louis Theroux's My Scientology Movie. The consultant that Louis contacts to help him with filming recreation of crucial events in the history of Scientology is bitterly anti-establishment (for very justifiable reasons), but it seems still believes what Habbard taught about human mind and whatnot. Also, my uncle, who was into practically anything new age used to be obsessed with Dianetics without ever joining or even visiting a Scientologist church. He later moved on to something else entirely and gave the books to my mum, who never read them. Paladinus fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:But we always have been redefining these things. From era to era, then from culture to culture. There's an ethnic group in China where marriage means the woman still lives in her house and the dude has to sneak in at night. I mean, there are definitely variants, and marriages that go further away from the ideal that I have in my head of marriage, but it seems to me that historically societies have tended to trend towards a mean of what a marriage is. Two people may not be the only manifestation of what cultures call marriage but it is normative. Besides, I'm not particularly interested in what cultures have to say marriage is, I'm more concerned in a sort-of Platonic ideal, divinely revelated. Again, in terms of how this impacts peoples' lives, I'm not in favor of some big fascist crackdown where jackbooted thugs bust down doors of the polyamorous. And if the only way to prevent that is to redefine marriage, well, then I'll be in favor of doing that. But the current system that we have where people in polyamorous relationships aren't really recognized, and are more informal, is a long way from what I would consider actively oppressive. CountFosco fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:I mean, there are definitely variants, and marriages that go further away from the ideal that I have in my head of marriage, but it seems to me that historically societies have tended to trend towards a mean of what a marriage is. Two people may not be the only manifestation of what cultures call marriage but it is normative. Besides, I'm not particularly interested in what cultures have to say marriage is, I'm more concerned in a sort-of Platonic ideal, divinely revelated. What are you basing this sweeping generalisation on? But, again, how does this actually make your life any different. It is simply noticing a legal distinction and going "maybe we should prevent this causing problems".
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
A lot of people disagree with me on the basis that if multiple people consent to a thing, it can't be wrong, especially in the case of polygamy. Consent, unfortunately, is not the be-all end-all of relationships in a society. Neo-Liberal tendencies to reduce everything to consent between rational actors is extremely dangerous and not a good way to frame relationships or even analyze them. What constitutes consent is an even more tricky thing. Informed decisions? Willing emotion? Careful consideration of consequences? Pressure, familial or otherwise? Polygamy is rightly banned. I don't think it's healthy of a society to encourage people, either in or out of relationships, to go out and gently caress everything they possibly can -especially from a public health point of view, so even polyamory i view with intense suspicion, the same as I would someone who brags about having sex with a different partner every day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Ceciltron posted:A lot of people disagree with me on the basis that if multiple people consent to a thing, it can't be wrong, especially in the case of polygamy. Consent, unfortunately, is not the be-all end-all of relationships in a society. Neo-Liberal tendencies to reduce everything to consent between rational actors is extremely dangerous and not a good way to frame relationships or even analyze them. What constitutes consent is an even more tricky thing. Informed decisions? Willing emotion? Careful consideration of consequences? Pressure, familial or otherwise? Well how else can we find out if a thing is damaging or not than by asking people and checking. Or are we to simply assume that we know more about people in poly relationships than the participants do? Why? What damage is it causing you or the people they are having relations with if it is an honest one? "I am just dtf, and don't want anything else".
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 18:52
|
|