Pages

Jump to bottom

50 comments

1 researchok  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 4:11:31pm

I can hear the jokes now.

'A little whine with dinner...'

'But you said you loved me more...'

2 Decatur Deb  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 4:21:16pm

That's why I always smile when the socons try to save "traditional Judeo-Christian monogamous marriage".

3 PhillyPretzel  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 4:22:54pm

"When is it going to be my turn?" //

4 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 4:31:59pm

There will be a gladiatorial fight to the death among the mothers in law.

5 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 4:32:04pm

re: #3 PhillyPretzel

"When is it going to be my turn?" //

Or conversely:

"What? It's my turn again? :sigh:".

6 Decatur Deb  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 4:41:24pm

I can see the use of Rabbi Gershom's ruling, to fit Ashkenazim to a monogamous Christian environment. When, if ever, did the Jews of Muslim lands go monogamous?

7 researchok  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 4:41:30pm

'How come you always laugh at her jokes but never mine. I'm funny'.

'Well, you know I never complain...'

'Are you sorry you married me? Her? Her? Her?'

'If I were gone, would you remarry?' How many more?'

8 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 4:47:51pm

Polygamy: In case just one spouse isn't a big enough pain in the ass...

9 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 4:54:00pm

They should form a joint venture with the FDLS. Nothing is strange when it comes to religion and sex.

10 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 4:54:53pm

oops. FLDS.

11 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 5:47:13pm

No. Just no. Take my word for it.

100 years later, their descendants still won't be hearing the end of it.

12 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 5:47:41pm

It would be a lot less work to try harder to keep the men in the religious fold.

13 kreyagg  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 6:17:11pm

Does the Torah forbid polyandry?

14 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 7:11:21pm

One wife turned out to be too much for me to handle long term, why would anyone in their right mind want multiples? :p

/

15 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 7:14:55pm

re: #12 EmmmieG

It would be a lot less work to try harder to keep the men in the religious fold.

"Heh, heh, she said harder in the fold, heh heh, heh heh"

/Beavis and Butthead :p

16 jaunte  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 7:28:58pm

“Don’t think rabbinic courts aren’t very careful about not letting one bring troubles into his home,” [Kiryat Ono Chief Rabbi Ratzon] Arusi said.

A wise man.

17 EiMitch  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 8:33:10pm

Very funny, Onion. But you won't get me.

**checks link**

Oh...

Well, I support those seeking polyamorous relationships for "personal" reasons. Who are we to force round love into square holes? (no pun intended)

But polygamy as a means of population boom? That won't end well, what with inbreeding (whether by mistake or design) and an inability to give each child enough attention.

...

"Why the mixed messages" you ask? Because I love making both sides angry.

18 kreyagg  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 9:09:38pm

re: #17 EiMitch

The problem is that where you and I may see polyamory as a joining of equals all whom love each other as spouses might, the religious version (of marriage in general, not just polygamy) is an expression of male ownership of women and thus repugnant.

19 EiMitch  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 10:22:23pm

re: #18 kreyagg

You missed my point, even though I gave it away. I was inflaming both sides, just because.

Try it. It feels better than choosing a side. You get to laugh at everyone else's mistakes, malice, and general stupidity. And, its a step or two away from George Carlin / Bender Rodriguez style misanthropy.

I firmly believe dark humor will save the world. ...from taking itself too seriously. And really, isn't that the problem with wingnuts and fanatics?

Hey! I don't hear you proposing a more realistic means of achieving world peace.

20 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 11:15:08pm

re: #6 Decatur Deb

I can see the use of Rabbi Gershom's ruling, to fit Ashkenazim to a monogamous Christian environment. When, if ever, did the Jews of Muslim lands go monogamous?

Non-Ashkenazim halachically can be polygamous, but it's not legal in Israel, and the law of the land, as they say, is the law.

I have only heard of a couple cases of polygamy in Jewish families in the last century...for one thing, it's damn expensive. Those who couldn't afford to have extra wives didn't, and those who could afford to were usually trying to act like Europeans.

21 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 11:16:22pm

re: #13 kreyagg

Does the Torah forbid polyandry?

It's never been the custom, I don't know if it's technically forbidden. I believe it wasn't unheard of in Arabia in Mohammed's day, if Reza Aslan is to be trusted on the matter, but that's a whole different world.

22 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Jul 10, 2011 11:17:28pm

And BTW, this does not in the least surprise me, because some people are never done finding new batshit ways to prove how Torah-true they are.

23 Kruk  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 12:20:05am

A man was convicted on three counts of polygamy. The judge sentences him to several years jail on each count, but lets him walk free on account of the fact he's already served three concurrent sentences.

I'll get my coat, shall I?

24 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 2:43:14am

Well, there are even some marginal Judaic sites promoting ancient practice of concubinage in our times.

Hey, as a matter of principle, I'm all for it - as long as it's polyandry along with polygyny. Equal rights and all that. If there are no secular arguments between two people of same sex marrying, similarly there are no secular arguments against several people marrying. However, only fundies would marry this way, and thus the "Arab demographic threat" will be replaced with fundie demographic threat.

25 Obdicut  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 2:56:22am

re: #24 Sergey Romanov

Well, the secular argument that's different is that three people, rather than two, makes for a very, very different sort of contract. Who has the primary right to make medical decisions, for example? It could be specified in the particular marriage, contract, certainly, but it does make it different. Can the contract with your first wife or husband change when you marry the second? Et al.

I'm not saying these are enormous objections, but contractual obligations of a mutual nature involving two people are very different than those involving more than two.

26 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 3:14:25am

re: #25 Obdicut

There is a difference between obligations being different and an argument against marriage as such. The differences you have specified are just that, differences. They're not arguments per se. Sure, someone could use them as arguments, but given that those would be wholly arbitrary arguments, all sorts of arbitrary arguments could be used against the same-sex marriage too. So the difference between "contracts" has nothing to do with whether two or more consenting adults should have a right to marry.

27 Decatur Deb  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 3:17:19am

re: #20 SanFranciscoZionist

Non-Ashkenazim halachically can be polygamous, but it's not legal in Israel, and the law of the land, as they say, is the law.

I have only heard of a couple cases of polygamy in Jewish families in the last century...for one thing, it's damn expensive. Those who couldn't afford to have extra wives didn't, and those who could afford to were usually trying to act like Europeans.

Even in societies with polygamy, economic reality keeps most men to one wife. An interesting exception was the Plains Indians, who underwent a temporary economic explosion when they adopted European technologies. Multiple wives became valuable, even the "bardache", cross-dressing males.

[Link: books.google.com...]

28 Obdicut  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 3:21:34am

re: #26 Sergey Romanov

I don't actually think they're wholly arbitrary, except to the extent that all attributes of all contracts are. I think I'm missing something from what you're saying.

The gender of people in a marriage doesn't change anything about the nature of marriage. You can take any given marriage, change the genders of the people, and nothing changes, nothing is affected, nothing needs to be rewritten.

The number of people involved in a marriage changes the nature of that marriage hugely. If you take any given marriage and add a third (or fourth) person to it, suddenly there are all sorts of things that need answering.

If we allowed polygamy/andry, we really would need to create a new legal framework for dealing with the issues that came up. It would be similar to, but still quite different from, the tangle of parents and stepparents when dealing with issues regarding children.

29 Decatur Deb  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 3:32:23am

re: #28 Obdicut

Models already exist, in corporations and "intentional communities".

[Link: www.ic.org...]

30 Obdicut  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 3:35:36am

re: #29 Decatur Deb

I find it interesting to think about, but my main point is that gay marriage requires absolutely no change to the legal framework of marriage. Poly marriage would.

I've got nothing morally against it, except for the observation that throughout history, polygamy has tended to result in old, rich men with large numbers of wives and younger men with great difficulty in finding them.

31 Decatur Deb  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 3:44:10am

re: #30 Obdicut

I find it interesting to think about, but my main point is that gay marriage requires absolutely no change to the legal framework of marriage. Poly marriage would.

I've got nothing morally against it, except for the observation that throughout history, polygamy has tended to result in old, rich men with large numbers of wives and younger men with great difficulty in finding them.

That's the norm, regardless of the paperwork. We just involve a lot of lawyers, mistresses, and pre-nups.

Trying to remember a proverb from a poylygamous society: "You can tell a rich man by his second wife, and a fool by his fourth."

32 RogueOne  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 3:44:49am

My sister is part of a polygamous marriage so I'm getting a kick...wait, wrong site. I don't have anything constructive to add, just tossing that out there. Legally I don't have any problem with it but from a personal view it can only lead to some severe hassles within the household.

33 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 3:57:14am

> I don't actually think they're wholly arbitrary

The differences are not arbitrary. Using these differences as an argument against polygamous marriage is arbitrary. There is an obvious difference between standard marriages and same-sex marriages - namely, the sex of partners. But this difference just does not refute (and has nothing to do with) the principle stating that "if the two consenting adults want to marry, they should have such a right".

So it is with polygamy. Sure, there will be much new paperwork (laws and such), and legally many things would have to be ironed out. So? Is this an argument against the principle stating that "if several consenting adults want to marry, they should have such a right"? I don't think so. That would be an argument from laziness: "it would be too much bother to make new laws, to analyze everything beforehand, etc.".

> The number of people involved in a marriage changes the nature of that marriage hugely.

Sure, from the legal POV. Yet the principle stating above is overarching.

> there are all sorts of things that need answering.

Absolutely..

34 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 4:02:00am

My main point, in a couple of words, is that I don't see any principled argument against polygamy that would also not be an argument against SSM. And I know right-wingers say the same thing, not that I care ;)

35 Decatur Deb  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 4:10:36am

re: #34 Sergey Romanov

My main point, in a couple of words, is that I don't see any principled argument against polygamy that would also not be an argument against SSM. And I know right-wingers say the same thing, not that I care ;)

The majority of humans have lived in the majority of societies that permit multiple-partner marriages. It's the norm. Western civilized rules are the aberration.

36 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 4:16:53am

re: #35 Decatur Deb

The majority of humans have lived in the majority of societies that permit multiple-partner marriages. It's the norm. Western civilized rules are the aberration.

"Hail the lawful marriage!
It is necessary so that
A woman can destroy
No more than a single person"

;)

37 Decatur Deb  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 4:23:08am

re: #36 Sergey Romanov

"Hail the lawful marriage!
It is necessary so that
A woman can destroy
No more than a single person"

;)

[Video]

Delightfully incomprehensible Village-Peopleski.

38 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 4:30:02am

re: #37 Decatur Deb

Delightfully incomprehensible Village-Peopleski.

A 1987 Soviet musical, whaddayawant.

39 Obdicut  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 4:37:54am

re: #33 Sergey Romanov


So it is with polygamy. Sure, there will be much new paperwork (laws and such), and legally many things would have to be ironed out. So? Is this an argument against the principle stating that "if several consenting adults want to marry, they should have such a right"? I don't think so. That would be an argument from laziness: "it would be too much bother to make new laws, to analyze everything beforehand, etc.".

No, but the resulting thing would actually be different than a marriage between two people, legally.

That's my point. We really would have multiple definitions of 'marriage' then. The current one-- not the folk definition, but the legal definition-- wouldn't fit those marriages.

Sure, from the legal POV. Yet the principle stating above is overarching.

I'm basically talking about marriage from a legal standpoint. I'm kind of unsure from what perspective you're looking at it.

40 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 4:40:16am

re: #39 Obdicut

I see no problem with multiple modes of marriage ;)

41 Obdicut  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 4:43:50am

re: #40 Sergey Romanov

I see no problem with multiple modes of marriage ;)

Sure. But then they really are different.

To be clear, what I'm objecting to is this:

If there are no secular arguments between two people of same sex marrying, similarly there are no secular arguments against several people marrying.

Which is just a bad syllogism. There are no secular arguments against two people of the same sex engaging in the legal status of marriage because it alters nothing; gender has no import. There is one overwhelming secular argument against more than two people engaging in the legal status of marriage mutually, which is that it literally wouldn't work, we don't actually have the legal framework for it.

We could build one, and we could call it 'marriage' too, if we wanted, but it actually would be distinct, of necessity, from two-person marriage-- or the definition of two-person marriage would have to be rewritten as a subset of poly marriage.

42 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 4:54:28am

re: #41 Obdicut

But it's not an argument against introduction of PM, it's an observation - as of now people can't, indeed, engage in legal polygamous marriage. True. Just as say, in Russia, people can't engage in SSM, because there is no legal framework for it (marriage is defined as between a man and a woman).

So, again, I see no secular argument against (the introduction of) PM whatsoever. If you see the very necessity of changing or adding the definition as an argument against this type of marriage, then the same argument holds true for many countries for SSM (I'm not well-versed in the US laws, so I won't challenge you on this point).

PM of course is distinct from MM, but as long as it's a union of consenting adults, it's still a marriage.

43 lawhawk  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 6:40:46am

re: #4 Alouette

And the sons and grandsons will be smothered in matzoh balls and kreplach and more food than you can shake a stick at.

Moishe - eat your food, you look famished (even if Moishe's well past bal-guf (fat))

44 zeir  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 8:03:10am

I had a friend who married a Yemenite woman from a polygamous household, grandfathered in from before they came to Israel (this happened commonly).

She claimed she was more emotionally healthy than him, as she had resolved her Oedipal issues through the diffusion of the two wives.

However, in their own marriage they were bound by Israeli law, which forbade further polygamy. Oh well...

45 Obdicut  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 9:16:57am

re: #42 Sergey Romanov

I'm making a semantic point, but one that I think is worthwhile:

In order to enact polygamous marriage, a lot of legal spadework needs to be done, to create a new system. We can call it 'marriage' if we want, but it really will be a new system.

In order to enact gay marriage, nothing is necessary, except to stop acting as though gender makes a difference in the arrangement. Since gender doesn't, this has no effects whatsoever.


PM of course is distinct from MM, but as long as it's a union of consenting adults, it's still a marriage.

Sure. I don't care if people call it marriage or anything else they'd prefer, and I'd call it that as well. But it's distinct from monogamous marriage in a way that gay marriage is not. That's my point.

46 Obdicut  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 9:17:42am

re: #44 zeir

Women don't have Oedipal issues.

47 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 9:28:13am

Something to be aware of here, along with many other layers of Israeli/Haredi/Whackadoo politics is that Ovadia Yosef and many of his colleagues have issues about Ashkenazi practice, and fear that it may get on their followers. Yosef has ranted in the past about things such as women wearing wigs instead of headscarves, and adopting Ashkenazi customs for candlelighting.

Since the only HALACHIC ban on polygyny comes from the Ashkenazi world, this is a ramping up of that. It's also a symbolic slap at Israel's self-definition as a modern, secular state.

Since I'm Ashkenazi myself, I prefer to follow Rabbeinu Gershom, called 'the light of the exile', rather than a guy who suggested that Katrina happened because people in New Orleans didn't study enough Torah. And I don't think that's just me.

48 CuriousLurker  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 11:29:23am

re: #47 SanFranciscoZionist

I always expect to feel a certain amount of smirky satisfaction upon hearing about other religions' whackadoodle fundie groups & infighting, but somehow all I'm ever left with is a feeling of glum resignation. *sigh*

49 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 11:46:35am

re: #48 CuriousLurker

I always expect to feel a certain amount of smirky satisfaction upon hearing about other religions' whackadoodle fundie groups & infighting, but somehow all I'm ever left with is a feeling of glum resignation. *sigh*

Every religion has its own gaggle of whackjobs. The problem with Jewish whackjobs in particular is that each and every one of them feels entitled to speak in the name of all Jews. That is why they start every sentence "Ass A Chew"

50 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jul 11, 2011 11:47:13am

I miss Ludwig. (sigh)


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
YUNGBLUD (With WILLOW) - Memories (Official Music Video) YUNGBLUD (with WILLOW) - Memories (Official Music Video) Stream and download “Memories (with WILLOW)” : yungblud.lnk.to watch more official YUNGBLUD videos: yungblud.lnk.to SIGN UP to YUNGBLUD's Mailing List: yungblud.lnk.to subscribe to YUNGBLUD: yungblud.lnk.to connect with YUNGBLUD online:visit the official ...
Thanos
1 week, 5 days ago
Views: 1,004 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 3 •