Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Abramam-Sahrah-Haggar{concubine}  A disagreement led to Haggar and her son to be cast out of the family, theoretically being used as a point of discord between the Jews,and Muslims. Jacob-Rachel-Leah Favoratism, jelously and feelings of neglect, likely leading to the selling of one brother into slavery. David and Solamon  Both had multiple wives, this led to disputes within the family and led to civil wars within the nation of Israel. Other than the care of the widows name one benneficial aspect of polygamy stated in the bible. Sorry for spelling mistakes FAIL. 1) The issue with hagar and abraham was due to abrahams lack of faith in God that He would fulfill his promise (for the child who would ultimately become known as issac) through sarah. Neither hagar nor abraham was ever condemned or criticized in scripture for being involved in a polygynous relationship with each other. Fail.....it was not Abram's lack of faith it was Sarai...she insisted he take Haggar to provide an heir....when Hagar supplied the Heir it was too much for Sarai to bare and her jealousy resulted in outcasting of Hagar....

You both fail..... but since you used the Romanization (if you will) of "Sarah" that I prefer, I'll say that you fail less.

The "problem" was that they each lacked faith.

It's actually a very "Garden of Eden-ish" story, if you think about it.

She may have planted the seed, but he was plenty wrong for watering it.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm a Robert Heinlein fan and Polygamy is a common theme in a lot of his books. Polygamy of course being defined as having many wifes and many husbands and not polygyny ( 1 husband several wives) or polyandry, ( 1 wife several husbands). Personally I can see where it could be a benifit to modern day society. However, I can't even think of another couple that "I", not to mention the wife, would be compatible with. Why have 90% of the replies missed this? With human nature, there's no way it's gonna work.  (Jealousy, insecurity, resentment, etc).  That's why it's some pipe dream in science fiction and not practiced in reality. So you're a couple, and need to be voted in.  Great.  What happens when your wife thinks you prefer another mate over you?  Or vice versa? What about offspring?  Are sons and daughters allowed to stay?  Grandchildren?  Who's gonna take care of them?  Who in the hell is the father?  Not much long term thinking here.

Then the two are not completely committed to each other swinging works in devoted couples. No one person is benefiting more than another there shouldn't be jealousy.
As for the children I would say that this life style would not support them and that people practicing would need to make the decision to do something about the population and not reproduce. But thats my feeling on all modern couples people need to make up for the others that feel the need to have 5-10 children.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Abramam-Sahrah-Haggar{concubine}  A disagreement led to Haggar and her son to be cast out of the family, theoretically being used as a point of discord between the Jews,and Muslims. Jacob-Rachel-Leah Favoratism, jelously and feelings of neglect, likely leading to the selling of one brother into slavery. David and Solamon  Both had multiple wives, this led to disputes within the family and led to civil wars within the nation of Israel. Other than the care of the widows name one benneficial aspect of polygamy stated in the bible. Sorry for spelling mistakes FAIL. 1) The issue with hagar and abraham was due to abrahams lack of faith in God that He would fulfill his promise (for the child who would ultimately become known as issac) through sarah. Neither hagar nor abraham was ever condemned or criticized in scripture for being involved in a polygynous relationship with each other. Fail.....it was not Abram's lack of faith it was Sarai...she insisted he take Haggar to provide an heir....when Hagar supplied the Heir it was too much for Sarai to bare and her jealousy resulted in outcasting of Hagar.... You both fail..... but since you used the Romanization (if you will) of "Sarah" that I prefer, I'll say that you fail less. The "problem" was that they each lacked faith. It's actually a very "Garden of Eden-ish" story, if you think about it. She may have planted the seed, but he was plenty wrong for watering it.

I used Sarai because Hagar's son(Ismael) came before the name change of Sarai and Abram to Sarah and Abraham (Genesis chapter 16 vs Genesis chapter 17)

And I only know this because I JUST finished reading those chapters in "Slightly Bad Girls of the Bible"

personally I think it is gross. I would not want to sleep with one man one night and the next be with a different man that was with a different woman the night before and the man that I was with the night before be with a different woman the next night.

great way to get STD's infections, catch bacteria of some sorts.. I don't know all kinds could go wrong.

I have a problem being attracted to a guy or wanting to have sex with a guy  that has had sex with several different women.

Quoted: Quoted: But I realize you probably don't know anything about Mormons other than lurid, unsubstantiated tales so I'll let it go at that.   Yeah and Warren Jefferies was/is completely unsubstantiated and nothing more than another tale of Mormons gone rogue.

Warren Jefferies has as much to do with the modern LDS Church as his brand of polygamy has to do with the polygamy practiced by my ancestors.

ETA:  Snotty unjustified personal attack edited out in order to prevent the thread from being locked.

Quoted: Quoted: My family were polygamists.  It was an awful deal all around. I live near the largest polygamist community in the US.  It is still an awful deal. And there you have it straight from a person who has been there and still is there.  Thank you for your words.

Three of my mother's four sets of great-grandparents practiced polygamy, and none had any apparent family problems because of it.

Plus I have known several modern-day polygamists -- in fact, I used to work with one.

As I said before, polygamy today is far different than what was practiced in the past.  While it wasn't a perfect system back then, it wasn't the system of quasi-incestuous pedophilia that it is today.

Quoted: Quoted: http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/M/ea_161853mormon_c.htm Here is one link to Bishop Snowe's little re-education program Obviously, this event was a long time ago. Apparently B. Young approved of putting this whippersnapper in his place. Again, not taking pot shots, in fact as a history buff, I'm a little disappointed the "Mormon Battalion" website is not being  kept up to date. I'm interested in a settlement they had where the Santa Fe Trail  (aka: the Mormon Trail) hit the Mojave River. I bring this up as an illustration of the problems associated with old men with power wanting young pie. Found it interesting looking into that story how shaky the citations are.  It seems that a lot of that story is based off of 2nd or even 3rd hand accounts from John Lee (who had no personal knowledge of the matter and who was also desperately trying to get attention away from the murder he helped orchestrate at Mountain Meadows) or Quinn.  There's also a reference to Wilford Woodruff's diaries, but when I search for any link showing a scan of the diary page none of the sites citing it can provide one.  In fact, I can't find any links anywhere showing what was actually printed by Woodruff on those pages of his diary.  That's odd because scans of certain other pages of his diaries are frequently available when people cite them. In short, the story is on shaky ground.  Not saying that a castration didn't happen, but reliable accounts on the matter seem very hard to find and the circumstances of the situation are not clear.  The accusations tying the matter to polygany seem to be based on heresay.

An interesting point is that in the historian Quinn's account of the incident Brigham Young was told the young man had committed a sex crime, not that he had interfered with a potential plural marriage.

(Another interesting point is that Michael Quinn is a gay excommunicated Mormon who has no love for the current Church heirarchy and has plenty of incentive to discredit the Church).

I can imagine that in the rough frontier of 1850's America if the preacher of a local congregation said someone had been castrated for committing a sex crime, there would be unanimous agreement that it was a well-deserved punishment.

Heck, if you posted an article on ARFCOM about someone being castrated for molesting kids or raping women most of the replies would be "Fantastic" followed by and "W00t!"

Quoted: personally I think it is gross. I would not want to sleep with one man one night and the next be with a different man that was with a different woman the night before and the man that I was with the night before be with a different woman the next night. great way to get STD's infections, catch bacteria of some sorts.. I don't know all kinds could go wrong. I have a problem being attracted to a guy or wanting to have sex with a guy  that has had sex with several different women.

Here's a newsflash for ya--most guys have had sex with several different women.

Quoted: Quoted: personally I think it is gross. I would not want to sleep with one man one night and the next be with a different man that was with a different woman the night before and the man that I was with the night before be with a different woman the next night. great way to get STD's infections, catch bacteria of some sorts.. I don't know all kinds could go wrong. I have a problem being attracted to a guy or wanting to have sex with a guy  that has had sex with several different women. Here's a newsflash for ya--most guys have had sex with several different women.

And most women have had sex with several different men as well.

The idea of the Line Marriage and polygamy in Heinlein's writings are about the only thing I think is crazy. The rest of his stuff makes good sense, but I believe that human nature in Western society being what it is, it would not work.

In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the line marriage makes sense because of the greatly skewed male to female ratio. In Time Enough for Love, it somewhat makes sense as traditional marraige breaks down due to centuries long lifespans.

However, in Stranger in a Strange Land, it seems more like a hippy commune.

Quoted: Quoted: personally I think it is gross. I would not want to sleep with one man one night and the next be with a different man that was with a different woman the night before and the man that I was with the night before be with a different woman the next night. [>:// great way to get STD's infections, catch bacteria of some sorts.. I don't know all kinds could go wrong. I have a problem being attracted to a guy or wanting to have sex with a guy  that has had sex with several different women. Here's a newsflash for ya--most guys have had sex with several different women.

I may be young and naive, but I am not completely naive. I understand that most people have had sex with several different partners... My personal preference is someone that has not been around the block 20 times.. or whatever. Idon't know maybe i just have higher standards for myself and others.

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> I used Sarai because Hagar's son(Ismael) came before the name change of Sarai and Abram to Sarah and Abraham (Genesis chapter 16 vs Genesis chapter 17) And I only know this because I JUST finished reading those chapters in "Slightly Bad Girls of the Bible"

Oh, that sounds sweet.  I'll have to pick that up.  Thanks for the [intentional or otherwise] book recommendation.

Quoted: personally I think it is gross. I would not want to sleep with one man one night and the next be with a different man that was with a different woman the night before and the man that I was with the night before be with a different woman the next night.

Eventually, all relationships become more about intimacy than about sex..... regardless of whether sex is an integral part of the equation.

In Heinlein's line marriages, I'm fairly certain there were members of the marriage who were no longer intimate, sexually.  It's been so long, I can't remember for sure, though.

great way to get STD's infections, catch bacteria of some sorts.. I don't know all kinds could go wrong.

All kinds of things that could be controlled for, amongst consenting adults.

"All kinds of things could go wrong" if I decided to get a motorcycle, too.  If my wife didn't want me to get one, I probably wouldn't.

How much more inherent risk, really, is three spouses than two?  Four than three?  Five than four?

Where do *you* draw the line?  And is the line that you draw appropriate for everyone?

If you want to elimate that risk I mentioned earlier, don't mate at all.  Wash your hands thoroughly with antibac soap/etc and elimate the "other human" element entirely.

Life is all about risk.  And living that life is all about accepting calculated risks and rejecting risks that fall outside one's comfort zone.

I have a problem being attracted to a guy or wanting to have sex with a guy  that has had sex with several different women.

That's perfectly fine.  Doesn't sound like a line marriage would be for you.  :shrug:

It wouldn't be for my wife, either.

As a strong believer in personal liberty and the associated freedom of contract, I don't have an inherent problem with it (e.g. the idea).

But it's not for her, so it's not for me.

That's probably not the most accurate way to put this.  She can't get past the idea of it in practice (i.e. thinking about it in our situation, specifically), so she can't honestly/fairly consider the theory.

I, on the other hand, see the notion that this can't (or shouldn't) even be negotiated (by anyone) as firmly rooted in jealousy/insecurity.  I also think it ties in with the idea of "owning people," which I associate fairly closely with slavery or indentured servitude.

Quoted: <snip> I may be young and naive, but I am not completely naive. I understand that most people have had sex with several different partners... My personal preference is someone that has not been around the block 20 times.. or whatever. Idon't know maybe i just have higher standards for myself and others.

There's nothing wrong with high standards.  I'm sure Astro was just pointing out that modern sexual practices aren't far off from the polygamy issue being discussed.

For the record, the idea of men and women sharing each other like some big swingers club is abhorrent to me as well.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: personally I think it is gross. I would not want to sleep with one man one night and the next be with a different man that was with a different woman the night before and the man that I was with the night before be with a different woman the next night. [>:// great way to get STD's infections, catch bacteria of some sorts.. I don't know all kinds could go wrong. I have a problem being attracted to a guy or wanting to have sex with a guy  that has had sex with several different women. Here's a newsflash for ya--most guys have had sex with several different women. I may be young and naive, but I am not completely naive. I understand that most people have had sex with several different partners... My personal preference is someone that has not been around the block 20 times.. or whatever. Idon't know maybe i just have higher standards for myself and others.

Nothing wrong with high standards at all.  I have them myself, as a matter of fact.

Quoted: The idea of the Line Marriage and polygamy in Heinlein's writings are about the only thing I think is crazy. The rest of his stuff makes good sense, but I believe that human nature in Western society being what it is, it would not work.

I actually think it's completely fascinating, from a theoretical perspective.

It really sucks; I can't even get my wife interested in the discussion, because she automatically thinks I'm asking for a third.

This isn't the only philosophical discussion I can't get her interested in; just one of many.

She's actually an incredibly smart individual, just not really one for these types of "what if?" discussions.

In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the line marriage makes sense because of the greatly skewed male to female ratio. In Time Enough for Love, it somewhat makes sense as traditional marraige breaks down due to centuries long lifespans.

So what about now?  We're living longer than ever before.....

Average lifespan 2,000 years ago?

vs. avg lifespan 1,000 years ago

vs. avg lifespan 500 years ago

vs. avg lifespan 200 years ago

vs. avg lifespan 100 years ago

vs. avg lifespan today

vs. avg lifespan 100 years from now

vs. avg lifespan 200 years from now

vs. avg lifespan 500 years from now

vs. avg lifespan 1,000 years from now

vs. avg lifespan 2,000 years from now?

At what avg lifespan does it become OK and at which will it remain taboo?

However, in Stranger in a Strange Land, it seems more like a hippy commune.

I really need to finish cleaning out the storage bldg and get my boxes of books back.

Quoted: Quoted: .. For the record, the idea of men and women sharing each other like some big swingers club is abhorrent to me as well. I think that is the best way to describe it - not really a marriage, but a private 'Swingers Club', but with children around.

I think, if handled right, it wouldn't be *much* different than back in the "good old days" when you had a big family living together under one roof (parents, grandparents, etc) and everybody pitched in.

We didn't call our parents "communist" because they didn't want to turn Grandma out and decided to let her live with them, did we?

This never happened to me, personally, but I know plenty of people who've had so-called "extended family" living with them growing up.

I'm sure I'm coming at this from a different perspective because my father died when I was only 8 and my mother wasn't much for child-rearing.

Thank GOD my Grandmother lived close by and was able to watch me, somewhat.

She was able to help with my raising a good deal.  But for my father's memory, my Grandmother's willingness, and the Grace of God, I wasn't far from an orphan.

Oh, and who here has "God-parents"?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: .. For the record, the idea of men and women sharing each other like some big swingers club is abhorrent to me as well. I think that is the best way to describe it - not really a marriage, but a private 'Swingers Club', but with children around. I think, if handled right, it wouldn't be *much* different than back in the "good old days" when you had a big family living together under one roof (parents, grandparents, etc) and everybody pitched in. We didn't call our parents "communist" because they didn't want to turn Grandma out and decided to let her live with them, did we? This never happened to me, personally, but I know plenty of people who've had so-called "extended family" living with them growing up. I'm sure I'm coming at this from a different perspective because my father died when I was only 8 and my mother wasn't much for child-rearing. Thank GOD my Grandmother lived close by and was able to watch me, somewhat. She was able to help with my raising a good deal.  But for my father's memory, my Grandmother's willingness, and the Grace of God, I wasn't far from an orphan. Oh, and who here has "God-parents"?

I understand what you're getting at, but most real life examples have a more solid dynamic than the OP's suggestion.  I have some ancestors on my mom's side that were polygamists, but only one husband involved with multiple wives.  Though the dynamic worked, they faced struggles with it.  Mostly tied to jealousy between some of the wives despite efforts to cherish them all equally.  Adding multiple men to multiple wives all sharing eachother and I don't believe the dynamic will hold together very well.  People are too flawed with jealousy, bitterness, etc.

That's why I see the idea of "communal" marriage resulting in more of a swingers club...until even that breaks down and it becomes a hippy-ish sex-with-everyone romp and the concept of "marriage" falls by the wayside.

As for God-Parents, grandparents, cousins, etc., having them all live under the same roof is one thing, having them sleep with eachother is something else entirely.

Quoted: Quoted: .. For the record, the idea of men and women sharing each other like some big swingers club is abhorrent to me as well. I think that is the best way to describe it - not really a marriage, but a private 'Swingers Club', but with children around.

In all seriousness...
it a true polygamous relationship as described by original post (multiple wives AND husbands)...what is written on a birth certificate or do they rotate around on a monthly basis so they know exactly who they slept with 40wks ago and who is the bio dad?
Or do would they always put down who their legal husband is?  (isnt there usually a legal marriage and then unions not legal with in the groups?)

Quoted: If you can pay for them and the spawn you create good for you.

Given the careers modern women have, it shouldn't be a problem at all. One wife could stay home and take care of the kids, the other three could have high powered careers, and the man could stay at home and clean his guns.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: .. For the record, the idea of men and women sharing each other like some big swingers club is abhorrent to me as well. I think that is the best way to describe it - not really a marriage, but a private 'Swingers Club', but with children around. In all seriousness... it a true polygamous relationship as described by original post (multiple wives AND husbands)...what is written on a birth certificate or do they rotate around on a monthly basis so they know exactly who they slept with 40wks ago and who is the bio dad? Or do would they always put down who their legal husband is?  (isnt there usually a legal marriage and then unions not legal with in the groups?)

Good question.  I don't know what the hypothetical answer would be but in real life modern polygamy the first marriage is usually the official one while the other women involved are referred to as "spiritual wives".  Even then I've never heard of an actual case were multiple husbands and wives were all married together under the same roof.

The "spiritual wife" answer is how they attempt to dodge the legal issue and can still list themselves as single mothers in order to abuse the welfare system.

Quoted: Quoted: ..I think, if handled right, it wouldn't be *much* different than back in the "good old days" when you had a big family living together under one roof (parents, grandparents, etc) and everybody pitched in. We didn't call our parents "communist" because they didn't want to turn Grandma out and decided to let her live with them, did we? We also weren't banging grandma on days when your father was shagging your wife..

Did I say we were?

There is a HUGE GIGANTIC MONGO difference between setting up spare rooms for the people who brought you into this world and raised you, and living with other similar aged couples and 'chaning sleeping partners' at a whim.

"Not to the kids who are being raised by them" was my point.

My wife and I don't have any family where we're at.

We also don't have too terribly many non-work friends/acquaintences here.

All our real close friends in the area are "Aunt This" or "Uncle That" to our kids.

I wouldn't sleep with any of my wife's friends, nor she with mine, but several of us could probably live together.

This never happened to me, personally, but I know plenty of people who've had so-called "extended family" living with them growing up. I've had my MIL living with us over the summer.  I get along with my MIL, and she was enthusiastic about helping out with the daily chores.  But there were issues (more so with my wife than me) and when the kids hear one thing from Grandma and another from Mommy about what they can do - let's just say things get interesting.  Now if instead of Grandma (who my wife 'outranks) what if it was Mommy #2 vs Mommy#3? Wow that would be some fireworks!

Maybe decide that like grown-ups?

What if your kids hear two different things from Mommy and Daddy?  Who 'outranks' whom, then?

I'll assume you've had this all worked out in advance.

It's not hard.

One way would be for "actual parents" to be the final arbiters of stuff for their own kids, but ostensibly you'd trust these other people enough to make on-the-fly decisions and go from there.

Oh, it *wasn't* OK to let Jimmy spend the night with Bobby?  Well, I know that now and it won't happen again.

Was it an honest mistake, or did Jimmy manipulate me into making it?  If so, then he's disciplined appropriately.

Just like you don't play Mommy off of Daddy (or vice-versa) in my house, I'd imagine you'd set up a situation where the kids were forbidden from playing Mommy #1 off of Mommy #2 and such and such.

Oh, and who here has "God-parents"? I do, as do my children.  I am a God-parent to my nephew.

So should I tease you that "it takes a village"?

Hey, Forest, could I borrow your copy of Hillary's book when you're done with it?

No, it's actually quite an honorable thing.

As my family has taught me 'God Parents' are responsible for the childs religeous training should something happen to the parents.

Certainly that was the traditional concept.  My point was that it's really not an entirely foreign concept.  Extrapolate a little.  You're an engineer.

We don't live with them, and I sure as heck would not sleep with my children's God-mothers (one of who is a family member).

Well, in your particular case.... d'uh.  

My Godmother was my maternal grandmother.  I'd have been fucked if both my parents had been in that car.  She died not long after.

We don't have Godparents for our kids.  But if we did, they'd be close/dear friends, not [biological] family.

My best friend from back home is my "brother from another mother".

He'd fill the role, if asked.  I also wouldn't have a problem with he and my wife marrying, if I died tomorrow.  It's not a giant leap.

Quoted: <snip>Maybe decide that like grown-ups? What if your kids hear two different things from Mommy and Daddy?  Who 'outranks' whom, then? I'll assume you've had this all worked out in advance. It's not hard. <snip>

Wise_Jake,

You're a smart person and I respect you, but I must absolutely disagree with the statement that, "it's not hard."Parenting is rarely easy, even with only one kid.  Combine that with the fact that we as a country have an attrocious divorce rate and it is safe to say that adults have a hard enough time working out a relationship between two people before making the dynamic even more complicated.

Consider the threads we've seen on AR15.com these past few years about single parents getting married and how they have to work through the hurdles of how the parenting of the children will be handled.

Not trying to give you a hard time, but I just want to point out that even the most basic traditional family struggles to sort out family rules and enforcement, and we have evidence that many, many couples aren't up to the challenge.

I'm not advocating nor condemning the concept of polygamy, but merely pointing out the challenges it poses and how it plays out in real life today.  It's far from a simple thing.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: .. For the record, the idea of men and women sharing each other like some big swingers club is abhorrent to me as well. I think that is the best way to describe it - not really a marriage, but a private 'Swingers Club', but with children around. In all seriousness... it a true polygamous relationship as described by original post (multiple wives AND husbands)...what is written on a birth certificate or do they rotate around on a monthly basis so they know exactly who they slept with 40wks ago and who is the bio dad? Or do would they always put down who their legal husband is?  (isnt there usually a legal marriage and then unions not legal with in the groups?) Good question.  I don't know what the hypothetical answer would be but in real life modern polygamy the first marriage is usually the official one while the other women involved are referred to as "spiritual wives".  Even then I've never heard of an actual case were multiple husbands and wives were all married together under the same roof. The "spiritual wife" answer is how they attempt to dodge the legal issue and can still list themselves as single mothers in order to abuse the welfare system.

never heard spiritual wife....always heard sister wife.

TLC or something had a show on a family that practiced the more the one wives.....they were a non religious bunch...there were 2 wives and he was trying to introduce a 3rd who the other two did not want

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: .. For the record, the idea of men and women sharing each other like some big swingers club is abhorrent to me as well. I think that is the best way to describe it - not really a marriage, but a private 'Swingers Club', but with children around. In all seriousness... it a true polygamous relationship as described by original post (multiple wives AND husbands)...what is written on a birth certificate or do they rotate around on a monthly basis so they know exactly who they slept with 40wks ago and who is the bio dad? Or do would they always put down who their legal husband is?  (isnt there usually a legal marriage and then unions not legal with in the groups?) Good question.  I don't know what the hypothetical answer would be but in real life modern polygamy the first marriage is usually the official one while the other women involved are referred to as "spiritual wives".  Even then I've never heard of an actual case were multiple husbands and wives were all married together under the same roof. The "spiritual wife" answer is how they attempt to dodge the legal issue and can still list themselves as single mothers in order to abuse the welfare system. never heard spiritual wife....always heard sister wife. TLC or something had a show on a family that practiced the more the one wives.....they were a non religious bunch...there were 2 wives and he was trying to introduce a 3rd who the other two did not want

Both terms are frequently used.  "Spiritual wife" frequently used by the men referring to the women and "sister wife" being used by the women to refer to eachother.

Trying to introduce a 3rd that the other two don't want?!  That man is a glutton for punishment.

Keeping 1 woman happy is already a PITA.

I promise I could deal with the bitching x N (N>1).

I don't want to get in a swordfight in my own bedroom either.

F THAT

Heinlein, bless his heart, was crazy as a bedbug in his later years with all that free love BS.  Still love his books though, even some of the ones in that phase of his writing.

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> Maybe decide that like grown-ups? What if your kids hear two different things from Mommy and Daddy?  Who 'outranks' whom, then? I'll assume you've had this all worked out in advance. It's not hard. <snip> Wise_Jake, You're a smart person and I respect you, but I must absolutely disagree with the statement that, "it's not hard."Parenting is rarely easy, even with only one kid.  Combine that with the fact that we as a country have an attrocious divorce rate and it is safe to say that adults have a hard enough time working out a relationship between two people before making the dynamic even more complicated. <snip>

Oh, my apologies, Shane.  I actually agree with you totally.

I should have been more clear in my original post.

I was saying the logic in question was "not hard".... not the act of parenting, itself.

I came up with the rough model I used as an example in about two seconds.

I'm sure some people with an actual vested interest in the outcome of a situation like that could come up with something better if they thought about it for a little while.*


* and maybe prayed about it, if they happened to be praying folk.

Quoted: personally I think it is gross. I would not want to sleep with one man one night and the next be with a different man that was with a different woman the night before and the man that I was with the night before be with a different woman the next night. great way to get STD's infections, catch bacteria of some sorts.. I don't know all kinds could go wrong. I have a problem being attracted to a guy or wanting to have sex with a guy  that has had sex with several different women.

This is actually of a less concern than you would think. We're not talking of the hippie of the 60's and their free love. We're talking about a group of 4 to 12, maybe more, indiviuals that are committed to one another. I'd imagine if I were in such a situation I would require any new members into the marriage be tested for STD's.

In regards to your last statement, good luck in these days and times.

Quoted: The idea of the Line Marriage and polygamy in Heinlein's writings are about the only thing I think is crazy. The rest of his stuff makes good sense, but I believe that human nature in Western society being what it is, it would not work. In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the line marriage makes sense because of the greatly skewed male to female ratio. In Time Enough for Love, it somewhat makes sense as traditional marraige breaks down due to centuries long lifespans. However, in Stranger in a Strange Land, it seems more like a hippy commune.

I agree on all points here. Human nature of Western society can't handle it. I'm just saying that if by some overnight change in culture I think it could be of some benefit.

Stranger in a Strange Land was real popular with the hippe movement and I don't think Heinlein really thought much about them. I wonder if the "free love" of the 60's affected is writting in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Time Enough for Love.

...and you want to talk about some taboo topics! Time Enough for Love is full of them! Gives "self love" a whole new meaning!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: personally I think it is gross. I would not want to sleep with one man one night and the next be with a different man that was with a different woman the night before and the man that I was with the night before be with a different woman the next night. [>:// great way to get STD's infections, catch bacteria of some sorts.. I don't know all kinds could go wrong. I have a problem being attracted to a guy or wanting to have sex with a guy  that has had sex with several different women. Here's a newsflash for ya--most guys have had sex with several different women. I may be young and naive, but I am not completely naive. I understand that most people have had sex with several different partners... My personal preference is someone that has not been around the block 20 times.. or whatever. Idon't know maybe i just have higher standards for myself and others.

Hold your head high and be proud.

Quoted: Quoted: .. For the record, the idea of men and women sharing each other like some big swingers club is abhorrent to me as well. I think that is the best way to describe it - not really a marriage, but a private 'Swingers Club', but with children around.

Swinger'sClub is about sex. Polygamy is about not only sex, but intimacy and economics.

Quoted: Im sorry, but you would be okay with another man fucking your wife/SO/PERSON YOU SUPPOSEDLY LOVE in the ass? Multiple "partners" in a relationship tends to turn them into "objects".

not again for sure

They should just allow it for low-life mormons, where it belongs.

Quoted: Quoted: Abramam-Sahrah-Haggar{concubine}  A disagreement led to Haggar and her son to be cast out of the family, theoretically being used as a point of discord between the Jews,and Muslims. Jacob-Rachel-Leah Favoratism, jelously and feelings of neglect, likely leading to the selling of one brother into slavery. David and Solamon  Both had multiple wives, this led to disputes within the family and led to civil wars within the nation of Israel. Other than the care of the widows name one benneficial aspect of polygamy stated in the bible. Sorry for spelling mistakes FAIL. 1) The issue with hagar and abraham was due to abrahams lack of faith in God that He would fulfill his promise (for the child who would ultimately become known as issac) through sarah. Neither hagar nor abraham was ever condemned or criticized in scripture for being involved in a polygynous relationship with each other. Keep in mind, please, that God could have prevented the relationship between abraham and hagar if He had wanted to in much the same way he did in the stories told in Genesis 12:10-20 and again in Genesis 20:1-18. So, not only was abraham never condemed for any of his polygynous relationships, he wasn't prevented from getting involved in them in the first place. 2) Somehow polygyny as a marriage practice is, by default, evil and wrong because jacobs sons were jealous of their youngest brother? Is that what you are trying to say? Remember, my challenge to you earlier in this thread was to prove---through any biblical story of your choice---that polygyny----as a marriage practice----was  and is----by default---degrading to women. So far, you have failed in meeting that challenge. In much the same way as with abraham, God chose not to prevent the (tricked) marriage of jacob with leah nor did he prevent the eventual marriage between jacob and rachel. Also, jacob was never stopped from having a relationship with not only leah and rachel but their mistresses as well. Jacob, essentially, had 4 wives ( 2 wives plus 2 concubines) and the 12 sons of israel were born through these 4 wives. There's no biblical record that God even attempted to stop any of these relationships much less condemned jacob (or any of his wives) for participating in it. If polygyny was somehow--- again, by default---degrading and bad for women then why weren't these relationships stopped from developing? If polygyny is so bad then how do you reconcile your anti-polygynous beliefs with the entire book of esther where God used a jewish girl to become the wife, queen, and harem member of a foreign pagan king? God used that polygynous relationship to influence that king to save all of the jewish people who were in captivity in that country, and were under the threat of annihilation, at that particular time. Esther was never criticized for this relationship nor was her husband who was the king at the time. 3A) David committed adultry. Had bathsheba not been married then there would not have been a problem. He was never criticized or punished for any of his other polygynous relationships and he had numerous wives and concubines. In the new testament david was clalled a "man after Gods own heart". His polygyny didn't change or stain any of that. Davids problem was adultry. Not polygyny. Please read the story where nathan confronted david for his sin with bathsheba (in 2 Samuel 12:1-15) Read the old testament parable that nathan told david. Who represented the rich neighbor? The poor neighbor? Who (and what) represented the lambs? If polygyny is wrong and degrading then why was the rich man condemned only for his theft but not for having so many lambs at the same time? 3B) Solomon, quite frankly, had more women then he could properly care for. If my memory serves me correctly, I recall he had 300 wives and 700 concubines. That sounds a little greedy to me but perhaps I'm wrong. Solomon was also wrong in that he chose to get involved with women who were pagans and practiced pagan rituals. Even with solomons problems, you still have failed to prove that polygyny is---by default----a bad and degrading practice to women.

A heirom isn't degrading?

It is devaluaing (degrading) to give 5 women each 20 % of your love and affection, but expecting 100% from each of them.

1)  There was indeed strife in the home between Haagar and Sarah.  

And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.    1 - [Polygamy] Sarai (later "Sarah") doubted and made the proposition to her husband who, like Adam, fell into sin. Then in verse 5, the parallel continues. Sarai blamed Abram.  God had given the principle of marriage of only one man with one woman. ge0224. Many others in the OT (Old Testament) copied Abram's bad example and we may be tempted to wonder if the original plan was unimportant.   The archaeological discovery of documents in or near Abram's native country outlined this very plan of a a wife offering for her servant to bear a child when she was unsuccessful. This confirms the idea that Abram and Sarai were following a plan which was was not of divine origin. ge1502.   God had more than one good reason for telling Abram to get up and leave Ur ge1201. 5  And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee. 6  But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

And, here we see that Leah was degraded (unloved)

Genesis 29:30-32 Jacob lay with Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years. When the LORD saw that Leah was not loved, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Reuben, for she said, "It is because the LORD has seen my misery. Surely my husband will love me now." She conceived again, and when she gave birth to a son she said, "Because the LORD heard that I am not loved, he gave me this one too." So she named him Simeon.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: .. For the record, the idea of men and women sharing each other like some big swingers club is abhorrent to me as well. I think that is the best way to describe it - not really a marriage, but a private 'Swingers Club', but with children around. In all seriousness... it a true polygamous relationship as described by original post (multiple wives AND husbands)...what is written on a birth certificate or do they rotate around on a monthly basis so they know exactly who they slept with 40wks ago and who is the bio dad? Or do would they always put down who their legal husband is?  (isnt there usually a legal marriage and then unions not legal with in the groups?)

In Robert Heinlein's worlds, they always knew who the fathers were because they kept extensive records. However, in Heinlien's novels, women chose to get pregnant when they wanted. So, if a woman wanted to get pregnant by a certian man in the marriage she only had sex with him. Also, in Heinlein's novels, it was normal the women that introduced new members to the marraige, wether they were male or female. If the new member was male, the women that introduced him would normally be the one to become pregnant by him first, unless she was introducing him because she knew that another wife was found of him then they would make sure the first child was between those two.

Quoted: Quoted: Maybe decide that like grown-ups? What if your kids hear two different things from Mommy and Daddy?  Who 'outranks' whom, then? In my family that so rarely happens it's not a big issue.  The kids know mommy & daddy back each other - it's easier to do with only 2 parents.

Same here.  And I actually *agree* that it's easier with only two parents (or at least that only seems logical to me).

Look at guns or cars.  Some have simple systems; some complex.  With few exceptions, I'll choose the more simple system.  Usually less can go wrong.  KISS and all that.

But that's not to say that families can't be extensible systems.  Or at least I don't think so.

It's not hard. Yes it is.

Again, sorry.  I was talking about the logic at play, not the actual parenting in practice.

We had given the kids certain instructions that their grandmother was trying to countermand.

Ah, the ol' meddlin' mother-in-law routine.  Seen it.  So has my wife.

We mitigate that by keeping them at arm's length.  Usually.

That set up confusion in the kids and caused problems.

Without a doubt.

In a couple of these incidents we (my wife and I ) were away from home so we could not immediate fix the problem.

IMO, that's actually more likely to happen with blood relations like mother-in-laws.  They've got an agenda wrt those kids.

I would think the "other parents" would be more like a hybrid babysitter and distant family member (like a cousin or uncle or aunt or something).

You would also live with these ppl 24/7, so you know them better, and you'd damn sure better trust them in this capacity, or you [no 'probably' here] shouldn't be living with them in the first place.

Now you want to add in more parents?  Ever try to get a comittee to decide on anything - esepcially when 2 of the member have different ideas and there is not 'chairman'?

I work in academia.  Committees left and friggin' right.

I've chaired committees (and teams, and task forces, etc, etc, etc).  I've been a member of aforementioned groups serving a chair.  I've even been on a couple glorious "chair-less" committees.

You can still get things done.  I've led committees I've not chaired and I've allowed others to lead committees I've chaired.  Every organization with an "official hierarchy" will also have an unofficial hierarchy.  They're rarely the same.

It's like trying to herd cats - a total charlie foxtrot.

It certainly can be.

One way would be for "actual parents" to be the final arbiters of stuff for their own kids Who is the 'actual parent'?  Can you tell if the adults are busy playing musical bedrooms?  Even if you could - what happens when one 'actual' parents tells their kid they can do something - and another 'actual' parents tells their kid (of the same age and responsibility) they can't?  I SURE AS HECK would not want to live in that situation.

We run into something similar when some of our daughter's school friends are allowed to talk back to their parents.

Even at four, she realizes and knows that different parents have different rules.

She's smart enough to know that shit doesn't fly with her parents.

And it will happen, time and time again. , but ostensibly you'd trust these other people enough to make on-the-fly decisions and go from there. Oh, it *wasn't* OK to let Jimmy spend the night with Bobby?  Well, I know that now and it won't happen again. Was it an honest mistake, or did Jimmy manipulate me into making it?  If so, then he's disciplined appropriately. Sorry things don't work that easy.  Countermand a decision can not only screw up other people's plans - but it causes anguish all around.

When we left our kids with the MIL a couple months ago so that we could go on a date, we told our daughter (the one who's old enough to understand) that "Mi-Mi" was in charge while Mommy and Daddy were gone.  The same as I'd do with a babysitter (we've never used one, however).

I didn't feel it was fair to ask Mi-Mi to watch our cretins and expect her to mind-read and know everything we wanted, how we'd act/react in every situation.  She's a grown-up and we trust her with our kids, or we wouldn't leave them with her.

Oh, and who here has "God-parents"? I do, as do my children.  I am a God-parent to my nephew. So should I tease you that "it takes a village"? Hey, Forest, could I borrow your copy of Hillary's book when you're done with it? Sorry I don't get it. What does having or being a God-Parent have to do with Hillary's moronic book?  A God-Parent is more a 'backup' than a 'supplement'.

Again, that's the traditional role.  I was just bringing the concept up because it's familiar to many people and not an incredible leap from one to the other.

Did you ever go stay with your God-parents for a week?  For the summer?  Etc?

They're not your parents, but when you're with them, they're running the show.

Extrapolate a little.  You're an engineer. I am extrapolaing, based on my experience as a father and husband, and seeing how people react. [Richard Dawson]Survey Says "Does Not End Well ...........99%"[/Richard Dawson]

I have no qualms with admitting that 99% is probably about right.

We don't have Godparents for our kids.  But if we did, they'd be close/dear friends, not [biological] family. My wife's best friend (they grew up together in NYC) is my son's God-Mother.  A good dear person - who in no way would I ever share my bed.

My wife's best friend where we're at has big ol' boobies.  But I wouldn't ever share my bed w/ her, either.  Even if she was hot (she's not, though she is "sweet").

She's an anti-gun, anti-self defense modern liberal.  She "could never take someone else's life," even if it meant giving up her own.

Not only would I never share a bed with her, she'll never baby-sit our kids, either.  Even if we're desperate, and even if she offers.

I can't trust her to protect them.  And it also makes me question her judgement wrt a litany of other things.

I also wouldn't have a problem with he and my wife marrying, if I died tomorrow.  It's not a giant leap. Umm if you don't have a problem with your best friend shaggin your wife, then who am I to stop you.

Yeah, I want her to be a widow forever after I'm dead and try to raise the kids alone.  Like my mother "tried" to do (chuckle).

Obviously, she'd be much better at it than my mom was, but it's a hard life that I wouldn't wish on her for anything.

My best friend is a *great* dad.

FWIW, I also wouldn't have a problem if they were just good platonic friends and decided to move in together to be "roommates" and raise the three kids together.

I'm dead.  What do I care except that my kids are taken care of?

Anything else is selfish with one foot left in the world of the living, IMO.

"Head for the light," and all that.

It's one thing for 2 families to share a home, and say some living expenses (food, energy, housing).  But in that case the kids know who their parents are.  It's quite another to extend that so Mommy occsasionaly sleeps in 'Uncle Freds room' while Daddy plays with Aunt Matilda.

Kids are smart.  I think they can remember who their Mommy and Daddy are.

Heather has Two Mommies was bad enough - but Heather has Three Momies and Two Daddies would be an unmitigated disaster. I can't think of the mess things would be (especially for the Children) should there be a divorce..

Divorces are messy anyway.  :shrug:

These sort of things *could* actually be easier in group marriages.  They could also be harder.

Since I'm coming at this largely from a contract (e.g. freedom of contract) perspective anyway, I see it kind of like this:

• sole proprietorship ~ single parent



• partnership ~ traditional two-parent marriage (yes, i know a "partnership" can actually have more than two "partners")



• corporation ~ polygamy or "group marriage"

Quoted: Consider the threads we've seen on AR15.com these past few years about single parents getting married and how they have to work through the hurdles of how the parenting of the children will be handled.

That's a whole other topic but I see where you're coming from. I never noticed before but this issue wasn't really addressed in Heinlein's novels due to the fact of how long people lived and normally if an indivual came into a marriage that already had children they were already grown and out on their own.

I know for certain that a single parent coming into a marriage such as this would be trouble brewing unless the kids were at a very young age and wouldn't really know what's going on.

Quoted: They should just allow it for low-life mormons, where it belongs.

Classy.  Very classy.

Quoted: Quoted: They should just allow it for low-life mormons, where it belongs. Classy.  Very classy.

Yeah, I'm not too happy about that either. Thanks to everyone else that didn't slide down the slippery slope of ignorance.

Quoted: Quoted: personally I think it is gross. I would not want to sleep with one man one night and the next be with a different man that was with a different woman the night before and the man that I was with the night before be with a different woman the next night. great way to get STD's infections, catch bacteria of some sorts.. I don't know all kinds could go wrong. I have a problem being attracted to a guy or wanting to have sex with a guy  that has had sex with several different women. This is actually of a less concern than you would think. We're not talking of the hippie of the 60's and their free love. We're talking about a group of 4 to 12, maybe more, indiviuals that are committed to one another. I'd imagine if I were in such a situation I would require any new members into the marriage be tested for STD's. In regards to your last statement, good luck in these days and times.

Hypothetically, yes it is possible to have such an arrangement without STD's being introduced.  In real life finding 4 people interested in this lifestyle without any of them bringing STD's into the equation would be a challenge unless they all come from an extremely conservative lifestyle in terms of sex.  Finding 12 people with no STD's would be an exponentially greater challenge.

Not impossible, but difficult to say the least.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: .. For the record, the idea of men and women sharing each other like some big swingers club is abhorrent to me as well. I think that is the best way to describe it - not really a marriage, but a private 'Swingers Club', but with children around. Swinger'sClub is about sex. Polygamy is about not only sex, but intimacy and economics.

In the polygamy you describe, with multiple husbands and multiple wives all living married to eachother, I predict that intimacy and economics would be early casualties.  Just my personal view.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: personally I think it is gross. I would not want to sleep with one man one night and the next be with a different man that was with a different woman the night before and the man that I was with the night before be with a different woman the next night. great way to get STD's infections, catch bacteria of some sorts.. I don't know all kinds could go wrong. I have a problem being attracted to a guy or wanting to have sex with a guy  that has had sex with several different women. This is actually of a less concern than you would think. We're not talking of the hippie of the 60's and their free love. We're talking about a group of 4 to 12, maybe more, indiviuals that are committed to one another. I'd imagine if I were in such a situation I would require any new members into the marriage be tested for STD's. In regards to your last statement, good luck in these days and times. Hypothetically, yes it is possible to have such an arrangement without STD's being introduced.  In real life finding 4 people interested in this lifestyle without any of them bringing STD's into the equation would be a challenge unless they all come from an extremely conservative lifestyle in terms of sex.  Finding 12 people with no STD's would be an exponentially greater challenge. Not impossible, but difficult to say the least.

Hmmm, I don't know. I highly suspect that a lot of the couples I know don't have any STD's. I know my wife and I don't so I can only assume that there are several other couples out there that don't also.

I know one thing. If I were to be involved in any such arrangement it would be a death nail to any individual that acquired a STD.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: .. For the record, the idea of men and women sharing each other like some big swingers club is abhorrent to me as well. I think that is the best way to describe it - not really a marriage, but a private 'Swingers Club', but with children around. Swinger'sClub is about sex. Polygamy is about not only sex, but intimacy and economics. In the polygamy you describe, with multiple husbands and multiple wives all living married to eachother, I predict that intimacy and economics would be early casualties.  Just my personal view.

As wise_jake mentioned earlier, more than likely the older members of the marriage would be more into the intimacy than the sex and the younger more into the sex.

I know in my relationships, in the beginning, sex was very important then the frequency dropped after a while. Heck, these days at my age, it's more like work than anything else. However, there are those nights, mornings, days that I almost rape the wife! (figuratively of course).

Best way I can describe it is the beans in a jar for the newly weds.  Put a bean in the jar for everytime you have sex during the first year of marraige. After the first year, you start taking the beans out of the jar every time you have sex...the jar never gets emptied during the rest of the marraige.

I don't see why it'd be any different except to say there would be a little more sex going on every time a new member was introduced.

I have a number of friends in the Pagan/Wiccan community, including several "open relationships" and at least one "partnership" of two married couples living together and swapping around.  And I've never seen one last.  Watching the aftermath of one now, friend got testing just to be sure he was actually the father of his son, ex-wife gets all kinds of child-support claiming she has no other income, while she's advertising on swinger's sites that she's in a triad relationship with the other married couple and handles the housework, child care, and household finances.  And she's pulling all the control games over the kid, trying to deny visitation, only allowing the minimum the court mandates, etc...

As for Heinlein, as the husband of a science fiction author, I'll let you in on a little secret - it works because the author wants it to.  Heinlein set up a plausible explanation for the stability (that the women were in charge of introducing potential new spouses), so the readers would buy it.  

Quoted: I have a number of friends in the Pagan/Wiccan community, including several "open relationships" and at least one "partnership" of two married couples living together and swapping around.  And I've never seen one last.  Watching the aftermath of one now, friend got testing just to be sure he was actually the father of his son, ex-wife gets all kinds of child-support claiming she has no other income, while she's advertising on swinger's sites that she's in a triad relationship with the other married couple and handles the housework, child care, and household finances.  And she's pulling all the control games over the kid, trying to deny visitation, only allowing the minimum the court mandates, etc... As for Heinlein, as the husband of a science fiction author, I'll let you in on a little secret - it works because the author wants it to.  Heinlein set up a plausible explanation for the stability (that the women were in charge of introducing potential new spouses), so the readers would buy it.

I think most of us realize that and as stated before, I think we all agree that our culture of today can not handle this idea. However, it could be possible in future times with a different culture and beliefs.

i don't care what CONSENTING ADULTS do. if a guy wants to have 2, 4, 10 wives,  who cares? if some chick wants to have 3 or 4 husbands, who cares? if two couples want to get married to eachother, who cares? if 3 or 4 gay guys want to get married, who cares?

.gov (whether state, local, or fed) has its hand in way too much stuff and should not be enforcing rules of morality. prostitution should not be illegal either UNLESS a particular pimp/business/whatever is using underage prostitutes or is abusing the women. if you don't agree with something, just don't do it and leave everyone else alone.

Quoted: i don't care what CONSENTING ADULTS do. if a guy wants to have 2, 4, 10 wives,  who cares? if some chick wants to have 3 or 4 husbands, who cares? if two couples want to get married to eachother, who cares? if 3 or 4 gay guys want to get married, who cares? .gov (whether state, local, or fed) has its hand in way too much stuff and should not be enforcing rules of morality. prostitution should not be illegal either UNLESS a particular pimp/business/whatever is using underage prostitutes or is abusing the women. if you don't agree with something, just don't do it and leave everyone else alone.

Howdy, fellow Texan.

I also want the government "out of our bedrooms," because -- while I won't state anything definitively -- there's a high likelihood that "our bedroom" is where I keep the gun cabinet.

Link to a related thread, if anyone's interested.