pinkie

Child abuse in Mormonism

The following article from the New York Times clearly illustrates a recurring problem within the Mormon Church–child abuse. Child abuse is consistently higher in Utah than in the nation as a whole. It is a blight on Mormonism. Utah social workers have been quoted as being "blackly pessimistic" about the problem in their state.

All of this flies in the face of the projected image of Mormonism as a society which places the family at the highest level of its concern.

Of course Mormon authorities love children and want what's best for them. The failure of Mormonism stems from its hidebound structure. This is the religion of polygamy, patriarchy, and Blood Atonement. Such a culture simply doesn't have the ability to wave a wand of psychobabble over the Church and make everything right. Mormon social problems are systemic.

One of the worst areas of offense in Mormonism is uncovered in the following article. This story is repeated over and over again as the good old boys have their way with women and children in the ashes of Brigham Young's Mormonism


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sex Abuse Lawsuit Is Settled By Mormons for $3 Million

By Gustav Niebuhr
New York Times Sep. 5, 2001, A-14

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints disclosed yesterday that it would pay $3 million to settle a suit by an Oregon man who said he was sexually abused as a child by a church member. The suit said Mormon officials had known well in advance of that abuse that the accused man had also faced child molesting allegations before.

The case is unusual not only because the church disclosed the amount of the settlement, in advance of news conferences by the plaintiffs' lawyers today, but also because it centers on alleged abuse by a man who held no ministerial or leadership role. That man died in 1995.

In an interview, Von G. Keetch, a Salt Lake City lawyer representing the church, said it strongly believed that the case ''lacked merit'' and had settled only out of concern that the litigation, already a decade old, could continue for years more, at high cost.

Mr. Keetch said the decision was made after a number of rulings against the church by a county judge presiding over the case in Portland. Among the rulings were that the church could be held liable for the conduct of one member against another, and that the plaintiff could argue that the abuser was a clergyman because he held the title of high priest, which the church describes as a common lay designation.

The settlement follows by two weeks the disclosure of another settlement by a religious institution in a sexual abuse case. In that instance, two Roman Catholic dioceses in Southern California said they had paid $5.2 million to a man who maintained that as a high school student a decade ago, he was molested by a priest.

The Oregon suit was filed in December 1998 by a Portland man, Jeremiah Scott, who eventually sought $1.5 billion in damages from the church. He accused its authorities of withholding knowledge from his family that another member, Franklyn Curtis, had previously been accused of molesting children.

His lawyer, David Slader, said Mr. Scott was abused in 1991, the year he turned 11, after his mother invited Mr. Curtis to live with the family. Mr. Curtis, who was 88 and had been living in a group home, was a member of the same congregation as the Scotts.

Before bringing Mr. Curtis into her home, Mr. Slader said, Mrs. Scott sought advice from a local Mormon bishop, who advised the family against it because it would be too much work, but who did not inform them of the earlier accusations.

Mr. Slader noted that Mr. Curtis had been previously excommunicated after being accused of molesting children. But when he came to live with the Scotts, his membership had been restored and he held the title of high priest. He had not been criminally charged with abuse at that point, but later pleaded guilty to molesting Mr. Scott, Mr. Slader said.

''It's the institution that knew,'' Mr. Slader said, referring to church authorities. ''A church,'' he added, ''owes a very, very special and high duty to the children of its parishioners, the children whose souls it has taken responsibility for.''

Mr. Keetch, the lawyer for the church, quoted the bishop who advised the Scotts as saying in a deposition that he had known of no abuse accusations against Mr.

Curtis. Mr. Keetch said Mr. Curtis had been excommunicated in the 1980's in Pennsylvania, where he lived before moving back to Oregon. The decision to excommunicate, Mr. Keetch said, followed another Oregon bishop's notifying church authorities in Pennsylvania that Mr. Curtis had been accused of having ''inappropriately touched a child'' in an Oregon congregation different from the one where he and the Scotts were later members together.

Mr. Curtis was readmitted to membership ''after a fairly lengthy period of repentance,'' Mr. Keetch said, but never had any supervisory position over Mr. Scott and in fact had no leadership position at all. According to the church, the title of high priest is bestowed on Mormon men in good standing over the age of 40.

Mr. Keetch said he believed there was ''no church that does more either to protect children or to provide assistance to children'' who have been abused.

http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonis...x3.htm?FACTNet

pinkie

Judge pulls more children from mother's home

By Brooks Adams The Salt Lake Tribune

A juvenile court judge temporarily removed eight children of polygamist John Daniel Kingston from their mother's home Tuesday after hearing new allegations of abuse and "games" the couple has played with a child welfare worker.

Only one of the couple's 11 children - a girl born in July - remains with Heidi Mattingly Foster as the state continues to make its case that the couple are unfit parents. Third District Juvenile Court Judge Andrew Valdez removed two older girls from the home earlier this year after a dispute over getting their ears pierced triggered a wider investigation of the family.

During Tuesday's emergency hearing, representatives for the Guardian Ad Litem's Office and attorney general asked Valdez to remove the other children for their own safety, saying Mattingly Foster has physically and emotionally abused them. The children's ages are 15, 12, 11, 9, 7, 5, 4 and 2.

Assistant Attorney General Carolyn Nichols said the couple's 2-year-old son had a black eye two weeks ago, and his mother gave differing accounts of where the injury occurred. She finally provided the name of a day care provider, Margaret Larson Owen, who also has 11 children with Kingston.
Mattingly Foster said after the hearing that the boy fell off a slide and that Owen filled out an injury report as required by state regulations.

Nichols said other children have been slapped and, contrary to a previous order, the couple's 15-year-old son attends Ensign Learning Center, a Kingston-run school, rather than West High.
Kingston, 49, and Mattingly Foster, 32, belong to the polygamous Kingston clan, known as "The Order." The group is said to have about 1,200 members in the Salt Lake Valley and operates a $150-million business empire that includes a mine, ranches, pawn shops, grocery stores, private schools, vending machine businesses and restaurant supply stores.

Kingston, a brother of clan leader Paul Kingston, has an estimated 14 spiritual wives and about 120 children; he pleaded no contest in 1999 to belt-whipping one of his children by another woman.
"The more information I get about these women who have children with Mr. Kingston, the more I think we're running a child mill here," Valdez said Tuesday, adding that if it were a "puppy mill" it would have been shut down a long time ago.

Nichols said Curtis Giles, the child welfare worker assigned to the Kingston children, has been continually thwarted when trying to check on their well-being. On one occasion when Giles tried to check on the children at Ensign Learning Center, the school alerted Kingston, who showed up with a tape recorder; the school's principal, Hyrum Kingston, turned Giles away two other times, saying statewide tests were in progress.
Valdez pointedly told Kingston and his attorney, Daniel Irvin, that no school policy "supersedes a court order."

Nichols also said Mattingly Foster refused to let a Child Protective Services worker interview the children after the state received the black-eye report unless Rachel Kingston, one of John Daniel Kingston's other "wives," was present.

Irvin said Kingston has fully complied with Valdez's past orders, limiting his interaction with his children to weekly supervised visits.

Russ Pietryga, a public defender now representing Mattingly Foster, said she is trying to be more cooperative and told Valdez the "problem can be solved in a less intrusive way than removing the children."
But Valdez said he had warned Mattingly Foster in previous court hearings that failure to cooperate with the state would lead to the children being removed from her home.

"We are going to pull these kids and see if you wake up, Ms. Mattingly, and find out if you're fully committed to having these children returned to you," Valdez said as he placed the children in protective custody. The children, who waited in another office in the courthouse during the hearing, were taken into state custody immediately. The seven youngest were placed in a shelter for abused children; the oldest boy, considered a flight risk, was taken to a secure facility.

In 1996, Mattingly Foster's children were removed from her home following a welfare investigation; in all, the state has investigated her four times over the past decade, finding inappropriately supervised children and unsafe living conditions. Each time, she received homemaking and counseling aid.
Valdez will hold a shelter hearing on Friday to decide whether to return the children home or leave them in state custody - a hearing the couple said would vindicate them and result in the children being returned home.
"We have 11 children and love every one of them," Kingston said after the court hearing. "It will be devastating to those children and is not in the best interest of those children to be removed from their home."
The couple issued a media statement that said: The state's "purpose is take the children from all polygamist parents and break up their families. They have no concern for our civil rights or what's best for the children."
"We really do expect that when we present our evidence on Friday they will be back," Kingston told The Salt Lake Tribune.

brooke@sltrib.com

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2430209#top

filtherton

Pinkie, those seem more like an argument against mormons than polygamists.

ozahs

It should be pointed out that polygamists are generally excomunicated from the "official" Mormon church. Anyone who claims to be both a Mormon and a Polygamist is actually considered a fundimentalist Mormon.

When Joseph Smith started the Mormon Church he was monogamous, but he could not keep his hands off the 14 year old hired help. He evidently decided to justify his predilection by making polygamy a basic tenet of the religion that he was still creating. His reservations about how the rest of the Mormon community would react prevented him from making his views public in his lifetime, but his successors pushed it through. A significant proportion of Mormons were appalled. The US government forced them to officially backtrack on this issue finally in the 1920's, I think.

The problem with Mormon polygamy, at least as I see it, is that the male church power structure has an undue amount of influence over Mormon females, to the point which marraiges are arranged between 60 year old men and 15 year old girls. Female fundamentalist Mormons are told that they have to marry "Uncle Brigham" or they will be excomunicated and banished from the community.

John Krakauer (Into Thin Air, Into the Wild) wrote a interesting book on this topic, Under the Banner of Heaven, if you want to learn more. I have always been curious about Mormonism, and after reading some of what Mormons wanted me to read I had begun to believe they were fairly normal. But this book shoule be required reading for anyone considering joining them.

pinkie

filtherton - You asked what was WRONG with polygamy.

ozahs - That's why I used the word CULTS.

http://www.xpolygamist.com/

http://www.rickross.com/groups/polygamy.html

adam

As far as I can tell, "cult" is mostly just a pejorative term for someone else's beliefs... do you have a more specific definition in mind?

I don't think anything is wrong with polygamy/polyandry/etc., provided the individuals involved are consenting adults. The problem with the "Mormon" cases is that not all the individuals are consenting adults.

dksuddeth

Do you have a link for this information or is it coming from the book that you mentioned in your post?

Zeraph

I think either way (mutiple husbands or wives) is fine. A combination is even better. IE 2-3 husbands and 2-3 wives, all sharing each other, and raising a group of kids as if each was their own. I think this is were our society will eventually evolve (I first heard this from Heinlein, great author and philosopher.)

Imagine a well functioning family unit like that. Think of all the love and affection in having 4-6 parents, a kid will always have someone to talk to, never be left unwatched, etc. And even better the other parents can go out without worrying about getting a babysitter, etc.

ScottKuma

YES.

This is what I think of as the perfect "polygamist" relationship. If we take into consideration that the marriage covenant was likely founded around the protection of children, I think it makes perfect sense to have a more extended definition of family.

I think it also makes sense that marriage as we have defined it today is at least as much an economic contract as it is an emotional one. This helps shape what a polygamous relationship should/might be like.

Our ancient tradition as a people was most likely a tribal one; many men & women living together for the common good. I see this tribal group as very closely analagous to a polygamous relationship. It would allow the pooling of resources to further propagate the good of the family, and it would allow for a close-knit group of care-givers for the children borne of the relationship. Heinlein even had multi-generational family groups; so that the family unit would live on beyond the originators.

But would it work? I can see a few problems:

1. How to handle jealousy within the group, especially where sexuality is concerned.
2. How to handle those who wish to leave the family group, both from an emotional and an economic standpoint.

#1 is probably the toughest -- jealousy is an inescapable part of being human. Having Joe sleeping exclusively with Emma, for example, might cause another member of the group to harbor resentment towards the offending couple.

#2 is probably the easier -- have strict contractual agreements from the onset with regards to joining / leaving the group. Since these agreements are inevitably about money, you either leave with a share of the group's total assets, or you leave with nothing. Either way, spell it out contractually and there shouldn't be a problem.

SecretMethod70

Firstly, it should be noted that polygamy has NOTHING to do with arranged marriages. They are two seperate things and the fact that many cultures who practice polygamy ALSO practice arranged marriages is incidental.

Back to the question at hand, there is nothing wrong with polygamy, polyandry, or what-have-you. If 2 consenting adults want to enter into a lifetime partnership, that's great. If 5 consenting adults do, that's great too. There's nothing wrong with choosing to be polyamorous and, likewise, there's nothing wrong with deciding that it's not for you.

The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Marriage is a religious institution and it should be entered into through a person's respective religious community. Marriage, being a religious institution which the government should have no involvement in, can have any limitations imposed on it that a person's respective religion chooses.

This is contrasted with what the government SHOULD be involved in - contractual relationships. This is where government involvement comes in. There is no reason why any person, or group of persons, cannot enter into a contractual relationship with another person or group of persons. So, from the government perspective, there can be any number of people involved in the contractual relationship as those people wish.

The result: Polyamorous relationships are perfectly legal in any regard since they are between consenting adults. Religions are then free to impose their own limits on marriages.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

neutone

I can barely handle having one wife. Having multiple is only cool if they're independant career women who happen to be bisexual. (Yes, I'm cynical today)

__________________
Protect the rights of tribes

adam

Well, neutone, on a practical level I agree it would be tough. As you add people, you get a combinatoric explosion in the number of relationships, and those are hard to manage. But that's different from saying it is wrong.

Stompy

Well, technically, most religions are cults or have cult-like behavior. I wouldn't say it's any more insulting to call them that than it is to try and force their beliefs on everyone who doesn't believe.

Anything where a mass of people get together and believe a common thing, no matter how WACKY it is, to me, is a cult.

Scientologists? Cult. Someone might have this belief, but that's no different than me believing that Santa Claus created this world when he fought a 10 headed dragon. It's silly.

Christianity? You bet. It's just common, so we think nothing of it. Eating the body of christ? Drinking his blood? Whaaaaaaat the hell is wrong with people? People getting eaten by whales and spat out later. Silly when ya think about it.

Mormons? Well, yes, because we know it was created by a guy in the 1920's - it wasn't "handed down by gods" or whatever people claim created it. Think David Koresh. Why do people follow a religion they know was created by a person? (Just like scientologists). That'd be like Gene Roddenberry trying to form a religion based on Star Trek.

The fundamental values aren't bad in pratice, because, for the most part, it's "love your neighbor" type stuff, which is fine, but anything beyond that needs to be suppressed. For example, take a look at Utah and their alcohol laws. Ridiculous and pointless! It doesn't stop there, there's tons of laws that they have that try to impose pointless moral values upon others. It's obnoxious.

Stuff like that, to me, is cultish.

__________________
I love lamp.

docbungle

Polygamy. Well, I think if you take religion out of our lives, both as a practice and as a concept of something that actually exists, no one would consider polygamy as something that was wrong. Those who wanted multiple partners, but were unable to attain them, would have problems related to envy and jealousy, but even they would not find it to be wrong. Religion dictates to a lot of people what is right or wrong. For the people who have nothing to do with religion, I feel it is a different question entirely: what is wrong with polygamy? I have no idea what the answer to that question is, but I do feel it is dependent on whether or not you subscribe to a set of laws/morals that have been set for you or if you chose to set your own.

__________________
Bad Luck City

Supersonic

there's nothing wrong with polygamy, I think. It's just the christian population (again!)

ozahs

dksuddeth - Do you have a link for this information or is it coming from the book that you mentioned in your post?

It's from the book - Under the Banner of Heavan, by Jon Krakauer.

Kalnaur

Polygamy is fine.

Just not for me. I have enough to do with one wife.

__________________
PC: Can you help me out here HK?
HK-47: I'm 98% percent sure this miniature organic meatbag wants you to help find his fellow miniature organic meatbags.
PC: And the other 2 percent?
HK-47: The other 2 percent is that he is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted, but that might be wishful thinking on my part.

pinkie

No, it's not. Secrecy and separation from family and friends, mind rape, psychological manipulation and abuse, thought reform, behavior modification, and the demand of dangerous or abusive practices do not just fall into the category of "someone else's beliefs."

When you need an exit counselor to "de-program" you, you were not just brushed with the beliefs and values of an arbitrary group of "believers."

http://www.hoyweb.com/faq/cult.htm

[edit] added link

ScottKuma

But polygamy doesn't necessarily mean JUST more than one wife. It could be a small community of married people, male and female!

(I agree that one male & multiple females is just problems waiting to happen -- solely on a financial matter, not to mention emotionally! *shudder*)

Master_Shake

If by polygamy you mean having sex with more than one person at a time, or while you are in a relationship with someone, then nothing is morally wrong, but watch out for STD's.

If by polygamy you mean marriage to more than one person at the same time, then the problem is the same thing that's wrong with marriage to one person. Marriage is a institution dedicated to ownership of other people, and controlling interests in the property of others. It's consensual slavery.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

solaron1

Even if nobody found polygamy morally wrong, the STD thing, would probably put an end to it pretty quick. HIV, AIDS, Herpes.... the list goes on.

Grumbling*Girl

What a crappy assed view of marriage and monogamy !

When you meet someone you truly love then you'll want...WANT to spend the rest of your life with them ! Even years later ! Marriage and monogamy aren't a trap, they aren't something you commit to grudgingly as some sort of traumatizing obligation, and they definitely aren't slavery... You marry to that one fantastic person and stay faithful because you love them and only them. A healthy monogamous happy marriage is a place where you WANT to be.... It's not a trap.

I honestly don't think there's an inherent undeniable need for polygamy in humankind whatsoever. What there are, are unhappy people who feel like trapped slaves, who become cheaters and quitters.

WillyPete

pinkie, the main problem with your arguments is that you're assigning specific connotations to words that are a lot more global.

Ploygamy is not just people in Utah that have broken from the Mormons and force their daughters on one another, nor is 'cult' really meant to define groups that separate people from family/friends and brainwash them.

Polygamy is purely a union between on person and multiples between many of the opposite sex.
A cult is a collective of people of similar beliefs. In that regard, the entirity of christianity is a cult, so are any other religion. I think the pope and imams would beg to differ though.

If you claim ALL polygamy to be bad and just point at rebel mormons, then you may as well say that all Catholics are terrorists because of the primarily catholic-biased IRA.
Using that type of view, your argument holds no water. Particularly as your second quoted reason for it being bad was a man suing the LDS for child abuse by a church leader. What aspect of polygamy was that? May as well cite the Boston catholic child abuse cases as a reason against polygamy whilst you are at it.

Many parts of the world use polygamy for many reasons. Here's some:
-They don't have pensions, large families are necessary to support the adults in old age, hence many wives = many children. I refer to 1man many women here because 1 woman many men wouldn't acheive the same family size.

-Women may historically have less rights and outnumber men.
If a rich man only has daughters and the only other men are all married and women may not posess land and the associated rights in tribal life accompanying such owership, what is she to do if her father dies? she marries another man and still gets to keep control of her father's lands and dictate the proper use of his assets. (If her husband is wise and not greedy)

-Protection:
Marrying a more powerful man in a more backward tribal society lends protection by association to women who marry him. In return, he has a large family and enough people are generated in the family/tribe to protect its interests.


To say polygamy is inherently evil is wrong.
To say that some people advocate it to further their own interst if reasons like I've shown don't apply to them would be more acceptable.


And whilst you're at it, don't confuse the mormon church with those breakaways. It's one of my mormon buddies' biggest bug bears. The mormon church actively denounce its practise.

1010011010

Polygamy is a primitive of modern divorce, IMO.

When you tire of your old wife, you get a shiny new one, and the old one still has hooks into your finances. Sounds a lot like alimony and child support, to me.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

WillyPete

No you don't get a new one.
You are responsible for meeting the needs, physical, sexual and emotional, of all of your spouses.
However, you are forgetting that the spouses all have something in common and in themselves provide one another with a support group.

What's the difference really, in marrying one person then divorcing them and moving onto another than marrying two and divorcing one of them?
The net result is just the same.

Don't equate polygamy with more sex. That's the main thread I'm hearing here. There's a lot more reasons for a polygamous culture than sex. Typically, in societies that allow polygamy, you'll also find that if sex is desired by the male it's just taken forcibly anyway. Why marry more than one woman for the purpose of sex if this is the case?

filtherton

I think if you assume emotionally and financially stable individuals, polygamy is definitely a more desirable arrangement than monogamy in terms of raising children.

I agree, with one addition: I honestly don't think there's an inherent undeniable need for polygamy or monogamy in humankind whatsoever.

1010011010

What if the old one has failed to produce healthy male heirs?
To which tradition of polygamy are you referring in which this was the practice? What tradition of monogamy is this the practice, for that matter?
Or a pool for vicious intrigue.
I'm not sure what point you're making here.
Because the first one won't do anal? Because the first one no longer arouses you? Because the maiden you've dishonored is threatening to heap accusations upon your name if you do not pay the price of her honor?

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

pinkie

He asked, "What's WRONG with polygamy?" I gave one example (context) of what was wrong with it.

I never said that all polygamy was bad, or lumped anything so broadly as you seem to be assuming.

Well, that may be your opinion, but again, I'm referring to WRONGS. Not all churches are like cults. (Key word: "like." Cults have specific characteristics that make them cults) Not every organization is a cult, and even fewer churches are destructive, abusive, mind raping, child molesting, pedophile breeding grounds. But they are out there too, and it’s a very sad state of affairs.

joeshoe

I'd go with the oppressive towards women argument.

WillyPete

Guys, are we arguing 'what's wrong with polygamy', or 'What's wrong with polygamy in America?'

Big difference.
Polygamy is practiced in MANY cultures. Some are oppressive of women and some aren't.

Joeshoe, you say polygamy is oppressive to women,so when you get married, you won't mind if your wife keeps her own name and refuses to assume your surname?
Western monogamy is JUST as oppressive in it's values regarding women.

flstf

I came to the same conclusion as you did above, especially concerning the legalization of gay marriage discussed in other threads in this forum. But this could certainly lead to some interesting arrangements.

All kinds of groups could form contactual relationships to share social security, medical, death benefits, etc... I wonder how much the government would have to be involved in these?

I guess my wife's and my families could put one of these arrangements together and the government would leave us alone. But what if all the (Christian only, atheist only, white only, black only, etc..) members of my family, or motorcycle club, or neighborhood, or city, or state, or country would form one of these contactual agreements? The possibilities are endless.

I know this seems silly in the context of marriage and polygamy, I'm just speculating, LOL.

filtherton

Why not? Business entities do shit like this all of the time. It just makes a personal relationship a financial one.

madsenj37

Pinkie - mormons no longer practice or accept polygamy. Those who do are ex-communicated.

__________________
"Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

longbough

It's only a problem if you feel you need "society's" approval for your beliefs no matter what they are. If polygamy is something you've managed to practice in private then who gives a fuck what other people think?
"Society" is not a collaborative conspiracy. It is made up of individuals with practices and beliefs that are as diverse as their individual experiences. For example, if I wanted to sacrifice a chicken ceremoniously in my yard I really wouldn't need your acceptance to feel comfortable with my convictions.

I never understood the appeal of polygamy outside of the novelty of practicing a social taboo. What's the big deal?

A) If it's about love: It's tough enough to find one partner who can tolerate me ('till death do us part) let alone 2 or more...
B) If it's about sex: I got more sex from a variety of partners as a bachelor before I decided to settle down.

joeshoe

No, when I get married, I won't mind if my wife keeps her own last name.

Which countries are these that have polygamy without the women being oppressed. And how many of these countries also practice arranged marriages?

WillyPete

Find Africa in an atlas, close your eyes, put your finger down anywhere on the page.

Oppression in ANY relationship is an individual instance. Polygamy is NOT explicitly linked with oppression of women. You can have the same or worse oppression when it's just one man and a woman.

powerclown

Would the definition of polygamy include the incidence of a woman having multiple men? Or is it entirely men having multiple women?

filtherton

I'm thinking of polygamy in terms of any legally recognized relationship with more than the standard two members. Any combination of penises and vaginas will do.

kd4

well lets start with what I think should be cleared up. Most of you are talking about polygyny which is a type of polygamy, polyandry is the other. Polygyny is the marriage of one man and two or more women. Polyandry is the other. Those are strict with just one of the two sexes. Polygamy is with more than one of both sexes in the relationship.
Now to Scott. If you look at other cultures that accept polygamy in either of its forms, there will be the problem of jealousy. For simplicity lets say polygyny. That is sometimes taken care of by a "chief" wife who dictates who gets to sleep with the husband and when. She basically mediates and tries to keep things fair. There is also possiblity of a "schedule" for each husband to spend with one of his wives so that none of the other wives will intrude.

People also state that polygamy is selfish. You're right it is selfish. In some case studies of cultures that do practice polygamy its important because it keeps property/wealth inside the family. Think about it. You have 3 sons, who marry 3 different women, then you die you split your land into 3 smaller parts with 3 separate owners. Then all 3 of them have 3 sons who received part of their father's share of his father's land. Thus dividing the land into even smaller pieces. Instead would it not be smarter to keep the land as one large piece instead of many small pieces? That is why in some societies women have multiple husbands.

This will be the last part, sorry for the long post. Polygamy in the form of more than one of each sex, IE 2 men 2 females, they share responsibilities. One woman can go and pursue a career while the other stays home to take care of children. This is a mutually beneficial existence. Obviously if both women wish to get jobs then a man can stay home with little to no ill effect at all on the children. Someone can always be with them and take care of them.

On a side note, I do not support polygamy in any form

filtherton

Why don't you support polygamy in any form?