Talk:Polygamy/Archive 3

message: Have these issues been resolved to everyone's satisfaction?
Nereocystis 23:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim polygamy--Resolved

message: This sentence is not quite complete:
:Polygamy is the anthropological term, which can be either polygyny (one man having multiple wives) or polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands). Historically, both practices have been found, but polygyny appears far more commonly than polyandry.
Group marriage is considered to be a form of polygamy, at least by many practioners of group marriage.  I suggest the following rewording. Modified a bit.  I removed "the anthropoligical term", since it didn't add anything.
:Polygamy which can be:
:*polygyny - one man having multiple wives, or
:*polyandry - one woman having multiple husbands, or
:*homosexual polygamy - more than two people of the same gender who form a family group
:*group marriage - more than one man and more than one woman form a family unit
:Historically, all practices have been found, but polygyny is the most common form of polygamy.
User::Researcher99 says:
:and to subtly re-define polygamy as group marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=13682713&oldid=13675602) even when it clearly is not
The group marriage page considers group marriage as a form of polygamy; that's my first reference for considering group marriage a form of polygamy.  All group marriage is polygamy.  Not all polygamy is group marriage.  Therefore group marriage must be mentioned as a form of polygamy, though not the only form.  Talk:Polygamy#Polygamy_is_about_marriage.2C_not_sex discusses  Not all polygamy is group marriage.  I am not redefining polygamy as group marriage, and I am not subtle.group marriage briefly, but most of the discussion is about polyamory vs polygamy.  These are different.  The discussion about group marriage vs polygamy is small.  If anyone believes that group marriage is not a form of polygamy, please provide references, and we can include both points of view.  Without references, don't make changes.
I am not trying to redefine polygamy as group marriage, and I am not subtle.Nereocystis 19:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there another term for group marriage that doesn't make you (or anybody) think it is talking strictly about sex, not total family, perhaps polygynandry or circle marriage? Tom Haws 22:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Just as polygamy makes some people think about sex, group marriage makes some people think about group sex.  That doesn't mean that we should avoid either word.  Marriage makes other people think about sex. Group marriage immediately suggests to me a group of people married to each other.  polygynandry and circle marriage are a little bit more confusing.  Also polygynandry does not include a homosexual group marriage, which would leave it off of my list. Of course, I have to rewrite my phrase a bit to include homosexual polygamous marriages.Nereocystis 20:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Polygamy#Polygamy_vs._bigamy]]

message: This change  removes the Tapestry Against Polygamy link, claiming that it is duplicate.  It is not duplicated.  I wish to restore the link, or have someone show me where the link is duplicated.Nereocystis 19:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tapestry Against Polygamy link removed--Resolved

message: Mormon is a type of Christianity, so Mormon should be a subcategory of Christianity, if polygamy remains categorized by religion. Nereocystis 08:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move [[Polygamy#Mormon polygamy]] under [[Polygamy#Christianity]]--Resolved

message: This section has a generally negative view of Mormon polygamists and women's lack of choice in marriages.  This may be correct in some groups of fundamentalists, but definitely not in all. The negative POV in this section should more fairly describe Mormon polygamists now and pre-Manifesto. Nereocystis 20:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Polygamy#Mormons_-_Aggregate_in_Communities]]- negative view of Mormon polygamists

message: I think the section regarding Hindu polygamy (Polygamy#Hinduism) needs to be re-worded a bit.  It implies that Hinduism has no objections, but does not encourage polygamy.  This is not entirely correct.  In  the Anusasana Parva, Section Forty-Four, it is written "A Brahmana can take three wives. A Kshatriya can take two wives. As regards the Vaishya, he should take a wife from only his own order. The children born of these wives should be regarded as equal."  Point: Hinduism provides guidelines for polygamy, therefore the article should cite this quotation, with a comment something along the lines of "Though Hinduism does not encourage polygamy, it is technically permitted for certain castes.  In the Anusana Parva..." etcetera.  The rest of the section is fine, as it is indeed against the law in India for Hindus to marry more than one wife (the law dates to the time of British Conquest), and they are indeed looking at making the law apply equally to all religions.  --User:Xaa
:This sounds plausible to me. Nereocystis 17:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu Polygamy

message: I want to split Muslims from other cultures for a few reasons:
#I don't know a traditionalist culture when I see one.
#I don't know why Muslims are considered traditionalist, but Christians are not.  
Nereocystis 17:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Polygamy#Muslims_.26_traditionalist_cultures]]

message: Polygamy#Current_proponents_and_critics claims that radical feminists are against polygamy. No examples are given.  The sentence suggests that all forms of polygamy are opposed.  I suspect that marrying underaged females is opposed by many feminists, and non-feminists, but I would like to see support about the opposition to polygamy extending to all radical feminists.  Otherwise, I suggest rewording this paragraph. Nereocystis 08:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In contrast, radical feminism has generally aligned with Christian fundamentalists to stop polygamy.
Nereocystis 18:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Radical feminists against polygamy--Resolved

message: If you look at the definition of fundamentalist, it is clear that the polygamists are Mormon fundamentalists, they are returning to earlier Mormon teachings.  I like User:TacoDeposit's changing, but want to remove additional so-called.  Is there anyone who doubts that they are Mormon fundamentalists?  "So-called" suggests that the term is inaccurate and that there are other phrases to describe these people.  You may have doubts that the fundamentals which they are practicing are important to Mormonism, but they are traditional Mormon values, nevertheless.Nereocystis 23:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mormons are "so-called" Christians. 
"So-called" has a derogatory suggestion which shouldn't be used here.  Since they are called "Mormon fundamentalists", there shouldn't be a so-called in front of the word, unless you are suggesting that they shouldn't be called that.  There is already a disclaimer that they are not LDS, though the sentence is very awkward and should be edited down.Nereocystis 23:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Trying to think of a neutral term Trödel|talk 14:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormon fundamentalists - so-called and otherwise

message: User:Researcher99 made a large number of changes which are being discussed under the disputed section of the talk page.  Please discuss items there.  Follow the rules. Nereocystis 22:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please use disputed section