Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Polygamy
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 1 of 28 (615461)
05-13-2011 9:38 AM


Rather than go to all the onorous burden of actually looking on Wikipedia or Googling it, I thought I would ask here: why is it, really, that multiple spouses are pretty much illegal here in the US? I seem to remember that there weren't polygamy laws until the early Mormons started advocating multiple wives - this would point to the laws being an example of Us vs. Them, no? Why should there even be laws about this issue, beyond those protecting the rights of the fourth wife as well as those of the first.
And I would also like to hear some views on why polygamy could even be construed as "immoral" or "unchristian." Solomon, the wisest of men that he was, had some hundreds of wives, correct?
First introduction of the topic of same-sex marriage to this thread will result in application of the Second Corrolary of Godwin's Rule: the introducer will become a Nazi and be sent to Nurenberg for trial.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Son, posted 05-13-2011 11:33 AM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 4 by Rahvin, posted 05-13-2011 11:57 AM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 05-13-2011 4:34 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 05-13-2011 7:34 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 12 by Possessor, posted 10-26-2011 11:17 AM Coragyps has replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 2 of 28 (615471)
05-13-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coragyps
05-13-2011 9:38 AM


Personally, I don't find it immoral and wouldn't mind if allowed alongside polyandry (as long as all parties are consentants). It may become a problem through with all rights like inheritance, insurance, etc... especially if there are too many wives/husbands. For example, you could get person a married to b,c,d, b married to e,f,g,h, c married to d,f,g,i ,etc... It would be a pain for the administration and very few people are pushing for it (at least they don't push for BOTH polygamy and polyandry).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coragyps, posted 05-13-2011 9:38 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by frako, posted 05-14-2011 6:12 AM Son has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 3 of 28 (615476)
05-13-2011 11:49 AM


I have no problem with polygamy. What I have a problem with is how polygamy plays out in the real world. Polygamist colonies tend to be isolationist which leads to de facto violations of civil liberties. Women often feel trapped, and they are threatened with physical violence if they leave. Young girls are often married off shortly after puberty. Young men are kicked out of the colony to fend for themselves. Also, wives are not allowed to have jobs so their children are often on public assistance. Polygamy, as it is practiced, leads to a very poor social structure.
I am torn on the issue. On one hand I am all for allowing consenting adults to enter into any kind of relationship that they want to enter into. It's their business, and it is a free country. On the other hand, with polygamy as it is practiced consent is often given under duress, be it social pressure or "brain washing".
If polygamy went "mainstream" it would certainly be interesting.

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 4 of 28 (615477)
05-13-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coragyps
05-13-2011 9:38 AM


Coragyps writes:
Rather than go to all the onorous burden of actually looking on Wikipedia or Googling it, I thought I would ask here: why is it, really, that multiple spouses are pretty much illegal here in the US? I seem to remember that there weren't polygamy laws until the early Mormons started advocating multiple wives - this would point to the laws being an example of Us vs. Them, no? Why should there even be laws about this issue, beyond those protecting the rights of the fourth wife as well as those of the first.
And I would also like to hear some views on why polygamy could even be construed as "immoral" or "unchristian." Solomon, the wisest of men that he was, had some hundreds of wives, correct?
First introduction of the topic of same-sex marriage to this thread will result in application of the Second Corrolary of Godwin's Rule: the introducer will become a Nazi and be sent to Nurenberg for trial.
That's sort of a loaded question. It's important to note that many people do live in the US in polyamorous relationships that are identical in all ways to a marriage excepting the legal recognition.
Polygamy in the US has a rather nasty history. It has meant such things as forced arranged marriages, often including incest and pedophilia. Actual marriage-polygamy is usually restricted only to a few fringe religious groups and cults, where in many (not all) cases there is a degree of coercion involved. This all on top of kickback against Mormons. The state doesn't have an interest in dictating who may marry whom, but it does have a strong interest in preventing child and spousal abuse, and those have unfortunately been strong features in American polygamy. So long as "polygamy" carries implications of young girls being forced to marry old men, raped, beaten, and forced to have more kids who are then married off to other polygamists without even reaching the age of consent, polygamy is likely to remain outlawed.
But again, right now there are lots of people in polyamorous relationships. There are men with multiple live-in girlfriends, women with multiple live-in boyfriends, and even groups of people who all have relationships with each other. None of it is illegal - they just can't all get married. And while many of the reasons reach into the stigmas I mentioned above, perhaps the strongest real reason (if we can separate the child/spousal abusers from those who have legitimate relationships with multiple people) is a simple matter of spousal benefits. Which spouse would get to make the medical decisions if there were a disagreement? Do they all get all of the assets in a divorce? How many ways does the community property split if one partner divorces multiple others? Does the leaving party get half? It's a legal headache, and one where the law doesn't have much of a reason to try to accommodate anyone due to insufficient political will to make such changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coragyps, posted 05-13-2011 9:38 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 5 of 28 (615503)
05-13-2011 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coragyps
05-13-2011 9:38 AM


And I would also like to hear some views on why polygamy could even be construed as "immoral" or "unchristian." Solomon, the wisest of men that he was, had some hundreds of wives, correct?
Solomon's many wives lead him astray from Yahweh, and Yahweh was not pleased. ( 1 Kings 11:4)
And Paul was broadly against marriage, "It is good for a man not to marry" 1 Corinthians 7:1
Indeed, Paul seemed to suggest that it was best to avoid sex, but if it couldn't be avoided, marriage was the solution. Having multiple wives would tend to undermine this teaching.
As for the broader issue: There's no compelling argument why multiple partner marriages should not be possible - but I would have thought that technically each member should be married to one another, which would mean we'd have to allow gay marriages which is scary and bad and our children will die. OR something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coragyps, posted 05-13-2011 9:38 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 05-13-2011 4:54 PM Modulous has replied

  
menes777
Member (Idle past 4319 days)
Posts: 36
From: Wichita, KS, USA
Joined: 01-25-2010


Message 6 of 28 (615504)
05-13-2011 4:39 PM


If anyone wants to hear all the nasty details about what actually happens under polygamy I suggest reading Under the Banner of Heaven by John Krakauer. Definitely an eye opening experience about not only polygamy but Mormonism as well.

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 28 (615507)
05-13-2011 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
05-13-2011 4:34 PM


Paul on Marriage
And Paul was broadly against marriage, "It is good for a man not to marry" 1 Corinthians 7:1
Indeed, Paul seemed to suggest that it was best to avoid sex, but if it couldn't be avoided, marriage was the solution. Having multiple wives would tend to undermine this teaching.
It shouldn't be forgotten that Paul believed the world as he knew it to be coming to an endChrist was returning and within his lifetime. A lot of his teachings on how to live make more sense if read in light of this belief: don't get too caught up in the present age because it will soon be over.
I don't think Paul was against marriage at all.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 05-13-2011 4:34 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 05-13-2011 5:28 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 8 of 28 (615512)
05-13-2011 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jon
05-13-2011 4:54 PM


Re: Paul on Marriage
It shouldn't be forgotten that Paul believed the world as he knew it to be coming to an endChrist was returning and within his lifetime. A lot of his teachings on how to live make more sense if read in light of this belief: don't get too caught up in the present age because it will soon be over.
Indeed. I'm not saying that Paul's opinions are nonsensical or at odds with his beliefs. I was just repeating his overarching view of marriage given the importance Christians place on Paul.
I don't think Paul was against marriage at all.
'against' marriage is a vague thing to be. He was of the opinion that it was better not to marry than to marry unless avoiding sex/lust is needed :
quote:
Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire
1 Corinthians 7:8-9

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 05-13-2011 4:54 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2011 12:39 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 28 (615516)
05-13-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coragyps
05-13-2011 9:38 AM


The Government's Role
Why should there even be laws about this issue, beyond those protecting the rights of the fourth wife as well as those of the first.
I cannot figure out why the government has any say in marriage to begin with. Nevertheless, there are some benefits that the government bestows upon the married in accord with the government's perceived value of that institution. Do the polygamous provide a value comparable to the benefits they may receive from each of those marriages? Are there any in-depth accounts of the values and benefits of government-recognized marriage?
Would polygamists even benefit from government recognition of their unions?
And I would also like to hear some views on why polygamy could even be construed as "immoral" or "unchristian."
I cannot imagine any way that it could be immoral or unchristian in itself.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coragyps, posted 05-13-2011 9:38 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 10 of 28 (615536)
05-14-2011 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Son
05-13-2011 11:33 AM


i thikn this problem could be worked around, say a and b are married, and b wants to marry c, well if a gives the consent then c is married to a and b so all 3 are married and one family so if c dies and there is no will is belongings go to both equaly and if d wants to marry a all 3 haveto give the consent and he gets married to a b and c.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Son, posted 05-13-2011 11:33 AM Son has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 28 (615717)
05-16-2011 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Modulous
05-13-2011 5:28 PM


Re: Paul on Marriage
It is better to marry than to be on fire.
Yes ... yes it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 05-13-2011 5:28 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Possessor
Junior Member (Idle past 4523 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 10-24-2011


Message 12 of 28 (638827)
10-26-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coragyps
05-13-2011 9:38 AM


they came up with those laws because this nation used to be one nation under God.Now it is one nation under many gods.they made those rules because the bible says it is wrong.Yes solomon had 700 wives but that doesn't mean God agread with it.And if you read carfully most of his wives were pagan believers.that ought to tell you some thing about his sin nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coragyps, posted 05-13-2011 9:38 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 10-26-2011 11:47 AM Possessor has replied
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 10-26-2011 12:13 PM Possessor has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 13 of 28 (638831)
10-26-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Possessor
10-26-2011 11:17 AM


I suppose that you have some support that the US was "one nation under god" before the 50s or that it was ever a Christian Nation or that there is any Biblical support for opposing polygamy?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Possessor, posted 10-26-2011 11:17 AM Possessor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Possessor, posted 10-26-2011 11:57 AM jar has replied
 Message 15 by subbie, posted 10-26-2011 11:57 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Possessor
Junior Member (Idle past 4523 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 10-24-2011


Message 14 of 28 (638832)
10-26-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
10-26-2011 11:47 AM


I have all support that this was one nation under God. We came over to america so we could follow God,the only God,But know we are mostly pagan beliefs such as, mormon,catholic.evolution,and many more.we came over to america to excape catholisisem and the burden of the government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 10-26-2011 11:47 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 10-26-2011 11:59 AM Possessor has not replied
 Message 17 by jar, posted 10-26-2011 12:07 PM Possessor has not replied
 Message 19 by Trixie, posted 10-26-2011 3:14 PM Possessor has replied
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2011 4:37 PM Possessor has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 15 of 28 (638833)
10-26-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
10-26-2011 11:47 AM


What on earth would possess you to suppose any of that? Did someone spike your coffee?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 10-26-2011 11:47 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024