ahem. you were either joking here or are now trying to cover up that you thought this.
Should polygamy be legal?
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
definitely. i think much of what is in the bible is horrific by our standards. but nevertheless it is in there that it was quite common and accepted for men to take many wives and bad things did not happen to them. it was just as acceptible for god's favorite people to have many wives.
i found one law today specifically addressing the case of multiple wives. i remember that there are tons others but your eyes start getting shifty and you talk in biblical speak after a while. maybe another day i'll hunt the other laws down. we studied a whole bunch of laws in a class i once took that protect women in areas of marriage, divorce, inheritance, children, becoming a widow. several directly address a married woman's rights in a household with other wives. i'm sorry i don't have them to quote.
maybe someone could find info about mormons and their religious basis for polygamy. that would be interesting.
No. But only because divorces will become incredibly complex: asset division, child custody, etc. And then there are problems with inheritance, attention, etc. To legalize polygamy is to illegalize marriage, thus making this discussion pointless. Either no marriages or single partner marriages.
"To legalize polygamyis to illegalize marriage" ---This is not literal.
Not joking, and not trying to cover up. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I have been trying to tell you, two men and two women married and living together is polygyny and polyandry at the same time. They are both forms of polygamy. The bible doesn't condone polyandry though, therefore does not condone all of polygamy. I mean, this 2 men 2 women household would not be religiously sanct.
I don't care if we don't understand each other anymore though. I'm not religious, so it personally doesn't matter.
No, well you have to read the old testament just as a set of laws governing people who were once barbaric. Christ does came to fullfill the old laws. Paul says that no one by the law is rightous and it's true on several counts.
No. The new testament says that we should try to be celibrate. Only if we have to should we take a wife. 1 Corinthians 7:27 "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife. If you mary, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that. ... An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided." This seems to be talking about an unmarrieds marrying. So taking two or more wifes will not give someone enough time to serve God. We can't throw out common sense while reading the bible.
::siiiiigh:: i'm in no mood for hunting these laws down. maybe another day i'll be bored enough but i swear on my little pinky they exist. maybe you're working with the christian scriptures. i've studied the hebrew bible much more extensively than the christian one so that may be the problem. before jesus christ at any rate, jews were bound by laws that included rules on marriage that protected wives, some belonging to multiple wife families. there is one in particular forbidding a man from taking another wife if he cannot adequately provide for the ones he already has. there are laws preventing women from marrying more than one man (at a time) but there are several cases in the hebrew bible when it happens anyway.
jacob has to be the posterchild for polygamy. remember the story of working 7 years for one sister and another 7 years for the other?
jacob has to be the posterchild for polygamy. remember the story of working 7 years for one sister and another 7 years for the other?
Yes I know that they exist. The law for the firstborn gives what to do when there is multiple wives.
Well it didn't turn out to be perfect mariage for Jacob. Genesis 30:1 "When Rachel saw that she failed to bear children to Jacob, she became envious of her sister."'
Genesis 30:14 "Leah replied, 'Was it not enough for you to take away my husband, that you must now take my son's mandrakes too."
What DarkEyed is saying is that the Bible condones (implicitly) a subset of polygamy, i.e. polygyny. Nowhere do you have a woman with multiple husbands, so saying that it condones polygamy, which would include polyandy, is technically incorrect. Don't make it more complicated than it is.
Stop referencing the Mormon church for polygamy! If you've read any news on the subject at all, like one of the articles posted here, you would know that it was banned in 1890. It's fringe groups that do it now.
Here are two different stances on this, taken from the official LDS/Mormon literature ([sarcasm]since you guys seem to be so interested in it[/s]):
Book of Mormon, Jacob, 2:23-28, snippets:
# This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. (i guess with only 2 wives, Jacob is too small fry.)
# Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and comcubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. . . . Wherefore, I the Lord will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, . . . there shall not be any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
# For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
Like Okinrus was saying.
Stance number two, justifying polygamy (sometime between 1831 and July 12, 1843. Previous quote is supposably from sometime between 544 and 421 B.C.), Doctrine and Covenants 132:34-39, snippets:
# God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law,; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
# Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
# Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
# Abraham received concubines, and they bore hm children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they didnone other things than taht which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
# David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
# David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife (Bathsheba); and, therefore, he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion, and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
un-proofreaded, excuse the many typos. As you can see, these are two conflicting views on the same topic, from the same LDS/Mormon scriptural compilation. (btw, you can decide yourself whether or not the first passage seemed to have the same "voice" as the Bible.) One supports polygamy (conditionally. full text not quoted here, and I don't care enough to even understand it myself.), or, more specifically, polygyny... the other condemns it. Which is right?
Or are they both right? :bugeye:
It's a narrative; were the attitudes of the Sodomites expressly condemned? A sexist attitude, while obviously not something you want, is not "evil." So Lot could have been sexist and still a "good man."
Stop referencing the Mormon church for polygamy! If you've read any news on the subject at all, like one of the articles posted here, you would know that it was banned in 1890. It's fringe groups that do it now.
Here are two different stances on this, taken from the official LDS/Mormon literature ([sarcasm]since you guys seem to be so interested in it[/s]):
Book of Mormon, Jacob, 2:23-28, snippets:
# This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. (i guess with only 2 wives, Jacob is too small fry.)
# Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and comcubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. . . . Wherefore, I the Lord will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, . . . there shall not be any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
# For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
Like Okinrus was saying.
Stance number two, justifying polygamy (sometime between 1831 and July 12, 1843. Previous quote is supposably from sometime between 544 and 421 B.C.), Doctrine and Covenants 132:34-39, snippets:
# God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law,; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
# Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
# Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
# Abraham received concubines, and they bore hm children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they didnone other things than taht which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
# David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
# David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife (Bathsheba); and, therefore, he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion, and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
un-proofreaded, excuse the many typos. As you can see, these are two conflicting views on the same topic, from the same LDS/Mormon scriptural compilation. (btw, you can decide yourself whether or not the first passage seemed to have the same "voice" as the Bible.) One supports polygamy (conditionally. full text not quoted here, and I don't care enough to even understand it myself.), or, more specifically, polygyny... the other condemns it. Which is right?
Or are they both right? :bugeye:
Last edited:
The Mormon Church changed their code when the US congress forbid them to practice polygamy. I'm not sure what their official line is though.
Paul takes the stance of do nothing that would offend your other brothers. Since so many find polygamy offensive, it should not be done.
Timothy 3:1 "This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard..." It appears that "married only once" is on par with the other virtues.
Absolutly not!!!!!!!!
mulitple partners are fine if that's your thing but it should not be recognized buy religion or law!!!! Why would it be? If you believe in the sanctity of marriage enough to get married then you should also have an apreciation and a respect for it as well, those things cannot be had without the understanding of what it is or means, and a polymamist marriage is an oxymoron. If you try to trace the start of polygamy in marriage you would most deffinatly find it's roots in religion. As everyone knows , most religions do not accept sex without marriage, so for all of those religous people with the urge to have multiple sex partners, polygamy was the answer, right? I mean as long as you are haveing sex within a marriage you won't go to hell, right? i think it's tottally made up as a loupole for people to feel guilt free in "god's eye". People have manipulated the rules of religion to fit their sins for hundreds of years and now people are manipulating the "system". I do beleive in the fundamental origins of the sanctity of marriage and it's humorus that people think polygamy should be legal but not homosexual marriage.
mulitple partners are fine if that's your thing but it should not be recognized buy religion or law!!!! Why would it be? If you believe in the sanctity of marriage enough to get married then you should also have an apreciation and a respect for it as well, those things cannot be had without the understanding of what it is or means, and a polymamist marriage is an oxymoron. If you try to trace the start of polygamy in marriage you would most deffinatly find it's roots in religion. As everyone knows , most religions do not accept sex without marriage, so for all of those religous people with the urge to have multiple sex partners, polygamy was the answer, right? I mean as long as you are haveing sex within a marriage you won't go to hell, right? i think it's tottally made up as a loupole for people to feel guilt free in "god's eye". People have manipulated the rules of religion to fit their sins for hundreds of years and now people are manipulating the "system". I do beleive in the fundamental origins of the sanctity of marriage and it's humorus that people think polygamy should be legal but not homosexual marriage.
Actually, dogpenis, if you trace the roots of religious marriage in the Bible back to the earliest recorded marriages, men having mulitple wives was commonplace. It is not something that came after the fact for justification of skirting God's rules, they WERE God's rules.
But since the acts of polygamy exist in the Bible, and this is exactly where we all get God's rules, for you to say the Bible has filtered, altered, or missinterpreted God's words is a bit silly. So if not for the Bible, and if one wants to throw it out the window due to it's corrupted alterations of God's words, exactly where are we going to learn God's true rules?
- N
Facial
Valued Senior Member
I chose the option "yes, with limitations" because it is hard to demonstrate any sort of long-term committment for a family unit greater than 2 parents in size, but it may be very well possible.
If it is ever allowed, I will predict that tradition will reinstitute the 1-man, 2+women as the predominant kind of polygamous family, but also there might occasionally be a 1-woman, 2+-man relationship, although much rarer and more likely to break up.
If it is ever allowed, I will predict that tradition will reinstitute the 1-man, 2+women as the predominant kind of polygamous family, but also there might occasionally be a 1-woman, 2+-man relationship, although much rarer and more likely to break up.