Polygamy

[Danmark]

Issue for debate:
"There is nothing inherently immoral or unbiblical about polygamy."

[Danmark]

Sociology promotes social discord. Since the enlightenment we have become a greedy and materialistic society. Sociology has empowered the ignorant and allowed them to be manipulated.

This opinion suggests to me you don't know what sociology is.
Perhaps the simplest definition is "the study of human groups."
I have a hard time understanding how simply studying something makes people greedy.
A fuller definition:
Sociology is the study of human social relationships and institutions. Sociology’s subject matter is diverse, ranging from crime to religion, from the family to the state, from the divisions of race and social class to the shared beliefs of a common culture, and from social stability to radical change in whole societies....
http://sociology.unc.edu/undergraduate- ... sociology/

Quite correct but this is not about correctness of words.

I choose to use the term for the control of society by materialists since the enlightenment, please understand my use in that context

No, Oson, neither I nor anyone else should be expected to accept your redefinition of words. I not only don't accept your suggestion you get to misuse words or make up your own definitions, I explicitly reject it.

If you want to develop your own language, that is your prerogative; however, don't expect anyone else to understand what you are saying or agree with your attempt to kidnap the English language for your own idiosyncratic purposes.

This debate forum IS about using words correctly so that you can convey your ideas as you intend.

[Osonlife]

[Replying to post 20 by Danmark]

fair enough, you believe academia >common sense. You understand my meaning yet nitpick. Let us go our own ways

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 20 by Danmark]

fair enough, you believe academia >common sense. You understand my meaning yet nitpick. Let us go our own ways

You're certainly free to 'go your way,' and I will indeed go mine, which will include the expectation of at least a minimal amount of clarity of expression. It is only 'common sense' to use words that at least attempt to approximate a standard definition. This forum even has a rule that pertains:
"13. Posts that do not meet the minimum level of readability and comprehensibility can get deleted without notice and can result in an immediate member ban. "

[OpenYourEyes]

Issue for debate:
"There is nothing inherently immoral or unbiblical about polygamy."

Im not sure who you are quoting but the claim is blatantly false. Based on biblical and even societal standards, polygamy amounts to adultery.

Secondly, polygamy would lead to another loosening of the definition of marriage. The number of people involved would no longer matter, so you could have 3 to 100 adults involved. And if the # of adults doesnt matter then why cant we have a marriage with only one person? Then the recent popularised transsexual Bruce Jenner who now calls him/herself *Caitlyn* Jenner can can marry himself with herself. People w/ multiple personalities would welcome this as well!

[DanieltheDragon]

Issue for debate:
"There is nothing inherently immoral or unbiblical about polygamy."

Im not sure who you are quoting but the claim is blatantly false. Based on biblical and even societal standards, polygamy amounts to adultery.

Secondly, polygamy would lead to another loosening of the definition of marriage. The number of people involved would no longer matter, so you could have 3 to 100 adults involved. And if the # of adults doesnt matter then why cant we have a marriage with only one person? Then the recent popularised transexual Bruce Jenner who now calls him/herself " Caitlyn" Jenner can can marry him or herself. People w/ multiple personalities would welcome this as well!

Why does the bible have laws surrounding polygamy and it's practices? Why does numerous leaders chosen by god practice polygamy?

Do you know what biblical adultery is?

If a marriage contract is a social contract between two or more people how does marrying yourself make sense.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 24 by DanieltheDragon]
Ho, boy, did I ever fall for it!
Yes, folks, I took "OpenYourEyes" as the Newbie champion of women's (inheritance) rights against the Rush-to-nonJudgment on newfangled redefinitions of marriage, but he (?) turns out to be a troll!
So my apologies if I don't get around everywhere to remove my "like" (af)fixations to any of his posts I got tricked by.
Yes, I realize that he might be the real deal, but I don't think anyone belongs here who not only has not read the Bible but has seen no TV, movies, or anything about any of the first half of it.
Full disclosure:
Back in the 1980's (regardless of the fact that at that time I was both a practicing Roman Catholic and zealous likewise in the Charismatic Renewal) I wrote for Sacred Cow (a special interest group within Mensa) a defense of polygamy within certain timid limits. Like a guy could marry a couple of women older than himself, or widows or divorcees etc.)

[OpenYourEyes]

Issue for debate:
"There is nothing inherently immoral or unbiblical about polygamy."

Im not sure who you are quoting but the claim is blatantly false. Based on biblical and even societal standards, polygamy amounts to adultery.

Secondly, polygamy would lead to another loosening of the definition of marriage. The number of people involved would no longer matter, so you could have 3 to 100 adults involved. And if the # of adults doesnt matter then why cant we have a marriage with only one person? Then the recent popularised transexual Bruce Jenner who now calls him/herself " Caitlyn" Jenner can can marry him or herself. People w/ multiple personalities would welcome this as well!

Why does the bible have laws surrounding polygamy and it's practices? Why does numerous leaders chosen by god practice polygamy?

Do you know what biblical adultery is?

If a marriage contract is a social contract between two or more people how does marrying yourself make sense.

That definition of marriage can be redefined. That is what started when gay supporters took an old but fundamental institution, and redefined it. I know that realistically no major group is advocating for a one person marriage but the door is open for it once you start redefining marriage.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 25 by Korah]

I am going to have to read the sacred cow, that is interesting stuff . Maybe the government shouldn't be about trying to say who can and can't marry but let consenting adults decide who or whom they want to marry.

[Goat]

Issue for debate:
"There is nothing inherently immoral or unbiblical about polygamy."

Im not sure who you are quoting but the claim is blatantly false. Based on biblical and even societal standards, polygamy amounts to adultery.

Secondly, polygamy would lead to another loosening of the definition of marriage. The number of people involved would no longer matter, so you could have 3 to 100 adults involved. And if the # of adults doesnt matter then why cant we have a marriage with only one person? Then the recent popularised transsexual Bruce Jenner who now calls him/herself *Caitlyn* Jenner can can marry himself with herself. People w/ multiple personalities would welcome this as well!

Is that true?? That would be shocking to Abraham, Sarah and Hagar. King Solomon would also be surprised. Larmarch and Jacob also married several women.

[Bust Nak]

That definition of marriage can be redefined. That is what started when gay supporters took an old but fundamental institution, and redefined it.

The definition of marriage have change many times before that. Take anti-miscegenation laws for a trivial example. Also, polygamy was common through out history.