Polygamy

[Danmark]

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

[Danmark]

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!

I quoted no one, but spoke for myself; however, if you base your views of morality on the Bible, I suggest you study that book in regard to polygamy.

“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.
_ Deut. 25:5

This is just one of the passages both Jesus and the Sadducees were referring to in Matthew 22:

23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.�

29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Tho' most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.� Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html#ixzz3edRiI7GI

You also appear to be completely ignorant of the facts regarding gender and the requirements of marriage, religious or otherwise. Marriage, whether civil or religious requires at least two people. It is also worth noting that the Mormon church, a Bible based Christian church, considered polygamy moral, as 'plural marriage,' based on the Bible, and changed their views based on political pressure, and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. I certainly do not speak for them. They are adept at speaking for themselves.
http://www.mormon.org/faq/plural-marriage

You might also note this article:

Part of Utah’s ban on polygamy was struck down Wednesday after a federal judge ruled that the law violated both the First and Fourteenth amendments.

While the ruling does not allow a Utah resident to legally marry multiple people, an individual may marry one person and live with others they consider to be spouses, the Associated Press reports. The decision was made after the Browns, the polygamous family from the TLC television series “Sister Wives,� filed a lawsuit in 2011 that asked federal courts to decriminalize the practice, arguing that “intimate conduct� should not be punished as long as individuals are not breaking other laws such as child abuse, rape and incest. Kody Brown, who has four wives, told the Las Vegas Sun that his family is “Fundamentalist Mormons,� a term roundly rejected by the official Mormon church, which strongly opposes polygamy -- despite its well-known polygamist origins.
http://www.ibtimes.com/utah-polygamy-ba ... ar-1673848

[Danmark]

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.

This may be the single silliest statement I've ever read on this forum. It has no basis in logic, word usage or common sense. "Marriage" by its very definition, requires a combination of two or more.

[Bust Nak]

This may be the single silliest statement I've ever read on this forum. It has no basis in logic, word usage or common sense. "Marriage" by its very definition, requires a combination of two or more.

For the record, I heard of a ceremony in China that is very much a single person marriage. A woman is not normally liable for inheritance from the death of her father, the estate would be split only amongst the sons, who carry the family name. By marrying herself, she would then get a cut since she have declare she could no longer expect monetary support from a husband, as well as affirming that the wealth stays inside the family. This is an actual thing and is different to recent examples of women marrying themselves to make a statement against tradition.

[OpenYourEyes]

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.

This may be the single silliest statement I've ever read on this forum. It has no basis in logic, word usage or common sense. "Marriage" by its very definition, requires a combination of two or more.

To you it is silly but my point is where do you draw the line. Provide me with a logical reason that explains why this doing away of traditional marriage will stop with polygamy.

You do acknowledge that there are polygamists already testing the law because of the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polygamous- ... g-license/

HELENA, Mont. - A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.

"It's about marriage equality," Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy."

There's also some video footage of the family applying for a 2nd marriage license. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kp76Zum7-jE

My prediction is that this will start to happen state-by-state. Where it says polygamy in the article insert incest, animal lovers, pedophiles, etc.

[Danmark]

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.

This may be the single silliest statement I've ever read on this forum. It has no basis in logic, word usage or common sense. "Marriage" by its very definition, requires a combination of two or more.

To you it is silly but my point is where do you draw the line. Provide me with a logical reason that explains why this doing away of traditional marriage will stop with polygamy.

You do acknowledge that there are polygamists already testing the law because of the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polygamous- ... g-license/

HELENA, Mont. - A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.

"It's about marriage equality," Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy."

There's also some video footage of the family applying for a 2nd marriage license. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kp76Zum7-jE

My prediction is that this will start to happen state-by-state. Where it says polygamy in the article insert incest, animal lovers, pedophiles, etc.

You missed the point. What was silly was your claim about one person 'marriages,' a contradiction in terms, even if there are a few who have such unofficial ceremonies for their personal and idiosyncratic purposes.

The real point, is that you never demonstrated polygamy is intrinsically evil or immoral; your own Bible demonstrating that God had no problem with men, especially his favorites, having multiple wives.

There is simply nothing inherently immoral about polygamy and you have failed to demonstrate the contrary. What is immoral is when spouses treat each other badly, regardless of how many partners they have. Also, contrary to you expressed fears, you've provided no evidence that same sex marriage leads to polygamy.

[dianaiad]

My prediction is that this will start to happen state-by-state. Where it says polygamy in the article insert incest, animal lovers, pedophiles, etc.

you are using the 'slippery slope' argument, which is a FALLACY. It's also obnoxious. There is no comparison between same sex marriage and polygamy, though evangelicals have been using this trope for years, in the 'what next, POLYGAMY?" You can understand that given my own religious tradition, this would be annoying, as well as logically fallacious.

And, in my opinion, a completely unfounded and rather offensive path to take. Don't get me wrong here: I don't like it when the government redefines marriage, especially when that redefinition affects religion. Again, my own religious history informs me that whenever this happens, my religion gets clobbered, and clobbered badly.

I don't see that this new ruling by the Supreme Court is going to result in anything different.

......................and, just for kicks and giggles, the OT is full of polygamists; according to it, God not only put up with it, He approved it and actively facilitated it; He was the One who yelled at David for the Bathsheba thing, telling him that he had no excuse, since He, God, had GIVEN David all of Saul's wives and concubines and would hand over more if he felt the need.

Polygamy was quite 'legal' up through the time of Jesus and considerably after.

.....and whether you like it or not, polygamy didn't hurt the early Mormons any. having the government come in and tear families apart because of it did, though.

So I would personally appreciate it if you would stop using this logically fallacious argument. It convinces nobody, and irritates everybody.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 35:

...
I don't like it when the government redefines marriage, especially when that redefinition affects religion.
...

I propose that where folks define marriage as "but not for you", they'd be amusingly upset when those whose job it is to interpret the Constitution'd tell such folks they were the ones with the wrong definition, and that it never needed "redefined", owing to that whole "All y'all's equal, y'all".

History has shown, time and again, that restricting the rights of others is apt to lead to unintendend consequences, such as religious zealots getting upset to find out they don't get to define words for a society of free people.

Comments presented as relates to the remainder of the post, of which I find much upon which to agree.


As to the OP, long as nobody expects me to get married, I don't care if the entire planet finds itself wedded to one another. Surely then wars could be replaced with some just havin' to sleep on the couch.

[dianaiad]

From Post 35:

...
I don't like it when the government redefines marriage, especially when that redefinition affects religion.
...

I propose that where folks define marriage as "but not for you", they'd be amusingly upset when those whose job it is to interpret the Constitution'd tell such folks they were the ones with the wrong definition, and that it never needed "redefined", owing to that whole "All y'all's equal, y'all".

History has shown, time and again, that restricting the rights of others is apt to lead to unintendend consequences, such as religious zealots getting upset to find out they don't get to define words for a society of free people.

Comments presented as relates to the remainder of the post, of which I find much upon which to agree.


As to the OP, long as nobody expects me to get married, I don't care if the entire planet finds itself wedded to one another. Surely then wars could be replaced with some just havin' to sleep on the couch.

Joey, you are talking to someone who knows, from rather personal family history, what happens when the government redefines marriage and then insists that religion go along with that redefinition.

So don't give me the 'everybody is free' bushwah. What happens is that 'everybody is free to be politically correct," and "nobody had better disagree with what the current powers that be say is 'proper,' because the hammer WILL come down on you if you try it.

In spite of the first amendment.

Do I care whether gays get married? No...not really, and you know that. I care about what the government and the current top dog 'minorities' insist that I believe and do about it.

Two gays want to marry each other? Fine. Go. Be happy. But do not force those who disagree with the religious aspects of marriage to participate in your wedding, or to recognize it within their belief systems, or allow you to demand their services and property in order to celebrate it.

That's fair. I, a heterosexual widow, could marry pretty much anybody I want to...but not in a Jewish synagogue under a chuppah, not in a Catholic church by a priest. Were I divorced, rather than widowed, that would be expanded to a few other belief systems which would refuse to perform the wedding or allow me to use their venues/catering services, and any lawsuit I filed would be thrown out and laughed at. You know this.

But same sex couples can, have, and WILL sue to force people to allow them to use venues, and cater or otherwise participate in the weddings.

I find that to be very scary.

But not something that hasn't happened before.

Y'all want the civil rights? Fine. Go get 'em. You want to get married in a church, or venue, or by a clergy person who is just fine, religiously, with your marriage? Fine. Enjoy.

For that matter, I'd bake your cake or 'shoot' your wedding. But others have religious objections to same sex marriage. You should not have the right to force them to participate in YOUR religious ceremony because yours is more politically correct than theirs.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 37:

Joey, you are talking to someone who knows, from rather personal family history, what happens when the government redefines marriage and then insists that religion go along with that redefinition.

Again I say, Gladys Knight & The Supremes have not "redefined" anything.

They merely said that in the land of we's all equal, how goofy'd it be if we said some others of us ain't.

You seem to insist that the only definition of marriage is one you allow.

It ain't so.

Marriage is that legally binding contract twixt folks who's just as apt to be miserable about your marriage, as they are their own. It need not define how many it takes to do it, nor what their genders are "s'posed" to be when they do.

This is the point you fail to understand in this ruling.

This ruling does not kowtow to Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Homosexuals, or none of the sort.

It kowtows to fundamental fairness under the Constitution.

So don't give me the 'everybody is free' bushwah. What happens is that 'everybody is free to be politically correct," and "nobody had better disagree with what the current powers that be say is 'proper,' because the hammer WILL come down on you if you try it.

And don't it beat all, when the "powers that be" were Majority Christian, those powers that be said some Christians couldn't marry up all the hens, without leaving something for the ugly guys to peck at.

I would think you would be happy with this ruling, as it ostensibly supports your argument from your tradition (where polygamy was part of the Mormon religion, but I hope I ain't putting false notions on ya).

In spite of the first amendment.

Them in charge of tellin' what the first amendment has to allow have put the lie to your claim.

This ruling specifically tells us that Christians can't use the first amendment to bugger the first amendment rights of those who think a hill of digested beans and Christianity look a lot alike.

Do I care whether gays get married? No...not really, and you know that. I care about what the government and the current top dog 'minorities' insist that I believe and do about it.

But do not force those who disagree with the religious aspects of marriage to participate in your wedding, or to recognize it within their belief systems, or allow you to demand their services and property in order to celebrate it.

How might one ever be forced to change their belief?

We got folks sayin' God don't want no gay homos havin' pizza, cake, car fixin's, and that them dang ol' homos need to be stoned to death, or at least cooked up like a hog on the 4th.

I propose that we as a society have every right in the world to push back against such goofiness - where such is placed in the public square and used as a means to discriminate against good, decent, law abidin' human beings.

So what God don't like no gay eatin' 'em a cake? I propose we ban cake at church, since that's where it is God and the no cake havin' seems to come from! Heck, if we can tell who gets 'em a piece of cake and who don't, let's just tell it Christians can't have 'em no more cake in public either. Nor pizza, nor a running car. Nor a business. Nor anything that resembles the respect they refuse to offer others.

That's fair. I, a heterosexual widow, could marry pretty much anybody I want to...but not in a Jewish synagogue under a chuppah, not in a Catholic church by a priest. Were I divorced, rather than widowed, that would be expanded to a few other belief systems which would refuse to perform the wedding or allow me to use their venues/catering services, and any lawsuit I filed would be thrown out and laughed at. You know this.

I'm just not seeing a lot of gay folks rushin' to get married among folks that don't like 'em to begin with.

But same sex couples can, have, and WILL sue to force people to allow them to use venues, and cater or otherwise participate in the weddings.

Equal accommodations' a female dog.

I gotta accommodate Christians thinking I don't deserve to buy me no liquor 'til after Noon on Sunday. We all have our crosses to bear. I gotta tote me a whole extra bottle, or cook up a whole 'nother batch, my hangover be damned.

I find that to be very scary.

I find fear to be a common emotion among certain theists.

And I'm certifiably paranoid.

So what? Fear should not be reason to deny homosexuals their -ahem- God-given rights.

Unless, of course, we allow the Christian their God-given right to stone 'em half to death, and then just go on and finish off the other half of it.

Y'all want the civil rights? Fine.

I dig the chickies. I don't argue for my benefit - 'cept that whole they came after that'n and I didn't deal.

...
But others have religious objections to same sex marriage. You should not have the right to force them to participate in YOUR religious ceremony because yours is more politically correct than theirs.

Then they need to stay the heck out of a society that seeks equality for all. Let 'em cower in their churches. Let 'em tremble with fear in their homes.

But every time they open their mouths to condemn homosexuals, let's point at 'em and laugh!

[Korah]

[Replying to post 38 by JoeyKnothead]
No surprise here, I guess.
It's WAY past 1984. Too bad George Orwell did not prophesy what lay in store for us later.
In Animal Farm it was "All pigs are equal. But some pigs are more equal than others."
In our Human Farm I guess it's "All sexes are equal, 'cepting if as how you done got double rights if'n you's more 'n' one sex!"