homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Decriminalizing polygamy? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Decriminalizing polygamy?
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034

 - Posted      Profile for nurks   Email nurks   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
not all that many people would choose polyamoury

New name. Old sin. Shagging the neighbour's wife.

--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."

Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nurks, a few definitions for you:

Polygamy: A system in which (at least some) people may contract more than one marriage.

Polygyny: A system in which men are permitted more than one wife.

Polyandry: A system in which women are permitted more than one husband.

Polyamory: A lifestyle or orientation in which exclusivity is not an essential feature of a relationship.

Bigamy: The crime of contracting more than one marriage when this is not allowed in law.

Adultery: An encounter or relationship in which at least one party is married to someone other than the other party.

Please use these terms accurately.

And speaking of accuracy, please give me one place in the Bible where laymen (not priests) are commanded to have at most one wife. You seem to put great store by the words of Jesus, but I think I missed the bit where he ordered monogamy.

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
... The craven need to let everyone do exactly what they want is nothing but a collective loss of nerve. The rule of a minority over the majority, all in the name of tolerance.

Interesting how fanatical reasoning always expresses itself with extremely conclusive statements. But then, you knew that. It should also be noted that collectively dismissing argument as "judgemental" in defense of one's position effectively dismisses serious consideration of your viewpoint.

There must always be wiggle room in a discussion, nurks. To make an exclusive claim to final truth with seemingly no other support than 'the bible told me so' is a rather weak position. You see, people are squishy things. They don't fit well into nice, clean, well-defined moral cages. They have a frustrating tendency to ooze out between the bars and slip away, leaving the jailkeeper fumbling with a fistful of keys and wondering where everyone went.

--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--

Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Scot:

quote:
Beautiful_Dreamer, I don't think anyone other than nurks was suggesting that this would be an asymmetrical arrangement. I haven't done a survey, but I would guess that a roughly similar percentage from each gender would be open to various types of non-traditional marriages.
I think, all other things being equal, your guess is right and based on a similar statistical basis the numbers among the general population would be vanishingly small.

However the elephant in the room is the presence of organised religious groups where polygamous men are at the top of the hierarchy, women come second (they are, after all, desirable commodities which gives them some leverage) and non-polygamous men come bottom. So you have the scenario where teenagers are being run out of town in order to restrict the supply of desirable males, thus driving the ladies into the arms of the polygamous men at the top of the hierarchy. This isn't a hypothetical by the way. In parts of Utah it's a reality. Now I think the state should do absolutely nothing to legitimise this arrangement, nor should it make it possible for various unscrupulous types to replicate it elsewhere. After all, God only changed his mind about polygamy when the official LDS leaders were being prosecuted by the United States Government. He might change it back if the law changed. Can you imagine what the Unification Church would do if Rev'd Moon's attempt to finish the job that Jesus botched by marrying suitable candidates to one another were not restricted by the laws prohibiting plural marriage. God, it appears, is on quite familiar terms with any number of over-sexed, unscrupulous charlatans. One really ought not to encourage them.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One of my oldest friends is currently living with two girlfriends. The relationship has lasted two years so far, all parties concerned seem happy with it and none of them appear to be exploiting or being exploited by any of the others.

I have a fairly conservative view of sexual morality, and I don't accept that just because an unconventional arrangement is currently stable and satisfying it is ‘as good as' marriage. I think that sexual intimacy ought to be (that is, was intended by God for) an exclusive, livelong pairing, and polygamy was allowed as a concession only in ages long past. I do not think that a Christian should be involved in such a marriage now. I also think that human failings and jealousies make any arrangement with multiple partners dangerous, and I strongly suspect that my friend and his two partners are going to end up very badly hurt by their relationship choice.

There is, of course, nothing illegal about my friend's domestic arrangements. He is allowed to live with two girls and they are allowed to treat each other as if they were a ‘married' unit. They are free to make wills leaving property to each other, and to enter into contracts about the division of property if they split up (whether such agreements can be enforced is another matter, but that applies to any other relationship). But they can't marry. They can't have a legal recognition that they are in fact and in practice a single family. They can't have the same legal potections that I have as regards children, divorce and inheritance that my wife and I have.

In effect, the current state of the law is to permit them to live as one household, but to deny them the protections which society accepts as right and appropriate for other (equally lawful) households. And that strikes me as self-evidently wrong. A theocracy - with an avowed objective of enforcing a strict moral code - could consistently make multiple sexual partnerships illegal in fact. A truly liberal democracy - which permits alternatives to such a strict code to exist - could consistently extend the same rights to all consensual groupings. But two permit different arrangements to exist and then to discriminate against them in the legal sphere combines elements of two inconsistent systems: the liberalism that says who-sleeps-with-whom is none of our business, and the authoritarianism that says that people should conform to a proper standard of sexual behaviour.

I prefer liberalism. The purpose of the law (as currently conceived in western society generally) is not to impose on the majority of people the observances and ethics of a religion which for the most part they do not believe. I think my friend's choices are morally sub-optimal and also foolish. But I can think of no end of ordinary male-female marriages about which I could say the same, and I have no desire to see the state intervene to ‘save' people from the (IMO, much greater) foolishness of marrying an unsuitable partner. If we are to have a free society, people have the option of making dumb choices. And sometimes these will have deeply tragic consequences. But none of the alternatives are better.

I'm in favour of allowing people to make informed choices about who they marry, and that includes polygamists.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
U
Shipmate
# 5930

 - Posted      Profile for U   Email U   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I don't like it, but I can't really see how we can continue to criminalize an arguably free-will relationship between adults. (in the absence of forced marriage of children as with the FLDS communities). Anyone?

I agree. With social understanding the way it is there is no way to say no to polygamy.

The other side of that coin is that I don't know of a mainstream teaching/school of thought that solely addresses the question of sex in the same way most religions address love. Science is the closest sex has come to having its own explanation.

And to my mind sex is just as important if not more so than love because though only certain kinds of love lead to sex, most forms of sex lead to childbirth and almost everyone alive today is so because a one man and a one woman had sex. I think that is the closest I can come to having a simple argument against polygamy. One man + one woman = children.

Though no harm may come to a child in other forms of relationship, the most loving and stable and balanced is one male + one female. So it is not about what's wrong with the others, its about whats right with monogamy. A monogamy that is working is to my mind more powerful, beautiful, nurturing, healthy and true in every regard than any other relationship, not that the others are bad, but that monogamy is better.

I think there is greater potential in the others for things to go wrong than there is in a male-female monogamy because fundamentally, however short the experience, a monogamy is how almost everyone is alive today and most truly explains where a person's roots(pun not intended but haha)and all people's before them can be found. I think it is the most socially plugged in for a healthy psychological development a child can be.

--------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U

Today's post brought to you by the letter U because I like U

Posts: 176 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
A theocracy - with an avowed objective of enforcing a strict moral code - could consistently make multiple sexual partnerships illegal in fact. A truly liberal democracy - which permits alternatives to such a strict code to exist - could consistently extend the same rights to all consensual groupings. But two permit different arrangements to exist and then to discriminate against them in the legal sphere combines elements of two inconsistent systems: the liberalism that says who-sleeps-with-whom is none of our business, and the authoritarianism that says that people should conform to a proper standard of sexual behaviour.
Why assume that liberalism and theocracy are the only two arrangements in town. Liberalism says that society is comprised of equal negotiating partners who may freely enter into any contract they choose and the state should stay out of their affairs. Theocracy says that governments should fulfil the will of God in minute detail. I subscribe to neither position. I think oppression is not the exclusive preserve of governments and that sometimes governments can act wisely to preserve the freedom of individuals over against the community or minority communities against a majority community. I further hold that certain institutions are inherently oppressive. Even if someone wishes to sell himself into chattel slavery, for example he should not be allowed to do so, free contracting individuals notwithstanding.

Now I hold that polygamy is such an institution. Wherever polygamy holds the position of women is diminished. Compare Saudi Arabia to Egypt, Ancient Persia to contemporary Britain, Utah to New York. Actually existing polygamy and historically existing polygamy invariably involve reducing women to chattels. The argument appears to be that if polygamy is legalised it will lead to a splendid new liberal polygamy in which women will be able to decide whether they want 1 husband or 1/4 of a husband. It overlooks the fact that the major beneficiaries will be various unsavoury religious fundamentalists. Told by her parents to marry an elderly man with two wives, at present, a young Muslim woman can invoke the laws of England. Change that and she's saddled with the brute.
Therefore there are good secular grounds for regarding its introduction with disfavour.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792

 - Posted      Profile for CrookedCucumber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Wherever polygamy holds the position of women is diminished. Compare Saudi Arabia to Egypt, Ancient Persia to contemporary Britain, Utah to New York. Actually existing polygamy and historically existing polygamy invariably involve reducing women to chattels.

I find your argument persuasive. However, your examples don't show that poly-whatever marriages are causative of the low status of women. I would have thought, if anything, that the converse were the case. So they don't prove that the introduction into a society of poly-whatsit where it was once supressed would lead to a diminishing of the status of women.

Nevertheless, I think if society as a whole believes that some activity is opressive, demeaning, or degrading to people who do it, even freely, society is entitled to express disapproval. Making that activity illegal is one way to express that disapproval, even if it cannot easily be prosecuted.

Whether illegality is the best way to express disapproval, I guess, is questionable.

Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Crooked Cucumber:

quote:
I find your argument persuasive. However, your examples don't show that poly-whatever marriages are causative of the low status of women. I would have thought, if anything, that the converse were the case. So they don't prove that the introduction into a society of poly-whatsit where it was once supressed would lead to a diminishing of the status of women.
Well, I think we could agree that there is a strong correlation. Given that such a strong correlation exists I think a certain amount of caution is in order.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I find your argument persuasive. However, your examples don't show that poly-whatever marriages are causative of the low status of women. I would have thought, if anything, that the converse were the case. So they don't prove that the introduction into a society of poly-whatsit where it was once supressed would lead to a diminishing of the status of women.

So in a society in which women are both legally and factually treated as equals to men, it might not be dangerous. Sadly, no such society has ever existed.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Crooked Cucumber:

quote:
I find your argument persuasive. However, your examples don't show that poly-whatever marriages are causative of the low status of women. I would have thought, if anything, that the converse were the case. So they don't prove that the introduction into a society of poly-whatsit where it was once supressed would lead to a diminishing of the status of women.
Well, I think we could agree that there is a strong correlation. Given that such a strong correlation exists I think a certain amount of caution is in order.
This is the strongest argument against polygyny (which is what we're talking about, really), and the one that distinguishes it from gay unions. In the United States, you'd say that this is an argument from public policy. Rights talk says free people can associate in any way they like; then public policy can say: we won't decriminalize, say, prostitution, because the system is inherently abusive, even if in a given situation in might not be.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Low Treason
Shipmate
# 11924

 - Posted      Profile for Low Treason   Email Low Treason   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmmmmmmmm can anyone tell me, apart from the stamp of legitimacy, how does polygamy differ to adultery?

--------------------
He brought me to the banqueting house, and His banner over me was love.

Posts: 1914 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by My Duck:
Hmmmmmmmm can anyone tell me, apart from the stamp of legitimacy, how does polygamy differ to adultery?

It lacks the elements of lying to one's partner, breaking a solemn vow, betraying a trust, and violating one of the Ten Commandments.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792

 - Posted      Profile for CrookedCucumber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by My Duck:
Hmmmmmmmm can anyone tell me, apart from the stamp of legitimacy, how does polygamy differ to adultery?

Because polygamy is openly expressed and (apparently) consensual. Adultery is secretive and involves one partner deceiving the other.

I'm not suggesting that I favour polygamy, but it's way different from adultery.

Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that from a sacramental point of view polygamy is adultery. Mind you, I don't think we should go round locking people up because they are not sacramentally correct from a (Anglo) Catholic point of view. But the tradition is pretty unequivocal on the matter.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Callan, you (unlike certain others) make some good points but, like CC, I think you've got the causality going the wrong way. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the strong correlation makes caution prudent. I would exercise that caution in the form of strengthening protections against the abuses that you described.

The examples you have provided (teenagers in Utah, the young Muslim woman) should be protected from forced marriage, whether monagamous or plural. The issues here are nonconsensuality and associated abuse, not polygamy. A reasonable amount of regulation could provide protections at least as effective as the current bigamy laws without unduly restricting the freedom of those who would freely choose a plural marriage.

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Why assume that liberalism and theocracy are the only two arrangements in town?

Because if you accept (which you may not) the proposition that very poor marital choices is one way in which we rightly let people fuck up their own lives without state intervention, and the ‘harm' element of polygamy can therefore be discounted as a reason to legislate ... then they pretty much are.

On that basis, either polygamy is allowed (and the reason for that resolves basically to allowing people to live as they choose) or it isn't (and the reason for that resolves basically to the belief that it's just plain wrong).

quote:
I further hold that certain institutions are inherently oppressive [...] Now I hold that polygamy is such an institution.
I don't think it is inherently oppressive.

I think it is potentially oppressive. So is monogamy. So is promiscuity. So is allowing legal divorce. So is forbidding legal divorce.

It seems obviously true to me that two men and a woman, for example, could choose to set up home together on a free, voluntary and loving basis without anyone necessarily being oppressed. Of course it could later turn into a living nightmare. And, as they will be dealing with three ‘pairings' rather than one, and the sins of three fallible people rather than two, it's probably much more likely to go badly wrong than a monogamous relationship. But it is not inherently doomed to cause misery.

quote:
The argument appears to be that if polygamy is legalised it will lead to a splendid new liberal polygamy in which women will be able to decide whether they want 1 husband or 1/4 of a husband.
We already have liberal polygamy. I had dinner with six polyamourists last night (the aforementioned MFF household and a MMF subset of a large, non-cohabiting network of open relationships). While I consider this to be a thoroughly bad thing for the people involved, and not in the least ‘splendid', not one of them was being oppressed or exploited by their relationship choices.

The issue is not whether people ought to live this way (I think we'd agree that they ought not to) or whether they do in fact live this way (they do) but whether, given that these relationships are already permitted to exist and do exist, the law should in fairness extend them the same protections which society has decided are appropriate to other formalised cohabitations - whether wise or foolish, moral or immoral.

quote:
Told by her parents to marry an elderly man with two wives, at present, a young Muslim woman can invoke the laws of England. Change that and she's saddled with the brute.
Forced marriage is already illegal. To the extent that some parents ignore that and force their children to marry (which of course they do), they can make bad arrangements for their offspring with any number of single, widowed and divorced brutes. That is not a reason to criminalise monogamy. The thing that ought to be unlawful about it, already is.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The state should get out of the marriage business altogether. Let marriage be a religious thing, and keep the governments out of the bedrooms of the citizens.

Drop any property, income, taxation, child-rearing, etc. priviledges, rights and obligations which have traditionally been marriage-based and let the free-for-all begin.

Live with whomever you will, have sex with whomever you will, let whoever raise the children, or let them be aborted/euthanized on demand if neither "parent" wants to be bothered with them.

This is the eventual outcome of such legalization. It is not fear-mongering, it is just a logical conclusion.

Hopefully our Lord will return before such nonsense happens.

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Canadian government studied whether to decriminalize polygyny. You can read the whole report here:
Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social implications

And the crux of the paper is this:

*Polygamous relationships appear significantly more likely than monogamous relationships to be characterized by physical and emotional abuse of women.

*Many women in polygamous unions experience a diminished sense of self-worth and suffer from competition with the other wives. Children are significantly more likely to have a distant relationship with their father.

*Polygamy also places an economic burden on modern states like Canada, as the very large families that often result almost inevitably look to the government for support.

*...recognizing polygamous marriages would have significant potential ramifications in terms of additional costs to the state, as well as potential costs to employers for pension and insurance plans that provide benefits to the multiple "spouses" of employees.

*It seems inevitable that, if a modern community not decimated by war is going to widely practise polygamy, significant numbers of males must be forced from the community.

And I would imagine that there would be similar problems with Polyandry (one women, several men).

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The state should get out of the marriage business altogether. Let marriage be a religious thing, and keep the governments out of the bedrooms of the citizens.

Drop any property, income, taxation, child-rearing, etc. priviledges, rights and obligations which have traditionally been marriage-based and let the free-for-all begin.

Live with whomever you will, have sex with whomever you will, let whoever raise the children, or let them be aborted/euthanized on demand if neither "parent" wants to be bothered with them.

This is the eventual outcome of such legalization. It is not fear-mongering, it is just a logical conclusion.

Hopefully our Lord will return before such nonsense happens.

The sky is falling! the sky is falling!

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The state should get out of the marriage business altogether. Let marriage be a religious thing, and keep the governments out of the bedrooms of the citizens.

Drop any property, income, taxation, child-rearing, etc. priviledges, rights and obligations which have traditionally been marriage-based and let the free-for-all begin.

Live with whomever you will, have sex with whomever you will, let whoever raise the children,

With you so far. This looks like a liberal society to me, albeit described in terms designed to make the reader think badly of it.

quote:
or let them be aborted/euthanized on demand if neither "parent" wants to be bothered with them.
Whoa! Where the hell did that come from? In what kind of liberal society would anyone be killed off simply because some other person neglects to help them? I cannot possibly see how this barbaric suggestion relates to the rest of the topic.

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
... I cannot possibly see how this barbaric suggestion relates to the rest of the topic.


Simple. If there is no marriage recognized by the state, how can it enforce parental responsibility?

Of course, I am being somewhat OTT to get a reaction, but then again, like was said before, when same-sex marriage was legalized here, everyone said poly... would not be next up.

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
They are apples and oranges. I doubt anyone would deny that polygamy is a completely conscious and voluntary social arrangement people choose to make.

While I am sure some would argue that sexual orientation may not be innate, few would say that it is a conscious and voluntary social arrangement for the vast majority of people (other than bisexuals, perhaps.)

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
... I cannot possibly see how this barbaric suggestion relates to the rest of the topic.


Simple. If there is no marriage recognized by the state, how can it enforce parental responsibility?
That may well be an undesirable result. In fact, though, despite your weird use of inverted commas, unmarried parents are still parents in the eyes of the law. Funnily enough, in a society where the law only respects monogamous marriages, unmarried people still produce children, and can still be compelled to care for them.

You specified euthanising unwanted children. This, as I say, bears no resemblance either to the otherwise conservative views of most religious polygamists, or to the liberal, rights-focussed views of most polyamorists. I still can't figure out where you got it from.

And if the state were to allow group marriage (rather than patriarchal polygyny), wouldn't this mean than some children were better supported, by larger households, than at present?

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
PhilA

shipocaster
# 8792

 - Posted      Profile for PhilA   Email PhilA   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
... I cannot possibly see how this barbaric suggestion relates to the rest of the topic.


Simple. If there is no marriage recognized by the state, how can it enforce parental responsibility?
If the state decreed that one must be married in order to have children, then you may have a point, but as anyone can have a kid with anyone they wish - and are able - to do so, and still have legal parental responsibility for the child, then this is surely a moot point.

--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.

Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373

 - Posted      Profile for Rat   Email Rat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

Live with whomever you will, have sex with whomever you will, let whoever raise the children, or let them be aborted/euthanized on demand if neither "parent" wants to be bothered with them.

This is the eventual outcome of such legalization. It is not fear-mongering, it is just a logical conclusion.

I don't know how things work where you live, but where I live I can already live with whoever I will, have sex with whoever I will, and the state by and large only interferes in the rearing of children if there is evidence of risk. All of which is the way I like it, thanks.

So not so much a logical conclusion as the way things are.

Abortion on demand and childhood euthanasia have not so far followed.

--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]

Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Do the people who are railing against the evils of polygamy, even know anyone that chooses that life style? Not all of them are Fundie LDS members living in compounds in the desert. Nor are they one man to many wives scenarios. The ones I know even have same-gender relationships involved in the mix (*shock* *horror*).

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by WatersOfBabylon:
From a completely anthropological perspective, polygamy would make sense for a society with a high woman to man ratio (for example, a society recently stricken by war). It makes sure all the women are cared for.

Then again so would a situation in which they were able to earn a living wage and support themselves and any dependents they might have.
Are you suggesting that people with a decent income don't want to live in a family? Or only women?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chive:]That seems to be a rather negative view of men - if they don't have rings on their fingers they'll degenerate swiftly into rape and pillage.

Does being single remove one's morals and self control? Is

To be honest its a partly fair view. Single men really are more likely to commit crimes. Even controlling for age (which is a much more important factor) They are also more likely to be in poor health, to be unemployed, to smoke, to drink too much, to kill themselves, to get cancer, to have heart attacks...

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PeaceFeet:
Not that I agree with it but) nearly all the churches I have ever attended have had loads more single women in than men because of the lack of eligible guys.

The first part is certainly true. But isn't it just because churches have more women in them than men anyway? There are more single women than single men in church, but there are also mroe married women than married men in church and more divorced women than divorced men, and more widowed women than widowed men. There are just more women than men in church full stop.

The second part "because of the lack of eligible guys" seems dodgy reasoning to me. Is there any evidence that Christian women are more likely to remain single than non-Christian women?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PeaceFeet:
(Not that I agree with it but) nearly all the churches I have ever attended have had loads more single women in than men because of the lack of eligible guys. Perhaps polygamy might provide a controversial solution to this? [Biased]

All the Reformed-type (Sola Scriptura at the forefront) churches, including my own, I have attended in the last 5 years have MORE single guys than gals. Just wanted to correct this assumption. [Smile]

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by WatersOfBabylon:
From a completely anthropological perspective, polygamy would make sense for a society with a high woman to man ratio (for example, a society recently stricken by war). It makes sure all the women are cared for.

Then again so would a situation in which they were able to earn a living wage and support themselves and any dependents they might have.
Are you suggesting that people with a decent income don't want to live in a family? Or only women?
Huh? No matter how I stand on my head I can't get that out of what I wrote. I was suggesting that if the problem is women not being "cared for" due to an underabundance of men to marry them and care for them, then one solution would be to enable them to care for themselves by making living-wage jobs available to them, so they don't need to get married to be cared for.

Grind your axe on somebody else.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
PhilA

shipocaster
# 8792

 - Posted      Profile for PhilA   Email PhilA   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having read this thread and thinking about it for a while, I honestly can't think of why a poly-whatever relationship - as long as it is consensual from all parties involved - is necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.

It seems to me that people have very funny views about marriage; too little of it is a bad thing and too much of it is a bad thing. I'm not even convinced that one woman + one man for life should be the ideal in our western culture any more.

--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.

Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
Having read this thread and thinking about it for a while, I honestly can't think of why a poly-whatever relationship - as long as it is consensual from all parties involved - is necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.

It seems to me that people have very funny views about marriage; too little of it is a bad thing and too much of it is a bad thing. I'm not even convinced that one woman + one man for life should be the ideal in our western culture any more.

The more I read articles on polygomy marriages, the more I am convinced that they do not have happy marriages. That they exist in a bubble, time-warped zone of their own making. Telling themselves that they are not jealous. The women are not jealous. The kids are not jealous. The husband is truly happy trying to be supportive for more than one wife.

And that is when there is not under-age girls involved, nor boys being dumped off on the edge of town/kicked out to make room for older controlling men who don't ever want competition.

The human nature is a hard thing to squelch, in my opinion, and this arrangement is not an ideal one.

If polygomists could keep their hands off of marrying under 18 brides, could stop forcing marriages, could stop mistreating the sons born to the women in these areas, I might be inclined not to care as much to keep it illegal. But sadly, reading up the news on this issue, I see that there is plenty of corruption and sadness going on.

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Whoa! Where the hell did that come from? In what kind of liberal society would anyone be killed off simply because some other person neglects to help them? I cannot possibly see how this barbaric suggestion relates to the rest of the topic.

I don't either. But some of the posts on this thread would suggest that not everyone would consider the suggestion barbaric.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Duchess, I suggest that you read up on polygamy/polyamory outside of a religious fundamentalist setting. I'd dig up some links, but the search would result in an unwanted conversation with the IT department!

[ 22. November 2006, 17:51: Message edited by: Scot ]

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Scot:

quote:
The examples you have provided (teenagers in Utah, the young Muslim woman) should be protected from forced marriage, whether monagamous or plural. The issues here are nonconsensuality and associated abuse, not polygamy. A reasonable amount of regulation could provide protections at least as effective as the current bigamy laws without unduly restricting the freedom of those who would freely choose a plural marriage.
I think the problem is that where Polygamy is legal it might be very difficult to prevent forced marriages. How do you prosecute someone for saying 'Marry him, or be ostracised by the community'? There are more subtle forms of coercion than putting guns to people's heads.

Given that polygamy is generally contested I think the prohibition gives weight to the anti-polygamy camp. Imams in the UK or LDS in the US can cite the law, along with theological arguments, as reasons why they, and not the other lot, should be listened to. Take that away and you effectively de-legitimise the anti-polygamy/ forced marriage factions within those religions. I think this could have all sorts of undesirable consequences.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Callan, what about the victims of forced monogamous marriage? Using bigamy laws to prevent forced marriages ignores them while unjustly penalizing those who choose polygamy. This is a classic example of treating the symptom and not the problem.

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I was suggesting that if the problem is women not being "cared for" due to an underabundance of men to marry them and care for them, then one solution would be to enable them to care for themselves by making living-wage jobs available to them, so they don't need to get married to be cared for.

I know that's wht you said. And you just repeated it. So the question still stands - do you really think the only kind of caring-for that counts is money?

OK, I'm sure you don't think that really. (& if yo did youu'd probably not say so in public) But its what you actually wrote. As if there was no reason any woman would enter a polygynous marriage other than for material benefit.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
How do you prosecute someone for saying 'Marry him, or be ostracised by the community'?

Like Scot, I don't see what the natural connection between this and polygamy is.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
If polygomists could keep their hands off of marrying under 18 brides, could stop forcing marriages, could stop mistreating the sons born to the women in these areas

But all those things are illegal anyway, to everyone, not just polygamists. And they are illegal in India (and no doubt other countries) where polygamy is not illegal.

Maybe there is an argument for saying their should be more government intervention in support of those alledgedly abused mothers and sons in Arizona or New Mexico or wherever, but that's different from the argument about polygamy being legal.

Mormon men are said to be marrying 15 year-old girls and exiling 15-year-old boys. In this country that would attract the attention of the police, and probably get them put in jail however many wives were involved.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Scot:

quote:
Callan, what about the victims of forced monogamous marriage? Using bigamy laws to prevent forced marriages ignores them while unjustly penalizing those who choose polygamy. This is a classic example of treating the symptom and not the problem.
My position is that forced marriages are a) A Bad Thing and b) very hard to prosecute. So I am sceptical about a reform to the law which has a distinct possibility of increasing the number of forced marriages and which, as the Canadian study indicates, has other undesirable consequences. At the end of the day I don't think that the people who 'freely' choose polygamy and who suffer under the status quo are sufficiently numerous to warrant a change in the law given the evils that will almost certainly arise from it.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37

 - Posted      Profile for Paul.   Author's homepage   Email Paul.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by chive:]That seems to be a rather negative view of men - if they don't have rings on their fingers they'll degenerate swiftly into rape and pillage.

Does being single remove one's morals and self control? Is

To be honest its a partly fair view. Single men really are more likely to commit crimes.
Yeah but why is that? Is it because singleness causes men to turn to crime, or is it just possible that the kinds of men disposed to be criminal, rapists even, don't make especially appealing prospective mates?

The real question is whether the correlation would hold if there were a much higher level of singleness among men. Even then it's moot because, as has been said, merely making polygamy legal won't instantly mean that lots of people take it up.

Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
If polygomists could keep their hands off of marrying under 18 brides, could stop forcing marriages, could stop mistreating the sons born to the women in these areas

But all those things are illegal anyway, to everyone, not just polygamists. And they are illegal in India (and no doubt other countries) where polygamy is not illegal.

Maybe there is an argument for saying their should be more government intervention in support of those alledgedly abused mothers and sons in Arizona or New Mexico or wherever, but that's different from the argument about polygamy being legal.

Mormon men are said to be marrying 15 year-old girls and exiling 15-year-old boys. In this country that would attract the attention of the police, and probably get them put in jail however many wives were involved.

It isn't so simple to put them into jail. A lot of work has to be done to prove these things are happening in court. These people are sly. Look up the trial of Warren Jeffs in Utah. The Defense Attorney Tara L. Isaacson produced love letters to prove a 14 year old child bride was happy about being married off to her 19 year old cousin


I don't want to look up articles and link when I am at work, but as Scot suspected, yes, I am speaking from the Group caste off from the Mormons, FLDS, Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,

A group did go up into Canada...and some into Mexico to escape all the "persecution" they are facing in the United States.

Scot, I have read up on people who jumped at the chance to be a sister-wife, read up on first wives pushing their husbands to aquire a second, sister-wife etc even in the FLDS type sects. I am convinced that these people are in self-denial of some sort...or just have a very low self-image that they are not aware of. Can I prove that? No, not really. It is just something I suspect, based on my fundamental belief that all human beings are wired the same, we just express ourselves differently, when it comes to love/romance.

I could read up on more-than-one-wife Africans and Middle Eastern women more...you are aware of the "short-quickie" marriage Muslims have when a man just wants to test-drive a gal? I can not remember the word for it right now. I can google it later if need be after I am at home. I have read about this being done for a childhood friend in one of the Princess Sultana books, who was 11 years old, by her dad.

To be fair, her husband only had one wife. She said he did take up with women outside of marriage. I don't know if multiple wives would have helped him not to do that.

[edited wrap around text]

[ 22. November 2006, 19:40: Message edited by: duchess ]

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Scot:

quote:
Callan, what about the victims of forced monogamous marriage? Using bigamy laws to prevent forced marriages ignores them while unjustly penalizing those who choose polygamy. This is a classic example of treating the symptom and not the problem.
My position is that forced marriages are a) A Bad Thing and b) very hard to prosecute. So I am sceptical about a reform to the law which has a distinct possibility of increasing the number of forced marriages and which, as the Canadian study indicates, has other undesirable consequences. At the end of the day I don't think that the people who 'freely' choose polygamy and who suffer under the status quo are sufficiently numerous to warrant a change in the law given the evils that will almost certainly arise from it.
Why would a change in polygamy law increase forced marriages? Right now I can "live in sin" with as many male or female partners as I like. If I wanted to be an non-legally recognized polygamist I could (if you are smart about it).

Using laws against bigamy to stop forced marriages is like keeping laws against homosexuality to stop drug use.

If you are against polygamy then at least have the balls to admit it is because of moral reservations. And don't throw up a smoke screen about stamping out some secondary crime.

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
you are aware of the "short-quickie" marriage Muslims have when a man just wants to test-drive a gal?

Which is used in some muslim countries to give people something like the sexual freedoms enjoyed by westerners, while still being mostly socially acceptable (eg couples "married" just for sex). Muslims are not a socially or politically cohesive bloc.

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bartolomeo

Musical Engineer
# 8352

 - Posted      Profile for Bartolomeo   Email Bartolomeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
While there are individual counterexamples, the overwhelming majority of polygamous marriages are damaging, abusive ones. The diaries of 19th and early 20th century LDS women tell tales of lonliness and neglect. The men involved would choose favorites with whom they would spend the bulk of their time and wealth, leaving their other wives essentially as widows with no prospect of remarriage or escape.

Other cultures where polygamy has been accepted have seen family structures where the younger wives would essentially be servants of the oldest one.

I note that the most successful counterexamples, that is, examples of highly functional marriage-like arrangements involving more than two people, are limited in size to three individuals and appear to involve a good deal of affection and intimacy across all three pairs of people. I think that the interpersonal skill required to maintain such a relationship is exceptional. I doubt if many such relationships last a lifetime.

I believe that polygamy should be viewed chiefly as a mechanism for extending exploitation and control already present in a subculture where power disparity is already present.

--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase

Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:


Using laws against bigamy to stop forced marriages is like keeping laws against homosexuality to stop drug use.

If you are against polygamy then at least have the balls to admit it is because of moral reservations. And don't throw up a smoke screen about stamping out some secondary crime.

I think we all have been trying to make the case that child brides, abandoned boy and forced marriages have taken place in communities which support polygamy for religious reasons. These sects tend to move where there is less legal persecution.

I am against it for moral reasons to, but my arguments have many been around the secondary crimes.

So I request you rethink what you posted here about having balls (not sure if this was only directed to Callan or to all of us who post against it on this thread).

[edited name]

[ 22. November 2006, 20:34: Message edited by: duchess ]

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034

 - Posted      Profile for nurks   Email nurks   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Nurks, a few definitions for you:

Please use these terms accurately.

And speaking of accuracy, please give me one place in the Bible where laymen (not priests) are commanded to have at most one wife. You seem to put great store by the words of Jesus, but I think I missed the bit where he ordered monogamy.

T.

What's in a name? Hey here's a neat idea. Marry everyone to everyone, and thereby abolish sexual sin at the stroke of a pen. If every woman in the world is my wife, I can never be unfaithful.

Re. Jesus:

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

The assumption of one wife is plain in this passage, especially in verse 8 and 9. Jesus said Moses let them divorce wives (plural) whereas Jesus speaks of divorcing wife (singular).

--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."

Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
What's in a name? Hey here's a neat idea. Marry everyone to everyone, and thereby abolish sexual sin at the stroke of a pen. If every woman in the world is my wife, I can never be unfaithful.

Only if you think fidelity is about a marriage contract, rather than the trust that love entails.

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools