We’re talking about the freedom of individual adults to enter into a mutually agreed upon contractual agreement.
It’s called freedom of association. How is that immoral?
The governments job is not to define “marriage”. It’s job with respect to contracts is to arbitrate and hold parties accountable to them (judicial branch).
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
But polygamy has far too many negative effects on society for it to ever be a good idea. [/quote]
I’m not convinced. It works in the ME.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
But polygamy has far too many negative effects on society for it to ever be a good idea.
I’m not convinced. It works in the ME.[/quote]
Now I know you’re smoking crack. I’d classify the Middle East as a third world shithole, but most third world shitholes don’t export terroism.
As I alluded to above, part of the reason Muslim societies spawn terroism is to cull the heard of young men who can’t find wives because there aren’t enough women to go around. If I have 10 wives that means there are 9 men who have none. Now I have to do something with those 9, so I preach holy war and hatred of the west, promise them 72 virgins and send them off to die.
[quote]orion wrote:
As you might have noticed we live in societies that made and continues to make great economic and technological progress, at least all in all, and has one of the greatest social mobility in history.
You may prefer Pharaonic Egypt, which was just more of the same for a few thousand years or so, I dont.
[/quote]
I had to come back to this post because it was so grotesquely wrong on every level. First, the societies that we live in that made all of this great economic and technological progress hasn’t practiced widespread polygamy in the last 500 years. At most one would see a few wealthy men at the top of society with a wife and a mistress or two.
Second, Pharaonic Egypt, while not the society of my preference was vastly more advanced technologically and economically that all of it’s contemporaries. See the invention of writing and archetecture capable of building the great pyramids. All that made possible by prolonged periods of stability. They were a polygamous society, but I think you can attribute their long periods of stability to the fact that for their first few thousand years they were one of the first societies to practice agriculture, and they were surrounded by the sea to the north and vast desearts all around, which gave them unequaled security. Still, it is safe to say that ancient Egypt was a miserable place to live for all but the ruling class.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
I agree with John Adams but polygamy, if not abused, cannot or rather should not be labeled as immoral and/or irreligious.[/quote]
I guess that hinges on whether or not you believe the teachings of Jesus. Also, where it is generally practiced, the women are usually 2nd class citizens at best.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
I agree with John Adams but polygamy, if not abused, cannot or rather should not be labeled as immoral and/or irreligious.
I guess that hinges on whether or not you believe the teachings of Jesus. Also, where it is generally practiced, the women are usually 2nd class citizens at best.[/quote]
Can you explain what you mean by, “hinges on whether or not your believe the teachings of Jesus?”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
I agree with John Adams but polygamy, if not abused, cannot or rather should not be labeled as immoral and/or irreligious.
I guess that hinges on whether or not you believe the teachings of Jesus. Also, where it is generally practiced, the women are usually 2nd class citizens at best.
Can you explain what you mean by, “hinges on whether or not your believe the teachings of Jesus?”[/quote]
If you believe the teachings of Jesus, then polygamy is immoral and irreligious. 1 Corinthians 7 to be specific.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
I agree with John Adams but polygamy, if not abused, cannot or rather should not be labeled as immoral and/or irreligious.
I guess that hinges on whether or not you believe the teachings of Jesus. Also, where it is generally practiced, the women are usually 2nd class citizens at best.
Can you explain what you mean by, “hinges on whether or not your believe the teachings of Jesus?”
If you believe the teachings of Jesus, then polygamy is immoral and irreligious. 1 Corinthians 7 to be specific.
[/quote]
A letter NOT written by Jesus?
Um, even if we assume that the implied authorship of the New Testament is valid, then you’re talking about the teachings of a Hellenized Jew who went by the name of Paul. Also, I Corinthians is a response to issues in II Corinthians and issues of sexual congress brought up therin. So, what you’ve referred is the teachings of an early Christian philosopher, not the teachings of Jesus. Jesus really doesn’t talk that much about sexuality except in a couple of cases, and most of those are more indirect and could be argued that they concern more the breaking of a vow made in the name of God as opposed to a direct commentary on sexual morality.
Personally, Paul had some interesting points, but his letters reflected one opinion among many and need to be read in context.
Regarding the topic in general, I’ve been to a lot of countries that permit polygamy and polyandry (marriages of one woman to multiple men). The results most often fall into two categories – in those societies that are brushing against or striving to enjoy the benefits of what we might call modern civilization*, such as what we see in parts of Islamicised Africa and Islamic western Asia, it’s all just a very tiny minority of rich guys doing what rich and powerful guys have always done – have a lot of sexual partners. They have simply added a legal and ethical justification to the matter. While you will always find a family that is happy in said situation, in my personal travels and observations, I can’t really see any benefit to society overall (the excess of young men unable to marry, a point brought up earlier in this thread, is just one example of the negative effects).
Now, when you have very isolated societies that allow plural marriages (most commonly polygamy and in a few cases polyandry), it’s a different story. Family interrelations are very complex, the pattern of death is completely different to anything we’re familiar with in our lives…and I do make a big assumption there but considering everyone reading this is literate, has a computer, and access to the internet, I would bet that my assumption isn’t off the mark. In those tiny societies, the sharing of work and defense of the greater family/clan unit tends to mean that plural marriages can help the overall family unit and society in general survive and thrive.
In regards to how this question affects us, again I say there will be a few people who can pull such a relationship off and have a relatively happy and successful family, but my opinion based on abovementioned observations is that overall it’s a friggin’ disaster. In theory, it CAN be argued that there’s nothing morally or ethically wrong with the matter, free association and all that, but in reality the majority of said associations are in sub-cultures that are extremely oppressive towards women.
I’m generally libertarian in mentality, but this is a perfect example of how the logical mind can come to a conclusion that in reality fails utterly. Yeah, what you do in your home is nobody else’s business, leave people alone, etc…but most examples of polygamy in, say, the United States, that make it to the public eye do not seem like pleasant relations and as I said are often oppressive. So by being libertarian you unintentionally foster the establishment of an authoritarian micro-culture.
Now all that said…my view is that the government should not have ANY say in marriage at all. It’s a system of control that can be used to manipulate populations. By dangling a few tax benefits out there the government thus gets one more finger into our private lives and ths issue of marriage and who can marry whom can be used to divide a population into petty bickering. Marriage should be a private matter…person A, person B, and God or gods if that’s your kick.
As an incidental side-note to all of this, I think that if government legalized plural marriages, nothing would really change. A few people might make a thing of it, but it would be mostly the Jerry Springer types, and it would not destabilize society because through most of history, government reflects society and morality – it does not define society and morality. Yes, there are always some people who will always try to make government define society, and those folks can make a lot of people miserable, but it’s not the usual way of things. People would not suddenly start getting married to multiple partners if the matter were legalized, just as you would not have a statistically higher level of substance abuse if some or all presently illegal drugs were legalized. A little flare up here and there, sure, but after the ‘news’ and other mass media outlets have their shocker stories, people would go right on doing what they were doing before.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
I agree with John Adams but polygamy, if not abused, cannot or rather should not be labeled as immoral and/or irreligious.
I guess that hinges on whether or not you believe the teachings of Jesus. Also, where it is generally practiced, the women are usually 2nd class citizens at best.
Can you explain what you mean by, “hinges on whether or not your believe the teachings of Jesus?”
If you believe the teachings of Jesus, then polygamy is immoral and irreligious. 1 Corinthians 7 to be specific.
[/quote]
Specifically that is to set restriction of divorce to the case of fornication, and the prohibition of remarriage in all persons divorced on improper grounds. ‘"Because of immorality let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband,’ (1 Cor. 7:2). Again this thought to eliminate the possibility of each man having his many wives, and each wife having her many husbands. But it no more eliminates multiple marriage than does any text in the Bible. This simply states God’s recommendation that people marry in order to avoid ‘immoralities.’ If we are disposed to be utterly literalistic with this text, perhaps we should take literally the admonition that ‘it is good for a man to to touch a woman,’ (vs. 1). Add to this that, ’ to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin,’ (jas. 4:17). Thus we have ‘Biblical authority’ for condemning as ‘sinners’ all men who touch a woman. We can see too clearly for such to be taken seriously. Paul is not trying to reinforce monogamy as God’s preference for humanity. Monogamy is not the subject matter at all." - Divine Sex
[quote]orion wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
I agree with John Adams but polygamy, if not abused, cannot or rather should not be labeled as immoral and/or irreligious.
I guess that hinges on whether or not you believe the teachings of Jesus. Also, where it is generally practiced, the women are usually 2nd class citizens at best.
Can you explain what you mean by, “hinges on whether or not your believe the teachings of Jesus?”
If you believe the teachings of Jesus, then polygamy is immoral and irreligious. 1 Corinthians 7 to be specific.
A letter NOT written by Jesus?
[/quote]
Jesus didn’t write ANY of the Bible. So? Like the rest of the Bible it quotes him “every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband” Not to mention Matthhew 19:5, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”. two, not 3 or 4.
Whether the gov’t should be involved is a completely different argument.
[quote]orion wrote:
A letter NOT written by Jesus?
[/quote]
I’m not sure how that’s relevant to christians. Christ didn’t leave a bible or any letters. He left a church and it’s apostles.
Anyways, to the topic; sure why not. Hate to tell anyone no.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
A letter NOT written by Jesus?
I’m not sure how that’s relevant to christians. Christ didn’t leave a bible or any letters. He left a church and it’s apostles.
Anyways, to the topic; sure why not. Hate to tell anyone no.[/quote]
Well if someones talks about Jesus teachings and yet quotes Paul…
First, let me say that I’m not trying to criticize you, nor am I even saying that I disagree. I just want to point out that you’re making an invalid argument. You’ve presented two quotes that refer to a joining of two people, but YOU are the one making the assumption about what it really means.
In other words, you’re presenting your interpretation, not a direct quote.
I was going to get into counter-arguments but that’s not my point. Just recognize that when you are making a case, and presenting examples, make sure the examples say exactly what you think they say. If you quoted something that said “you can have ONLY one wife/husband” then it would be self-explanatory. By adding your own phrases, you are inserting your authority and trying to slip it in as part of the greater authority that you’re championing. When you do this, in ANY case, not just in this matter, anyone with any observational skills would recognize the fallacy.
Let me give an example. Let’s say you were quoting an article that advised taking 3 grams of salmon oil per day. If you wrote –
“3 grams show benefits.” three, not four or five.
– then the misquoting would be obvious.
All I’m saying is that if you want to convey an idea, the more rhetorical errors you make will reduce your ability to communicate. People will focus on your rhetoric, not the matter you wanted to communicate. Some people (especially on the internet) will be really nasty and then the whole conversation will degenerate, but even at best, other people will not bother addressing your point. Rhetoric is just like surviving a dangerous physical situation or mastering a new exercise – you have to keep things tight to maximize your benefits.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
I agree with John Adams but polygamy, if not abused, cannot or rather should not be labeled as immoral and/or irreligious.
I guess that hinges on whether or not you believe the teachings of Jesus. Also, where it is generally practiced, the women are usually 2nd class citizens at best.
Can you explain what you mean by, “hinges on whether or not your believe the teachings of Jesus?”
If you believe the teachings of Jesus, then polygamy is immoral and irreligious. 1 Corinthians 7 to be specific.
Specifically that is to set restriction of divorce to the case of fornication, and the prohibition of remarriage in all persons divorced on improper grounds. ‘"Because of immorality let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband,’ (1 Cor. 7:2). Again this thought to eliminate the possibility of each man having his many wives, and each wife having her many husbands. But it no more eliminates multiple marriage than does any text in the Bible. This simply states God’s recommendation that people marry in order to avoid ‘immoralities.’ [/quote]
No, divorce isn’t addresed until verse 10. “But because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband” in other words, to avoid immorallity, practice monogamy. [quote]
If we are disposed to be utterly literalistic with this text, perhaps we should take literally the admonition that ‘it is good for a man to to touch a woman,’ (vs. 1). [/quote]
That was Paul quoting a question that was put to him. "Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,” Then he answeres it with verse 2-7 [quote]
Add to this that, ’ to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin,’ (jas. 4:17). Thus we have ‘Biblical authority’ for condemning as ‘sinners’ all men who touch a woman. We can see too clearly for such to be taken seriously. [/quote]
Your interpretation of this book is very… unique. [quote]
Paul is not trying to reinforce monogamy as God’s preference for humanity. Monogamy is not the subject matter at all." - Divine Sex[/quote]
Actually, he is advocating celebacy “This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am” but because few are strong enough to resist the temptations of the flesh, he advocates monogamy, “so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.”
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Paul is not trying to reinforce monogamy as God’s preference for humanity. Monogamy is not the subject matter at all." - Divine Sex
Actually, he is advocating celebacy “This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am” but because few are strong enough to resist the temptations of the flesh, he advocates monogamy, “so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.”
[/quote]
This is one extremely good example of why we should take Paul only for what he is – a man presenting a specific sub-philosophy of Christianity, and definitely not the teachings of Jesus. Personally I think Paul ruined Christianity…or more appropriately and possibly accurately, the people who decided how to present Paul in the final Biblical canon completely utterly mangled the teachings of Jesus. The very idea that someone would use Paul as an authority on par with the word of God is…a shame. To me, Paul is one opinion, no more or less interesting or valid than some modern Christian living paperback that you could pick up in the Religion section of Barnes and Noble. Just because he may have been the man who spread Christianity more than any other single individual does not mean that he has something on par with Papal authority. I think Mother Theresa was a magnificent individual, but she also held to the Catholic line of condoms being immoral and against the will of God, an opinion that I think borders on destructive madness.
I suppose I’m advocating that one can admire the value of an individual without endorsing all of that person’s life philosophy. To me, Paul does not hold a special place above humanity and I don’t understand why so many modern Christians accept Paul’s letters as anything more than…well…letters. His thoughts on how a certain church should address a certain problem at a certain time. And his issues with sexuality and his strong tendency to project his own weakness on all others is…well let’s just say that maybe he needs therapy.
And my apologies for thread hijacking. I will withdraw from this subset of the discussion.
[quote]LHT wrote:
First, let me say that I’m not trying to criticize you, nor am I even saying that I disagree. I just want to point out that you’re making an invalid argument. You’ve presented two quotes that refer to a joining of two people, but YOU are the one making the assumption about what it really means.
In other words, you’re presenting your interpretation, not a direct quote.
I was going to get into counter-arguments but that’s not my point. Just recognize that when you are making a case, and presenting examples, make sure the examples say exactly what you think they say. If you quoted something that said “you can have ONLY one wife/husband” then it would be self-explanatory. By adding your own phrases, you are inserting your authority and trying to slip it in as part of the greater authority that you’re championing. When you do this, in ANY case, not just in this matter, anyone with any observational skills would recognize the fallacy.
Let me give an example. Let’s say you were quoting an article that advised taking 3 grams of salmon oil per day. If you wrote –
“3 grams show benefits.” three, not four or five.
– then the misquoting would be obvious.
All I’m saying is that if you want to convey an idea, the more rhetorical errors you make will reduce your ability to communicate. People will focus on your rhetoric, not the matter you wanted to communicate. Some people (especially on the internet) will be really nasty and then the whole conversation will degenerate, but even at best, other people will not bother addressing your point. Rhetoric is just like surviving a dangerous physical situation or mastering a new exercise – you have to keep things tight to maximize your benefits. [/quote]
Yes, the Bible is very much open to interpretation on this and many other issues. You don’t have to agree with this interpretation (it’s not mine, BTW it’s that of most Christian religions), you are free to live by whatever moral code you are comfortable with. I’m certainly not one to force my views on anyone. Ultimately, we won’t know who was right until we each stand to be judged.
Nearly wherever polygamy is practice, women are 2nd class citizens, forced into arranged marriages and generally treated like dirt. It’s kinda like socialism, it may sound good in theory, but in practice it always degenerates.
The only reason the federal gov’t has any say in the matter is due to the tax code. If we had a common sense tax code (flat tax or nat’l sales tax) then the federal gov’t would have any business talking about marriages. i do however think it is a right reserved for the states. If Utah wants allow polygamy, fine. If you disagree, don’t live there.
My $0.02
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
A letter NOT written by Jesus?
I’m not sure how that’s relevant to christians. Christ didn’t leave a bible or any letters. He left a church and it’s apostles.
Anyways, to the topic; sure why not. Hate to tell anyone no.
Well if someones talks about Jesus teachings and yet quotes Paul…[/quote]
I fail to see the problem.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
A letter NOT written by Jesus?
I’m not sure how that’s relevant to christians. Christ didn’t leave a bible or any letters. He left a church and it’s apostles.
Anyways, to the topic; sure why not. Hate to tell anyone no.
Well if someones talks about Jesus teachings and yet quotes Paul…[/quote]
Who spread Jesus’s teaching through the world?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
A letter NOT written by Jesus?
I’m not sure how that’s relevant to christians. Christ didn’t leave a bible or any letters. He left a church and it’s apostles.
Anyways, to the topic; sure why not. Hate to tell anyone no.
Well if someones talks about Jesus teachings and yet quotes Paul…
I fail to see the problem.
[/quote]
Ya, obviously!
But if I claim that Peter said something and yet I quote Dick, Tom or Harry, that is not cool.
See?
And he did not say Christians, but followers of Jesus.