Polygamy

[Buffalo]

But... not the right to marry who they want to, even if that person happens to already be married?

So... just the rights you like, then?

What do you mean? You will have to explain it for me.

I just want the society to pick one - monogamy for all or polyandry/polygyny for all, not just polygyny or just polyandry. The marriage had to be agreed on by both parties (not their parents, etc).

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

Berry posted:

"They simply outlived their husbands, sometimes more than one..."

Widowhood is true monogamy.

So you think it's wrong to remarry after the death of a spouse?

 

[Reba]

So you think it's wrong to remarry after the death of a spouse?

No, I never said that.

After the death of a spouse, the widow/widower is free to marry.

The wedding vows are, "until death do us part." Death ends the vow.

 

[Steinhauer]

Isn't there a George Washington University Law Professor who has something like .... 4 wives .... that is going to challenge the Federal Laws regulating polygamist marriages or something?







(just thought I would throw that one out there)

 

[Steinhauer]

No, I never said that.

After the death of a spouse, the widow/widower is free to marry.

The wedding vows are, "until death do us part." Death ends the vow.

That is true of Judeo/Christian traditional marriage ceremonies. But in Muslim culture, polygamy is a way of life.

Let's not forget that marriage has always been a religious ceremony ..... now the government is butting in ... it is considered a "contract".

They need to butt out. Government has no business in regulating religious ceremonies.

 

[Smithtr]

So you think it's wrong to remarry after the death of a spouse?

you are misunderstand, make sure reading!

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

No, I never said that.

After the death of a spouse, the widow/widower is free to marry.

The wedding vows are, "until death do us part." Death ends the vow.

Okay, just askin'.

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

you are misunderstand, make sure reading!

There is nothing wrong with asking questions to clarify what the other poster is saying, so butt out,
Travis.

 

[deafskeptic]

I knew a man who averaged an affair a week through five or six marriages.

I knew a woman who had ten kids, six or seven fathers, and only three or four marriages. At least one marriage did not produce a child. Another produced a child but it was not the husbands.

Perhaps in some situations a little honest plurality might be preferable.

Also a fact some seem to forget. Not all people are equally sexual. One of the objectives of women's lib was supposed to be the right of women who actively enjoyed sex to be able to admit to it and the right of those men who did not always enjoy sex to be able to admit to that.

Somewhere women's lib seems to have failed in this.

I agree on this one.

 

[deafskeptic]

Agreed. It has been said that human beings were not meant to be monogamous creatures. When one attempts to force an unnatural state upon people, problems are created.

I'm going to touch off a storm here regarding female sexuality but here goes nothing.

I've been reading up on biological studies that say that females of many species are not naturally monogamous. Scientists think that females may seek extra partners so they can ensure that the offspring survive. This applies to humans as well.

Charles Darwin was influenced by his times. The Victorian era required that women be pure so it was thought that the natural woman was pure and demure and only endured sex for England. It was thought that many female prefered to stay with one mate for life while males roamed for partners. Today that bias is slowing going away.

 

[deafskeptic]

I have a very dear friend from Afghanistan whose father had 7 wives. She has 22 siblings. It worked well for them. She and her husband were an arranged couple. She is perfectly satisfied in her marraige.

In fact, arranged marraiges generally do not suffer the problems that marriges based on romantic love do. My friend had a very interesting take on that. She said that in America, people have unrealistic expectations of what marraige is and how it should be because they have all the romantic fairy tales in their heads. Couples who enter into an arranged marraige do not have those unrealistic expectations,and therefore, are generally more satisfied with the nature of the relationship.

Mm That's of interest.

 

[Berry]

Societies are fluid.

Animals as well. Otters were once monogamous. Very moral, middle class and proper. Hunted to near extinction they are now a swimming pack of immoral hippies. Changes in economy, crops, science -- All these influence.

Changes in overall situation often require changes in ethics, morals, laws, attitudes, etc.

Those attempting to adapt to the new situation will always meet resistance from those who believe the old, outmoded answers should be used regardless of the situation.

There has been a lot of talk in this thread about rights.

So far as I am concerned only two rights are needed.

The right to agree to the relationship you choose to be involved in -- Regardless of what that relationship might be.

The right to walk away from that relationship if, or when, you decide that relationship is not, was not, or is no longer, right for you.

Those two rights give you the right to

Decide

Change

Develop

Admit you made a mistake

Move on.

And those are all the rights a person needs to become a full human being.

 

[Berry]

I have a very dear friend from Afghanistan whose father had 7 wives. She has 22 siblings. It worked well for them. She and her husband were an arranged couple. She is perfectly satisfied in her marraige.

In fact, arranged marraiges generally do not suffer the problems that marriges based on romantic love do. My friend had a very interesting take on that. She said that in America, people have unrealistic expectations of what marraige is and how it should be because they have all the romantic fairy tales in their heads. Couples who enter into an arranged marraige do not have those unrealistic expectations,and therefore, are generally more satisfied with the nature of the relationship.

The Christmas syndrome.

Those who expect the most from Christmas are the ones who suffer (often serious) post Christmas depression.

Those who expect the least tend to enjoy it more and have little or no post Christmas depression.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Man and woman were created to be monogamous couples, so they were meant to be monogamous. All these other "relationships" and behaviors created by man are deviations from their original design.

They weren't meant to be together monogamously. And if you're sourcing the bible as your source - weren't there polygamous marriages in that book?

Males were designed to run around spreading their genes as much as possible and females are designed to be selective about who they mate with.

It's biology, nature. Can man and woman be monogamous together? Yes they can. But "meant" to be monogamous? Nope. They weren't made that way.

 

[Aleser]

They weren't meant to be together monogamously. And if you're sourcing the bible as your source - weren't there polygamous marriages in that book?

Males were designed to run around spreading their genes as much as possible and females are designed to be selective about who they mate with.

It's biology, nature. Can man and woman be monogamous together? Yes they can. But "meant" to be monogamous? Nope. They weren't made that way.

BUT THE BIBLE DOESNT ALLOW POLYGAMY AND NO CHRISTIANS ARE POLYGAMISTS!


Oh, Wait...

What the Bible says about polygamy

Polygamy in the Bible. Jesus allowed Polygamy!

Huh! How about that?

 

[Reba]

Isn't there a George Washington University Law Professor who has something like .... 4 wives .... that is going to challenge the Federal Laws regulating polygamist marriages or something?

I don't know. Is there?

 

[Reba]

I'm going to touch off a storm here regarding female sexuality but here goes nothing.

I've been reading up on biological studies that say that females of many species are not naturally monogamous. Scientists think that females may seek extra partners so they can ensure that the offspring survive. This applies to humans as well.

What animals ("other species") do isn't relevant to what humans do. Some animals eat poop and sniff each others' butts but that doesn't mean it's right for humans. :roll:

Animals are driven by instinct. Humans have a conscious will that can be influenced by instinct and experience but in the end, they make choices.

Charles Darwin was influenced by his times. The Victorian era required that women be pure so it was thought that the natural woman was pure and demure and only endured sex for England. It was thought that many female prefered to stay with one mate for life while males roamed for partners. Today that bias is slowing going away.

Are you sure that you studied the Victorian era?

 

[Reba]

They weren't meant to be together monogamously. And if you're sourcing the bible as your source - weren't there polygamous marriages in that book?

I thought we weren't supposed to give religious reasons in this thread? Oh, well, you brought it up.

Yes, there were polygamous marriages in the Bible. There was also murder, lying, cheating, and other sins. Just because God documented real life and real events in His book doesn't mean He approved of them. In fact, He used those examples to show how wrong they were, and how bad the consequences were.

God specifically established marriage as one man and one woman in His very first book, Genesis. That was the model that people were supposed to follow. It is also a picture of the relationship between Christ (the Bridegroom) and His church (the Bride). It's a one-on-one relationship and permanent.

Males were designed to run around spreading their genes as much as possible and females are designed to be selective about who they mate with.

That's not what the Bible says.

It's biology, nature. Can man and woman be monogamous together? Yes they can. But "meant" to be monogamous? Nope. They weren't made that way.

Since God created all nature, He determined what was "meant" for each species, including the human species (which is separate from animals). In the perfect way that God formed man and woman, they were designed to be monogamous. However, because man fell into sin, that perfection was distorted, and man has gone on to do his own thing without regard for God.

 

[KStiletto]

You believe jealousy is natural. And a lot of people do.

I don't.

It is also why I did not marry until I was almost 30.

Jealousy is a social and cultural sickness that is fostered in our society in order to increase competition for money, cars, women, men, and anything else we can acquire -- and keep away from others.

Jealousy goes beyond lack of trust in the other person.... It does not limit itself to trying to keep the person from being shared with others... It develops into a fear that the other person will belong to

themselves --

And not to you.

All I have to say on that is if I were in a dating type of lifestyle, no ties to one person, then who cares. I do think if a man/woman finds that INCREDIBLE person, the person they don't want to let go, I don't think they would be okay knowing that the person is out and about with every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

There are some people who don't believe there is one person that can satisfy their needs, and that's fine for them, but do believe some do get jealous. It's been seen. The man with a wife, and a girlfriend, but don't want the girlfriend to leave or do her own thing. Wants to keep the side chick all to himself.

The solution is just to stay single. When you're single you can do whatever the heck you want.

 

[Reba]

BUT THE BIBLE DOESNT ALLOW POLYGAMY AND NO CHRISTIANS ARE POLYGAMISTS!


Oh, Wait...

What the Bible says about polygamy

Polygamy in the Bible. Jesus allowed Polygamy!

Huh! How about that?

As I posted before, in this thread and others, the Bible documents what happened in history, including the good, the bad, and the ugly. Just because something is recorded doesn't mean it's approved of. In fact, just the opposite. God used those examples of polygamy and other disobedience to show the negative and destructive outcomes that resulted. Never does God approve of polygamy or concubines.

God is also merciful. He knows that for those already in those relationships within their cultures, they couldn't just toss the extra wives and concubines to the street. He protected the women in those circumstances.

Polygamy is never portrayed as a positive situation anywhere in the Bible. In especially the New Testament, monogamy is uplifted and emphasized often.

Did you just list those references, or did you actually read them? If you read them in context you would see that the polygamous situations always ended badly.