Question on polygamy

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1108259/posts

Germany legalises polygamy (one more move to attract even more moslems

[edit on 7-10-2004 by MattMarriott]

OK, Delta, well you can explain the other biblical passages already quoted in this thread?

Or this one:

Deuteronomy 21:15 - If a man has two wives...

Exodus 21:10 - If he take him another wife...

Or how some of the more prominent biblical figures (David, Solomon, etc) had more than one wife and seemed to be blessed because of it?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 7-10-2004 by MattMarriott]

Originally posted by MattMarriott
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1108259/posts

Germany legalises polygamy (one more move to attract even more moslems

[edit on 7-10-2004 by MattMarriott]

From that link:
"-polygamy is recognised as legal, as long as the marriages took place in a muslim country"
That makes perfect sense. By laws of another country polygamy is allowed. Germany doesn't have the right to overturn laws of other countries. To marry more then one person IN GERMANY is not allowed. So they didn't legalise polygamy, they just accepted the fact that others allow it.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Um, you're still missing it. Study the bible. It says go forth and be fruitful. Nowhere does it stipulate doing so by one man marrying many women. It says, just like the preacher at the altar, when he marries a man an a woman, that is the way it was intended.
.

Now I thought the whole marriage ceremony was an amalgam of various pagan traditions.

The veil - to ward off evil spirits
The best man/maid of honor - to confuse evil spirits
Throwing of rice - pagan fertility blessing
And I can't remember what but there was something about the ring itself being a pagan tradition first.

The reason the Christian religion survived was its ability to incorporate and assimilate cultural and pagan beliefs.

Originally posted by Bleys
Now I thought the whole marriage ceremony was an amalgam of various pagan traditions.

Constantine, you silly goose!

Right. And we go to church on Sunday. Well, some people do, anyway. You're right, Bleys, if it weren't for Pagans, God might not even exist!

Why don't you try reading Genesis. It talks about how woman was half of the mans ribs. That means 1 woman is 1/2 of 1 man, and 1 man is 1/2 of 1 woman. If polygamy is in the old testament, why do Jews practice monogamy? Why does God want you to worship 1 God? It sounds like you have relationship issues if you can't live without more than one woman. Have you ever even been in love? Do you understand the concept of jealousy that BOTH men and women have, when dealing with the opposite sex. Monogamy is how it is supposed to be, polygamy is just for the mentally deranged, no offense. Tip, if you can't keep a relationship without cheating THEN DONT HAVE ONE. It makes no sense. The whole point of a relationship is to be mutually exclusive, to share and to love each other. If you had been in love you would know how mutually exclusive you want to be with that one woman, and how much fun it really is. If you are gonna use the old "other animals have sex with other animals besides their mates" arguement, which i dont even know if that is a real arguement, then i say that you should lick yourself clean. On top of that you should hunt and eat your food raw, and then you should go to the bathroom outside, without wipping your ass. If you can't give up those to be polygamic (is that a word?) then you have no grounds to stand upon.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Why don't you try reading Genesis. It talks about how woman was half of the mans ribs. That means 1 woman is 1/2 of 1 man, and 1 man is 1/2 of 1 woman. If polygamy is in the old testament, why do Jews practice monogamy?

Ryan - help me out here, your bible appears to be different from mine.

My reading of Genesis says that man was created from the dust and god breathed life into the dust. I also thought that Eve was created from a single rib of Adam - hence the term woman or of man. (I know many men who believe this passage alone gives them dominance over women) My readings of the Old Testament also show the prophets to have had many wives and many concubines.

Hamilton raises some interesting questions with respect to Judaism and Christianity's rejection of polygamy - if it was pleasing to god then why is not practiced now?

Let's get a few things straight.

Humans are not monogamous beings.; polygamy and even polyandry are natural and constrain to ones relative social ethics; marriage is a social construct, it can be whatever one choses, between a man/man, women/women, boy/man, women/boy, women/boy/boy, boy/man/man. There is no universlay accepted definition that does not touch on others toes.

Deep

When God created woman, only one was created for Adam. There's talk about the 2 fleshes becoming 1. Not the 5 fleshes becoming 1. True, I don't see the outlawing of multiple spouses but I think there's a few things to consider:

- I think Dru has a point. You should be able to see this going both ways and address it as such. To do so otherwise is just plain sexist. Let's not play the 'genes' game because desire ain't about being male or female.

- It's not necessarily about procreation for a Christian, that's a Darwinist thing really. Adam was lonely. God said this was not good.

- The complexity of involving more than two people in a relationship is exponential given jealously, goals, suspicion, communication, favoritism, etc.

- Though something may be legal, it does not mean it's beneficial. Us Americans have our hand in that - smoking, drinking, online gaming (sorry, I'm an addict of EQ) and whatever other vices you can exploit in excess.

*Saint4God paints a big target on the chest* Okay, I'm ready now...

But is the desire of the government to restrict marriage to man/woman couples a religious one? I know many religious people are against it, and so are others who are not religious, for their own reasons. Is the government trying to put the clamp down on it because they are catering to the religious or because they are discriminating against the homosexual community? Or is there some other financial/social angle I'm not seeing?

When God created woman, only one was created for Adam. There's talk about the 2 fleshes becoming 1. Not the 5 fleshes becoming 1. True, I don't see the outlawing of multiple spouses but I think there's a few things to consider:

Yet the Bible doesn't state he ONLY created Adam and Eve, just that they were the FIRST... God obviously didn't have a problem with polygamy after this, why assume he did in the beginning?

- It's not necessarily about procreation for a Christian, that's a Darwinist thing really. Adam was lonely. God said this was not good.

He also said be fruitful and multiply.

- The complexity of involving more than two people in a relationship is exponential given jealously, goals, suspicion, communication, favoritism, etc.

Never seemed to bother the ancients, nor modern cultures that practice it. When one grows up in the environment, and accepts it, etc.

- Though something may be legal, it does not mean it's beneficial. Us Americans have our hand in that - smoking, drinking, online gaming (sorry, I'm an addict of EQ) and whatever other vices you can exploit in excess.

True. EQ is the devil's creation...no doubt there, and I'm not even a Christian, hehe... I too was addicted to that early on (was even in beta)... Even created a 100+ person guild there! I wonder if it's still around? Handed off the reins years ago....

Torque - Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the decision against poligamy was a religious-based. When it was being voted on, a government official said the practice did not coincide with the Christian values this country was founded on. Apparently the law-makers agreed. I agree it does throw a wrench in the works when you try to justify that these days since the "separation of church and state" movement that started a few decades ago. By the way that phrase is not the law, it was a catch-phrase also started by a government official.

Gazrok - I'm sure the guild would still be there. I left the game for 3 years and came back and all the guildies are still around. They've done a bunch with Everquest - very, very cool setup these days.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTONGoing by this definition, why is polygamy not allowed?

Anthropologically, it's actually a socio-economic thing. Although it is common human practice (both polygyny (many wives) and polyandry (many husbands)), it's rarely something that's mandated by religions.

Heck, just look at the Bible and count all the men in there with multiple wives who never got smote or turned into pillars of ash or the like. Indeed, there's nothing (until the letters in the late New Testament) about it. There IS, however, an injunction to marry your brother's wife (condoning polygyny) if your brother dies. This is so that the widow can be properly taken care of.

There are social changes associated with the practice of monogamy... and they involve the time period when a group settles down and starts living in towns and cities. When a group is nomadic, having multiple adults in the household makes economic sense (particularly if the inheritance system means that each wife comes with her own plot of land.) Food gatherers (as opposed to the hunters) often bring in more food to the family than the hunter does (potatoes aren't nearly as successful escape artists as jackrabbits are.)

However, in cities and towns, multiple spouses usually turns into a negative economic event, particularly when it's one man with many women. If the women can't/won't work, then you may have one poor guy trying to scratch up enough money to feed three adult women and fourteen children. Bill Gates could do it easily. Dick Cheney could. Bush could. The rest of us would find it an impossible task.

So economic factors became cultural practice became religious/secular law.

...and whoever said it, actually polygamy does NOT decrease abuse. If anything, it INCREASES abuse because one spouse is always at the low end of the pecking order for whatever reason and there's constantly a jealousy factor. When younger spouses (male OR female) are brought in, the older one can feel neglected... and quite frequently does end up being neglected.

And divorce can be difficult.

Whenever I hear the word polygamy, I think of two words.


Tagteam nagging.

Ayoye.

Originally posted by BleysNow I thought the whole marriage ceremony was an amalgam of various pagan traditions.

Well, it depends on what the culture is of the bride and groom and which country it takes place in. And what youre calling "pagan" (for instance, is a traditional Buddhist marriage in a Buddhist country considered "pagan"?

Originally posted by saint4God
Torque - Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the decision against poligamy was a religious-based. When it was being voted on, a government official said the practice did not coincide with the Christian values this country was founded on. Apparently the law-makers agreed. I agree it does throw a wrench in the works when you try to justify that these days since the "separation of church and state" movement that started a few decades ago. By the way that phrase is not the law, it was a catch-phrase also started by a government official.

Original US statute on bigamy/polygamy: 'Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.'


The challenge to the law:

In 1879 a mormon polygamist was charged with bigamy under the statue listed above. He took his appeals all the way to the Supreme Court. Reynolds argument was based on his first amendment right to practice his religion in freedom without government intervention. He lost.

In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances....

This is an important decision because the court ruled against Reynolds stating that no man's religious beliefs are superior to his nation's laws.

It also shows that well over 100 years ago the Courts were seeking to draw a separation between church and state.

The other interesting footnote is the bigamy statute itself. Notice how it says a person can have only one wife or one husband at a time. It doesn't define that the wife or husband must be of the opposite sex.

BTW to Byrd: You're right bad choice of word. I should have noted supposed "pagan" or other cultural...

[edit on 10/8/04 by Bleys]

I think I'd be happier with a few concubines rather than getting married to multiple wives. Are concubines entitled to the same rights as a wife would be? Can they still take half?

well let me restate this... you fall in love, not with 5 women, but with one! Anyone who has ever been in love would know this. When in love, that one person is the center of your concentration. That is why Polygamy ISN'T human nature. I hate it when people try to lie because they wish they could have multiple partners. Do not CHEAT on your spouse! Read the 10 commandments! It isn't plural, it is singular, meaning only one. Just as Adam and Eve were only one. Then Jesus preaches only one, it is all over the walls people.