The case for polygamy

[lucky4034]

First define "immoral".

Not conforming to accepted standards of morality


So.... again, why is Gay Marriage or Polygamy immoral?

How have you or the population in general come to the conclusion that Gay Marriage or Polygamy are immoral?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Slaves were not a moral issue. Slaves were an economic issue.

Slavery was, and remains, very much both a moral and an economic issue. Much like theft, an economic benefit stemming from an immoral act. To say its simply one or the other denies the obvious reality. Slavery exists for its economic benefits, but the act of holding slaves is an immoral act in the eyes of the majority.

Simply go read some of the anti-slavery pamphlets during the abolitionist movement in this country and note that they attacked slavery on both fronts. They would point out how immoral it is to separate families, whip slaves, etc and simultaneously call for boycotts of slave produced goods.

 

[CathyInBlue]

[What BBI sed]

If you don't think there was a huge moral facet to the institution of slavery, at least in 18th-19th century America, then you need to reflect on the origin and implications of the phrase, "White man's burden".

 

[Bunnykid68]

Slavery was, and remains, very much both a moral and an economic issue. Much like theft, an economic benefit stemming from an immoral act. To say its simply one or the other denies the obvious reality. Slavery exists for its economic benefits, but the act of holding slaves is an immoral act in the eyes of the majority.

Simply go read some of the anti-slavery pamphlets during the abolitionist movement in this country and note that they attacked slavery on both fronts. They would point out how immoral it is to separate families, whip slaves, etc and simultaneously call for boycotts of slave produced goods.

Yep, taking someones freedom, freedom of any kind from them is immoral

 

[T4rdV4rk]

The case for polygamy in the OT was that it was the beginning of civilization and there were not very many people around. It is eaiser to increase your population quickly when there are several females to every male since he can impregnate multiple women at the same time.

There were so few people that many of the OT heroes married their sisters (Abraham and Sara) or their first cousin (Jacob and Leah/Racheal).

It would also help that they had 900 year life expectancies!

 

[Hotdoger]

Not conforming to accepted standards of morality


So.... again, why is Gay Marriage or Polygamy immoral?

How have you or the population in general come to the conclusion that Gay Marriage or Polygamy are immoral?

Prop 8 in California was voted on and passed twice.

Do you think their morals did not have an effect in their vote AGAINST homosexual marriage?

 

[Hotdoger]

Not conforming to accepted standards of morality


So.... again, why is Gay Marriage or Polygamy immoral?

How have you or the population in general come to the conclusion that Gay Marriage or Polygamy are immoral?

immoral. : licentious or lascivious.


1.
sexually unrestrained; lascivious; libertine; lewd.
2. unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral.

3. going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules.

 

[steveh_131]

immoral. : licentious or lascivious.


1.
sexually unrestrained; lascivious; libertine; lewd.
2. unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral.

3. going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules.

You use Webster's Dictionary to determine objective morality?

 

[lucky4034]

You use Webster's Dictionary to determine objective morality?

No... there is another source from which it comes. A source that has no business in politics or law making, ergo neither does marriage.

 

[BigMatt]

immoral. : licentious or lascivious.


1.
sexually unrestrained; lascivious; libertine; lewd.
2. unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral.

3. going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules.

So when a man marries two women, all bets are off? He can have sex with whomever he chooses?

 

[Cameramonkey]

On some levels, I dont see a HUGE problem with polygamy. The author below made some pretty compelling arguments for it.

For years they have said mult-generational households provide better upbringing of children than a one or two parent household. How is having two mommies and a daddy that much different than mommy, daddy and grandma (or auntie/uncle, etc) in the same house raising them?

Personally I dont think I would want to practice it myself... I dont want yet another woman to nag me... LOL

Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all. - Slate Magazine

 

[CathyInBlue]

[flame retardant long johns on]

My understanding of human neurophysiology tells me that the human brain is wired for true intimacy, physical, emotional, etc. with just one other of our fellows. fMRI studies done on the subject showed that when a person is confronted with facts/ideas that their intimate partner has been similarly intimate with another, areas of the brain lit up in a manner substantively similar to the brain registering physical pain. Jealousy is pain by another name. It is for this reason that I do not support plural marriage. It's just not supported by human nature.

That being said, it's not a good idea to outlaw a thing just because a tiny sample of all human beings to date have been shown to be wired such that the thing will fail. There's nothing that says there aren't a sizeable minority of humans for which polyamory does not end up registering as jealousy, thus for whom plural marriage could work.

Until wider studies on people in polyamorous relationships show that there is not a neurological jealousy reaction in everyone, I will continue to predict that all plural marriages are on some level emotional shams and doomed to failure.

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[trgore]

it would not bother me at all. More then one parent is not a bad thing. It has been said that "it takes a village to raise a child" I would rather see polygamy then gay marriage. At least the Supreme Court did mostly the right thing but upholding the states rights. If you live in a state that has not defined marriage then get out and organize for what ever you believe in

 

[Hotdoger]

You use Webster's Dictionary to determine objective morality?

Since any reference to a religious supreme being is forbid on INGO. that will have to be it.

BTW It was in response to Lucky4043's definition. Why don't you respond ?

 

[Hotdoger]

So when a man marries two women, all bets are off? He can have sex with whomever he chooses?

?

 

[Birds Away]

So when a man marries two women, all bets are off? He can have sex with whomever he chooses?

In reality he will probably have little or no sex at all. They will gang up on him and make him even more miserable than if he had just one driving him insane.


That's like believing that marriage improves your sex life.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In reality he will probably have little or no sex at all. They will gang up on him and make him even more miserable than if he had just one driving him insane.


That's like believing that marriage improves your sex life.

Reminds me of that old joke of the reasons why the groom and bride are so happy on their wedding day....

 

[BigMatt]

?

You definition included sexually unrestrained. That makes it sound like a polygamist can go out and have sex with whomever he choses.

 

[TEK]

I used to be a liberterian. I'm not anymore. I dont have to justify this-- when you are a liberterian one sees oneself as dogmatically correct and other people as self deluding, dishonest, etc. Generally liberterians are just people who are too young to have the sense to understand why everybody else isn't.

Anyhow, I also used to be a federalist-- pro-tenth amendment, and I still am in the sense that I recognize the legitimate existence of two sovereign governments here, one state and one the United States; and that obviously the US is supreme on certain questions. How do you decide what is properly local, versus federal. What is enumerated, blah blah blah. Constitutionalist stuff, I can let somebody else talk about the tenth amendment. There's a lot of examples in history of good confederacies and good federatoins working well, from the time of the Pelopennesian wars, to the Holy Roman Empire, to the American republic. Probably the best shining example of confederation/ federation is the Swiss model. Americans of today are ignorant of how William Tell (a shooter btw) and the Swiss model influenced early American constitutionalist thinking. Today you will get the multiculturalists saying it was the Haudenosee that set the example and nobody knows what a canton is. That is sad. The early American Schweitzerdeutsche were many, and they knew, too bad their descendants dont.

As I get older it seems to me that there is nothing really all that wonderful about federations and that the Roman/ Napoleonic model of unitary government has a lot to commend it. I used to think it was bad or something. Like metric. Well today I think metric is pretty clever and the napoleonic unitary model of government is not necessarily bad. Form and content are related but form is not a substitute for a lack of content.

On the other hand, as I get older I am also more and more suspicious of the secular republic idea. I see a lot of honesty in a system like England or Costa Rica or Germany where there are established churches. These lend a sense of shared cultural continuity and moral guidance that is totally lacking among the diverse population in America. I dont see a place like Costa Rica out there abusing non-Catholics, either. I dont see the trend of Russian govenrment to supporting the Russian Orthodox Church as all that bad. I dont see the Israelis as necessarily horrible just for wanting their own jewish state, although, I find it interesting how they manage that considering the secular and atheist inclinations of early zionism. I dont break out into a cold sweat over the "mullahs" of Iran. For most of history governments have HAD a religious orientation, as opposed to the modern era since 1776 and 1789, where the official religious orientation of government was actually sincerely against the past religious idiom of the population. I am not so sure that the 1st amendment is the glorious blessing that Americans reflexively believe it to be. Not anymore.

Whats more, in a supposed level playing field, lets be honest, not all religious communities will be treated fairly. Money and power and skills and influence will always affect the orientation of the powers that be against private organizations. So that is kind of a silly pretense oh ok "ideal" that our government has operated under from beginning; and to me it is just something like a hypocritical falsehood. There have always been dominant religious idioms in our country, clearly at the outset it was something like freemasonry and deism on one hand, on another Dutch Reformed/ Scots Presbyterianism; and on a third axis the quasi-tory Anglican elements that took the Patriot side. To me freemasonry and Deism eventually became preeminent, as Calvinism declined; and I have seen it persuasively argued that the civil rights era signalled the waxing power of secular jewish liberalism, today manifesting itself as much in the notion expressed by the vice president's intermperate remarks as anything.

So is the system truly neutral as Supreme court cases insist that it should be? I doubt it ever was or ever will be. Perhaps a more sincere and honest government system would simply be a confessional state that had an outright religious bias. One would hope that nonbelievers were not molested and oppressed in such a state, and that individual conscience was respected; but an open bias in favor of one religious orientation might be a more honest system worth reconsidering.

For Catholics, that was indeed the aim of the 30 years war, and while Westphalia ended the attempt to recapture northern europe, I am not sure that the dogmatic orientation of the Church ever really changed-- the Gospel has Christ saying that he was given "all power on heaven and Earth" and while he also talks about "give Caesar his due" there is an explicit statement made that the overall power of Christ is greater than the temporal power of Pilate and that the crucifixion could not happen without the consent of the Christ. That is what I believe is encompassed in the Catholic notion of "Christ the King" and what the Greek Orthodox called "Christos Pantakrator," -- the Pantakrator, was the Emperor; the Emperor of the Universe. That implies power on heaven and earth and that the moral law of Christianity should be a positive law that guides the legislation of states as much as anything else. Today I realzie most Catholics (and Orthodox in the USA) are squarely behind "religious freedom" but I am not so sure that is what their faith really demands.

I am sure this will **** a lot of people off, but I felt like saying it for a long time now, and now that this decision has come down, perhaps it would be better for Christians to stop beating around the bush about all this social legislation and pretending that the 1st amendment is not in some measure inherently anti-Christian. I think it was and it is. jefferson was a freemason and a Deist and those are clearly condemned by the Roman Catholic church as manfiestations of the heresy of indifferentism. The peopole pushing hard to widen and deepen this notion of non-establishmnent and rigours "separation of church and state" to use his words, have in the 20th century very much NOT been Christians. If you take a look at the roster of big name ACLU lawyers the past 30 years that will be absolutely obvious. I am not going to state the obvious but if you know what I am talking about then you probably understand at the same time why some poeple have seen it in their group interest to push to deepen the secularism of the American society and they have very much accomplished their goal over time.

Anyways, like it or not, I have a right as an American to say maybe the 1st amendment isnt all its cracked up to be and maybe we woudl be better off if Christian religious morality in fact did play a more defining role in our social legislation. Maybe it is just chicken and cowardly for Christians not to just come out and say that and constantly be circlign the idea without closing in upon it explicitly.

I offer these remarks for people to consider in light of the importance of truthfulness and sincerity in communication.

 

[Hotdoger]

You definition included sexually unrestrained. That makes it sound like a polygamist can go out and have sex with whomever he choses.

immoral. : licentious or lascivious.


1.
sexually unrestrained