Should polygamy be legal?
If I want to live with two women and two other men, should we be allowed to all marry each other?

Our kids would have lots of loving parents, the separation of one parent (God forbid) would be less shattering for the children, our family would use less resources than if we were living spearately, and it won't be a source of tension when one parent doesn't want sex for a time, as long as there at least two who do!

yes but only if polyandry is also permitted

You're thinking of polygyny. Polygamy is the general term.

Polygyny (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polygyny) - more than one wife at a time
Polyandry (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polyandry) - more than one husband at a time
Polygamy (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polygamy) - more than one spouse at a time

Questions spring up all over the place.

First of all...why marriage at all? If you're with that many people, why be married. Marriage is 'sacred'. It's a union of two people for their lives. You're completely going against the point of marriage. And if you're with those other people, would sex with an outside person be looked down upon? I'm sure the type of person who would enter into a multiples marriage would not be hard pressed to sleep with someone outside the group. So if that is ok...why get married at all? Why not just live together?

Secondly...marriage is religious. Sure, coupling preceeds all current religions, but marriage is just a religious fixture. And the bible, the only religious book I know enough about to make claims, doesn't really look lightly upon polygamy. So, if you are religious...christian, you shouldn't do it. If you're not...there's really no point. Why not just all live together? Create your own ceremony. If it's not the government's business...good, just go ahead and have it be something that is special to you, and outside of the government's knowledge.

I'm all for multiple relationships...but I'm not religious.

First of all...why marriage at all? If you're with that many people, why be married. Marriage is 'sacred'. It's a union of two people for their lives. You're completely going against the point of marriage.Marriage is about a legal commitment, hypothetically for life. The number two is abritrary. You do know that polygamy is not exactly an unknown practice?

And if you're with those other people, would sex with an outside person be looked down upon? I'm sure the type of person who would enter into a multiples marriage would not be hard pressed to sleep with someone outside the group.If it was me, then sex with an outisde person would certainly be looked down on. Even more so, because the unfaithful one is threatening the health of not just one spouse, but several.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the type of person...". Yes, there are people who lean toward promiscuity. That's going to be a problem regardless of the legality of polygamy.

Secondly...marriage is religious. Sure, coupling preceeds all current religions, but marriage is just a religious fixture. And the bible, the only religious book I know enough about to make claims, doesn't really look lightly upon polygamy. So, if you are religious...christian, you shouldn't do it. If you're not...there's really no point. Why not just all live together? Create your own ceremony. If it's not the government's business...good, just go ahead and have it be something that is special to you, and outside of the government's knowledge.Mainstream Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on marriage! Marriage is a social institution just as much as a religious one. It's a legal contract between people that formalizes certain obligations between the parties concerned, with a primary goal of facilitating the upbringing of children.

Regarding religion, do you suggest that Islamic or Mormon polygamous marriages have no point? Regarding the Bible, polygyny is rampant. It's hardly frowned upon.

Yes, polygamy should be legal, but my question is, "Why would anyone do this?"

I can't even get along with one girlfriend. I couldn't imagine having half a dozen wives. I'd spend my entire day being bitched at for leaving the toilet seat up.

I think you'd need a few husbands to balance things out ;)

Legalizing it would only increase everyone's stress levels. I agree; do you realize how hard it is to get along with ONE?

Originally posted by Pete
Marriage is about a legal commitment, hypothetically for life. The number two is abritrary. You do know that polygamy is not exactly an unknown practice?

Gee...thanks for telling me that there are polygamists out there...I wasn't sure on that one. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Pete
If it was me, then sex with an outisde person would certainly be looked down on. Even more so, because the unfaithful one is threatening the health of not just one spouse, but several.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the type of person...". Yes, there are people who lean toward promiscuity. That's going to be a problem regardless of the legality of polygamy.

But what if your claim was that you wanted to bring that person into the marriage? Would that be ok then? What if you found someone that moved you, someone that took your breath away, and were already married to three other people? I know this can happen in monogamous marriages, but that usually ends in affairs or divorces. Would you divorce your group, or would you bring them in? What if they didn't agree with it.

Originally posted by Pete
Mainstream Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on marriage! Marriage is a social institution just as much as a religious one. It's a legal contract between people that formalizes certain obligations between the parties concerned, with a primary goal of facilitating the upbringing of children.

Marriage is based on religion. Sure, now people do it in a non-religious way. But in order to wipe out all religion, you would need to boot the priest, the rings, the vows (of sorts), the church, the general ceremony.... Ok...now with marriages liscenses it is a legal contract. And if you do it justice of the peace style, sure. But what I'm saying is...why marriage at all? Why not just be committed in your own minds. That's all you need. Tell your friends, tell your family, have a party. But why make it known to the gov't? They don't care. Unless your out for a tax reduction.

Originally posted by Pete
Regarding religion, do you suggest that Islamic or Mormon polygamous marriages have no point? Regarding the Bible, polygyny is rampant. It's hardly frowned upon.

Of course I don't think any marriage doesn't have a point. Everything that anyone does has a point, an end.

Could you tell me what highly looked upon biblical man had more than one wife? I mean, I could be wrong, I admit that openly. I would just like to see it for myself.

I tihnk we should abolish marriage from a legal sense and let people do whatever they want. If they want to get married because of religion fine, but remove any governmental sanctioning. I guess legalizing polygamy would be a step in that direction. More freedom is good.

But what if your claim was that you wanted to bring that person into the marriage? Would that be ok then?No, I wouldn't want to marry someone very promiscuous.What if you found someone that moved you, someone that took your breath away, and were already married to three other people? I know this can happen in monogamous marriages, but that usually ends in affairs or divorces. Would you divorce your group, or would you bring them in? What if they didn't agree with it.In the monogamy model, it is a central tenet that the situation you describe is inherently bad. You are not supposed to experience such attraction once married. Obviously, this is unrealistic - perfect soulmates are the stuff of fairytales and the extraordinarily lucky few.

There are limited responses to this situation in the monagamous model - clandestine affair, separation, or self denial. Acknowledgement that the situation even exists is frowned upon. If your spouse becomes aware of the situation, they will feel threatened and demeaned.

In the polygamous model, all the previous options remain, with the addition of marriage expansion. Acknowledgement of the situation is encouraged, current spouse/s will not feel as threatened, and will be more inclined to be supportive (that's what spouses are for). Naturally, marriage expansion is not something to be entered into lightly, and must be a unanimous decision.
marriage at all? Why not just be committed in your own minds. That's all you need. Tell your friends, tell your family, have a party. But why make it known to the gov't? They don't care. Unless your out for a tax reduction. Because if I'm making a lifelong commitment to someone, I want legal backing if they decide to run out.
Could you tell me what highly looked upon biblical man had more than one wife? I mean, I could be wrong, I admit that openly. I would just like to see it for myself.
Try a keyword search on 'wives' at www.biblegateway.org.
I IN a couple of minutes I came up with Solomon, David, Jacob, many miscellaneous kings and minor parties, as well as several laws in Deuteronomy regarding multiple wives.

Legalizing it would only increase everyone's stress levels. I agree; do you realize how hard it is to get along with ONE?
You wouldn't have to have more than one spouse (or any at all!) Stress levels could be interesting, though. I think there would be stress reductions as well as increases. More research is called for!

Originally posted by DarkEyedBeauty

Secondly...marriage is religious. Sure, coupling preceeds all current religions, but marriage is just a religious fixture. And the bible, the only religious book I know enough about to make claims, doesn't really look lightly upon polygamy. So, if you are religious...christian, you shouldn't do it.

Hah! are you for real? the bible is dominated by polygamy. there's not a major figure who doesn't have multiple wives and several unmarried mistresses on the side. solomon had enough wives and concubines to sleep with a different one every night for almost 3 years. he was married to 700 of them. mormons still adhere to god's command to build families by having multiple wives. they have the bible verses to prove it.

Wait, wait, wait....

Pete is talking about POLYGAMY. He clearly stated two men and two women. The bible does not condone that.

What the bible is alright with is polygyny, not with polyandry.

Polygamy - more than one spouse at a time

i misread the first post (actually i barely skimmed it :o). this definition is true.

Maybe you should read the thread before zipping in and assuming you've said anything of importance.

I have been saying now that polygamy is not condoned by the church. And it is not.

um.....i just copied and pasted the correct definition of polygamy. what you said it is, is not. the side note in my last post was directed to someone else (pete?)who pointed out that i meant polygyny earlier on, not to you. polygamy is more than one spouse, not two men and two women. and "the church" does condone it. pick up a bible. the church of latter day saints commands it actually. god you're dumb.
i'd like to offer you up some advice: "Maybe you should read the thread before zipping in and assuming you've said anything of importance."

Originally posted by DarkEyedBeauty
Maybe you should read the thread before zipping in and assuming you've said anything of importance.

I have been saying now that polygamy is not condoned by the church. And it is not.

What does it matter that it's not condoned by the church? neither is sex out of wedlock, abortion, homosexuality, worshipping fasle idols, laziness, or lying to name a few things. What the church thinks has nothing to do with the government. The only factor the gov't should consider is what the majority of the population thinks and if it's constitutional.

Hah! are you for real? the bible is dominated by polygamy. there's not a major figure who doesn't have multiple wives and several unmarried mistresses on the side. solomon had enough wives and concubines to sleep with a different one every night for almost 3 years. he was married to 700 of them. mormons still adhere to god's command to build families by having multiple wives. they have the bible verses to prove it.

The wives of Solomon turned him away from God. Also I don't think he was married to them all. I think many of them were just female servents but the bible specifically says concubines. In other cases, such as Abraham and Jacob, the bible shows marital disputes and Jelousy. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body." Also Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultry".

Originally posted by SwedishFish
um.....i just copied and pasted the correct definition of polygamy. what you said it is, is not. the side note in my last post was directed to someone else (pete?)who pointed out that i meant polygyny earlier on, not to you. polygamy is more than one spouse, not two men and two women.

Whispers as to not bring any negative attention to SwedishFish:

**Two men and two women, would equal, more than one spouse. He meant, that they would all be married. Aka: One of the men would be married to another man and two women...3=more than one.**

Originally posted by Mrhero54
What does it matter that it's not condoned by the church? neither is sex out of wedlock, abortion, homosexuality, worshipping fasle idols, laziness, or lying to name a few things. What the church thinks has nothing to do with the government. The only factor the gov't should consider is what the majority of the population thinks and if it's constitutional.

It only matters if someone is religious or going to have a 'religious' ceremony, because they would be contradicting their own beliefs or projected beliefs. Otherwise, it's fine. And I really don't think the government should be involved whatsoever.

Originally posted by okinrus
The wives of Solomon turned him away from God. Also I don't think he was married to them all. I think many of them were just female servents but the bible specifically says concubines. In other cases, such as Abraham and Jacob, the bible shows marital disputes and Jelousy.

Alright, this is what I was waiting for. I did think that I asked for 'good' men that had more than one wife, not men who were corrupted and later became good men. Thank you okinrus...

So, ancient malestream religious documents aside, should polygamy be legal?

Yes.

Oh please. Like your going to pay for all those children on wellfare. If you could prove that making polygamy legal would cause one suicide would you take it?

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/html/women/archive/issues12.html

Not to mention that Utah also has some high suicide rates.

Are you suggesting that legalizing polygamy would further marginalise women (more so than monogamy)?
That could be a valid point, but I don't think that it's supportable by pointing to highly anti-female cultures, where polygyny is a product of the culture.

What do you mean about children on welfare?

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy69.html
Polygamy is absolutly devastating. For most woman, having their partner go into another woman before there very eyes is adultry. Even if they somehow convince their concience their subconcience will betray them leading to a life of depression. Also usually this relationships start by man A marying wife B. Then after some time, man A decides to mary woman C. Wife B doesn't really want to but is basically forced into it.

The Utah case documents illegal polygyny in strictly religious patriarchal subsocieties. I don't consider the consequences generalisable to legal mainstream society.

You're concentrating on a male-dominated model of polygamy.
Why? It doesn't have to be that way.

I've never seen a female dominated polygamy. Most relationships today are male dominated anyways. What makes you think that the goverment can somehow control the natural tendancy for male sexual dominance.

OK. If the society in which I live is condemned to an enternity of implicit and explicit male dominance, then polygamy is a bad idea.

I sincerely hope it's not.

Originally posted by DarkEyedBeauty
Maybe you should read the thread before zipping in and assuming you've said anything of importance.

I have been saying now that polygamy is not condoned by the church. And it is not.

"Not condoned by the church" = "church bleats insignificantly about some issue, failing to sound authoritative and getting itself on the bad side of the news, like the pedophile era"

Like I said before, this only matters if you're religious, which I am not.

The more the marrier.

"Pete is talking about POLYGAMY. He clearly stated two men and two women. The bible does not condone that."

polygamy is quite simply multiple spouses which is either polyandry and polygyny. nowhere does it say that polygamy is two men and two women, it is nonspecific of sex or number.
as i stated before, almost all the major characters in the bible had many spouses, including the "good guys". god's favored kings all had hoards of them.

solomon was married to 700 of the women in his household (slightly over 1000). he had extensive foreign relations and it was custom for kings to give one of their daughters in marriage to another king to seal the deal, thus he collected lots of foreign (pagan) wives, who god feared would turn solomon away from him.

jacob had 2 wives (rachel and leah) and 2 concubines (bilhah and zilpah). his sons from these women became the 12 nations of israel and were rewarded richly by god (all of which also had multiple wives).

deu. 22.15 "If a man with two wives loves one and dislikes the other;..." this goes on to say that he owes property inheritance to the first son of the disliked wife even if he doesn't like her.

Samson's wife was married to the man who had been best man at their wedding. they were never divorced even though she married someone else. the end of the chapter says that he judged israel for 20 years. it doesn't come until later on that he disobeys god (in some other way) and is killed.

Saul gives David his daughter Michal in marriage. david later on marries abigail and ahinoam. Michal was given away without divorce to marry another man. after he becomes king, he also marries bathsheba. david was god's favorite king and is still held in high regard. it is played up that jesus is a decendant of david.

i'm sick of reading scrupture so i'm going to stop but you get the idea

I find the Bible's treatment of women abhorrent. Typical example:

Genesis 19:4-8
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

Originally posted by SwedishFish
polygamy is quite simply multiple spouses which is either polyandry and polygyny. nowhere does it say that polygamy is two men and two women, it is nonspecific of sex or number.

Swedish, I am going to die laughing at you. I AM NOT saying that it is specifically 2 and 2. Hahah! I am saying....2+2=4. Ok...so 1 person has 3 spouses. Alright? You still follow? Therefore, 3=multiple! It's that simple! Geez. One person married to 3 others is polygamy, A FORM OF IT.

Wow...didn't think I would have to spell it out.

Should polygamy be legal?

Sounds like a recipe for tax evasion/cheating on welfare. Just abolish the institution of marriage.

Swedish, I am going to die laughing at you. I AM NOT saying that it is specifically 2 and 2. Hahah! I am saying....2+2=4. Ok...so 1 person has 3 spouses. Alright? You still follow? Therefore, 3=multiple! It's that simple! Geez. One person married to 3 others is polygamy, A FORM OF IT.

*Shakes head*
Were you born this stupid or did it take effort to achieve?

Yes, illegal polygamy seems to be a hotbed of tax and welfare cheating, because the system doesn't have appropriate mechanisms to handle it, and because polygamous marriages are (naturally) not officially recorded.

If polygamy were legalised, there would need to be significant changes to the tax and welfare systems. I suggest that legal polygamous marriages would be less prone to cheating because the marriages would be duly recorded. Illegal relationship would still be a problem (as they are now).

Abolishing the institution would make the problem worse, as far as tax and welfare cheating goes.

I find the Bible's treatment of women abhorrent. Typical example:

You left out one critical step. You never proved that the bible, God or anyone else endorsed Lot's behavior. In fact, the angels pull him back. As is written, "and my angels will save you from dash your feet".


solomon was married to 700 of the women in his household (slightly over 1000). he had extensive foreign relations and it was custom for kings to give one of their daughters in marriage to another king to seal the deal, thus he collected lots of foreign (pagan) wives, who god feared would turn solomon away from him.

It is written in Deuteronomy that any future King of Israel should not take many wives because they will turn him away from God.

Not everything allowed in the Old Testament is completely rightous. While God may have allowed certain men to take more than one wive, we are under a new convenant. When asked why God allowed divorse at all, Jesus responded that the Law was made because of the hardness of their hearts. Logically if you divorse your wife and marry another that's considered adultry in the new testament. So if you marry another while still married then that's certainly adultry.

Lot is considered to be a righteous man (he was saved from Sodom after all). The angels pulled him back to save him, not to prevent him sacrificing his daughters. His actions were not directly condemned are therefore implicitly accepted.

And this is only one example. The Bible (the OT in particular but not exclusively) is Not A Very Nice Book as far as its attitude to women is concerned.

I agree with you that a marriage composed of one man and many women is not a good thing, particularly if that style of marriage is cuturally embedded.

...logically if you divorse your wife and marry another that's considered adultry in the new testament. So if you marry another while still married then that's certainly adultry.It doesn't follow. Jesus was speaking in the context of current Jewish culture, which folowed the monogamy model. He explicitly stated that divorce alone is bad, not remarriage alone. Extending this to a polygamy model, divorce is still wrong.

Notice also that the entire discussion on adultery and divorce in Matthew 5 is completely centred on the male viewpoint. Women don't get a look-in. There also appear to be discrepancies between Matthew 5, Matthew 19, and Mark 10.

Matthew 5: "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."
Notice the "except for unfaithfulness" clause, and that it's the woman who is the sinner.

Matthew 19: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Now both the man and woman are sinners. The unfaithfulness clause remains.

Mark 10:"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
And now the unfaithfulness clause disappears. Curious!

ahem. you were either joking here or are now trying to cover up that you thought this.

Originally posted by DarkEyedBeauty
Wait, wait, wait....

Pete is talking about POLYGAMY. He clearly stated two men and two women. The bible does not condone that.

What the bible is alright with is polygyny, not with polyandry.

Originally posted by okinrus

Not everything allowed in the Old Testament is completely rightous.

definitely. i think much of what is in the bible is horrific by our standards. but nevertheless it is in there that it was quite common and accepted for men to take many wives and bad things did not happen to them. it was just as acceptible for god's favorite people to have many wives.

i found one law today specifically addressing the case of multiple wives. i remember that there are tons others but your eyes start getting shifty and you talk in biblical speak after a while. maybe another day i'll hunt the other laws down. we studied a whole bunch of laws in a class i once took that protect women in areas of marriage, divorce, inheritance, children, becoming a widow. several directly address a married woman's rights in a household with other wives. i'm sorry i don't have them to quote.

maybe someone could find info about mormons and their religious basis for polygamy. that would be interesting.

Should polygamy be legal?
No. But only because divorces will become incredibly complex: asset division, child custody, etc. And then there are problems with inheritance, attention, etc. To legalize polygamy is to illegalize marriage, thus making this discussion pointless. Either no marriages or single partner marriages.

To legalize polygamy is to illegalize marriagePolygamy is marriage. You wouldn't have to have more than one spouse.

Yes, there would be an increase in compexity of related law. This may or may not be an insurmountable obstacle.

"To legalize polygamy is to illegalize marriage"
Polygamy is marriage. You wouldn't have to have more than one spouse

"To legalize polygamyis to illegalize marriage" ---This is not literal.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
ahem. you were either joking here or are now trying to cover up that you thought this.

Not joking, and not trying to cover up. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I have been trying to tell you, two men and two women married and living together is polygyny and polyandry at the same time. They are both forms of polygamy. The bible doesn't condone polyandry though, therefore does not condone all of polygamy. I mean, this 2 men 2 women household would not be religiously sanct.

I don't care if we don't understand each other anymore though. I'm not religious, so it personally doesn't matter.

definitely. i think much of what is in the bible is horrific by our standards. but nevertheless it is in there that it was quite common and accepted for men to take many wives and bad things did not happen to them. it was just as acceptible for god's favorite people to have many wives.

No, well you have to read the old testament just as a set of laws governing people who were once barbaric. Christ does came to fullfill the old laws. Paul says that no one by the law is rightous and it's true on several counts.


i found one law today specifically addressing the case of multiple wives. i remember that there are tons others but your eyes start getting shifty and you talk in biblical speak after a while. maybe another day i'll hunt the other laws down. we studied a whole bunch of laws in a class i once took that protect women in areas of marriage, divorce, inheritance, children, becoming a widow. several directly address a married woman's rights in a household with other wives. i'm sorry i don't have them to quote.

No. The new testament says that we should try to be celibrate. Only if we have to should we take a wife. 1 Corinthians 7:27 "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife. If you mary, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that. ... An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided." This seems to be talking about an unmarrieds marrying. So taking two or more wifes will not give someone enough time to serve God. We can't throw out common sense while reading the bible.

::siiiiigh:: i'm in no mood for hunting these laws down. maybe another day i'll be bored enough but i swear on my little pinky they exist. maybe you're working with the christian scriptures. i've studied the hebrew bible much more extensively than the christian one so that may be the problem. before jesus christ at any rate, jews were bound by laws that included rules on marriage that protected wives, some belonging to multiple wife families. there is one in particular forbidding a man from taking another wife if he cannot adequately provide for the ones he already has. there are laws preventing women from marrying more than one man (at a time) but there are several cases in the hebrew bible when it happens anyway.

jacob has to be the posterchild for polygamy. remember the story of working 7 years for one sister and another 7 years for the other?

::siiiiigh:: i'm in no mood for hunting these laws down. maybe another day i'll be bored enough but i swear on my little pinky they exist. maybe you're working with the christian scriptures. i've studied the hebrew bible much more extensively than the christian one so that may be the problem. before jesus christ at any rate, jews were bound by laws that included rules on marriage that protected wives, some belonging to multiple wife families. there is one in particular forbidding a man from taking another wife if he cannot adequately provide for the ones he already has. there are laws preventing women from marrying more than one man (at a time) but there are several cases in the hebrew bible when it happens anyway.

Yes I know that they exist. The law for the firstborn gives what to do when there is multiple wives.


Well it didn't turn out to be perfect mariage for Jacob. Genesis 30:1 "When Rachel saw that she failed to bear children to Jacob, she became envious of her sister."'

Genesis 30:14 "Leah replied, 'Was it not enough for you to take away my husband, that you must now take my son's mandrakes too."

What DarkEyed is saying is that the Bible condones (implicitly) a subset of polygamy, i.e. polygyny. Nowhere do you have a woman with multiple husbands, so saying that it condones polygamy, which would include polyandy, is technically incorrect. Don't make it more complicated than it is.

by Pete
Lot is considered to be a righteous man (he was saved from Sodom after all). The angels pulled him back to save him, not to prevent him sacrificing his daughters. His actions were not directly condemned are therefore implicitly accepted.
It's a narrative; were the attitudes of the Sodomites expressly condemned? A sexist attitude, while obviously not something you want, is not "evil." So Lot could have been sexist and still a "good man."

Stop referencing the Mormon church for polygamy! If you've read any news on the subject at all, like one of the articles posted here, you would know that it was banned in 1890. It's fringe groups that do it now.

by SwedishFish
definitely. i think much of what is in the bible is horrific by our standards. but nevertheless it is in there that it was quite common and accepted for men to take many wives and bad things did not happen to them. it was just as acceptible for god's favorite people to have many wives.

Here are two different stances on this, taken from the official LDS/Mormon literature (since you guys seem to be so interested in it):

Book of Mormon, Jacob, 2:23-28, snippets:
# This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. (i guess with only 2 wives, Jacob is too small fry.)
# Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and comcubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. . . . Wherefore, I the Lord will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, . . . there shall not be any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
# For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

Like Okinrus was saying.

Stance number two, justifying polygamy (sometime between 1831 and July 12, 1843. Previous quote is supposably from sometime between 544 and 421 B.C.), Doctrine and Covenants 132:34-39, snippets:

# God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law,; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
# Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
# Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
# Abraham received concubines, and they bore hm children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they didnone other things than taht which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
# David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
# David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife (Bathsheba); and, therefore, he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion, and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

un-proofreaded, excuse the many typos. As you can see, these are two conflicting views on the same topic, from the same LDS/Mormon scriptural compilation. (btw, you can decide yourself whether or not the first passage seemed to have the same "voice" as the Bible.) One supports polygamy (conditionally. full text not quoted here, and I don't care enough to even understand it myself.), or, more specifically, polygyny... the other condemns it. Which is right?

Or are they both right? :bugeye:

Which has exactly nothing to do with whether or not polygamy ought to be legalized. Oh well.

un-proofreaded, excuse the many typos. As you can see, this are apparently two conflicting views on the same topic, from the same LDS/Mormon scriptural compilation. (btw, you can decide yourself whether or not the first passage seemed to have the same "voice" as the Bible.) One supports polygamy (conditionally. full text not quoted here, and I don't care enough to even understand it myself.) , the other condemns it. Which is right?

The Mormon Church changed their code when the US congress forbid them to practice polygamy. I'm not sure what their official line is though.

Paul takes the stance of do nothing that would offend your other brothers. Since so many find polygamy offensive, it should not be done.

Timothy 3:1 "This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard..." It appears that "married only once" is on par with the other virtues.

AFAIK, the Mormon/LDS church continued to practice polygamy even after Congress forbade it (whenever that was); the Mormon/LDS church officially renounced the practice in 1890 in order that Utah might become a state. So the current stance is No polygamy.

Absolutly not!!!!!!!!
mulitple partners are fine if that's your thing but it should not be recognized buy religion or law!!!! Why would it be? If you believe in the sanctity of marriage enough to get married then you should also have an apreciation and a respect for it as well, those things cannot be had without the understanding of what it is or means, and a polymamist marriage is an oxymoron. If you try to trace the start of polygamy in marriage you would most deffinatly find it's roots in religion. As everyone knows , most religions do not accept sex without marriage, so for all of those religous people with the urge to have multiple sex partners, polygamy was the answer, right? I mean as long as you are haveing sex within a marriage you won't go to hell, right? i think it's tottally made up as a loupole for people to feel guilt free in "god's eye". People have manipulated the rules of religion to fit their sins for hundreds of years and now people are manipulating the "system". I do beleive in the fundamental origins of the sanctity of marriage and it's humorus that people think polygamy should be legal but not homosexual marriage.

Actually, dogpenis, if you trace the roots of religious marriage in the Bible back to the earliest recorded marriages, men having mulitple wives was commonplace. It is not something that came after the fact for justification of skirting God's rules, they WERE God's rules.

Actually, dogpenis, if you trace the roots of religious marriage in the Bible back to the earliest recorded marriages, men having mulitple wives was commonplace. It is not something that came after the fact for justification of skirting God's rules, they WERE God's rules.
"god's rules " have been filtered and altered and missinterpreted since the begining of the practice of documenting " god's rules"

Actually, dogpenis, if you trace the roots of religious marriage in the Bible back to the earliest recorded marriages, men having mulitple wives was commonplace. It is not something that came after the fact for justification of skirting God's rules, they WERE God's rules.
Also men haveing the uper hand in religion and society was also "commonplace" so of couarse the "laws" or " god's rules" would undoubtedly have to be somewhat suited to there desires, under the umbrella of reliogn of couarse

"god's rules " have been filtered and altered and missinterpreted since the begining of the practice of documenting " god's rules"

But since the acts of polygamy exist in the Bible, and this is exactly where we all get God's rules, for you to say the Bible has filtered, altered, or missinterpreted God's words is a bit silly. So if not for the Bible, and if one wants to throw it out the window due to it's corrupted alterations of God's words, exactly where are we going to learn God's true rules? :)

- N

, exactly where are we going to learn God's true rules?

Why that's easy .....we just ask Dogpenis!

Baron Max

I chose the option "yes, with limitations" because it is hard to demonstrate any sort of long-term committment for a family unit greater than 2 parents in size, but it may be very well possible.

If it is ever allowed, I will predict that tradition will reinstitute the 1-man, 2+women as the predominant kind of polygamous family, but also there might occasionally be a 1-woman, 2+-man relationship, although much rarer and more likely to break up.

But since the acts of polygamy exist in the Bible, and this is exactly where we all get God's rules, for you to say the Bible has filtered, altered, or missinterpreted God's words is a bit silly. So if not for the Bible, and if one wants to throw it out the window due to it's corrupted alterations of God's words, exactly where are we going to learn God's true rules? :)

- N
So do you really live your life doing and believing what the bible tells you to?incase you haven't paid that much attention to it , i'll fill you in, the bible is so full of contradictions. most people chose to believe the ones that suit them the best. now here is a question for you: if we are suposed to get " god's rules" from the bible, then where did they get them before the bible was writen? what about people who couldn't read? what about civilizations that were never exposed to this book of fairy tales? If your ideas of religion are so simple as to think that all you have to do is pick up a book and have all the answers laying in front of you , then you have been miss lead and you should try figuring things out on your own.

That question actually wasn't directed at you. I'm agnostic. :) It's directed towards those that follow the rules of the Bible only using your truthful comments to show the paradox of it all.

- N