Polygamy

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by getts, Jun 9, 2005.

  1. Yamayama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    Well, there you go people - you've witnessed it directly from the horse's mouth! ...someone in a long-term relationship telling us that being in an open relationship has had little other than a positive effect on their lives. Good for you I say! It's refreshing to read such an account; in contrast to the rhetoric I was receiving in the previous thread - e.g. people telling me "No, it [ i.e. polyamory ] is most definitely not a viable alternative for the 'many'". ....such 'definitive' terms seem quite out-of-place to me. Despite the fact that - in all fairness - they were merely answering the question I had posed (and for that I appreciate their response), I don't understand how someone, upon observing trends in society (divorce rates etc.), can claim that monogamy is the only viable option for most people!

    Also, I hope it didn't seem rude when I said I "don't see much point in getting married", but I have a question: if you were in your twenties again, would you marry the second time around? Personally, I find some of the arguments for marriage to be quite cynical - to argue for doing it for the 'legal' benefits for example. And aren't these alleged benefits to-a-large-extent offset by the possible bureaucratic and financial 'hell' associated with divorces (..as well as other likely inconveniences)? Also, fireguy_31 - in the previous thread - referred to the "economic stability, comfort, [and] security" associated with a monogamous relationship. This, to me, seems to be a profession that it all-too-often isn't about love (..which it is purported to be about) - or at least not to the extent that it is supposed to be. When such people then turn around and say that "open relationships are very superficial", are they not being somewhat hypocritical?

    --------------------------------

    Literature that people might be interested in:

    What seems to be a very interesting book on this topic (..or at least related to it) is: Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People. To give a quote from the book description:
    An appropriate quote - no?
    No, I haven't read it yet - I think attempting to digest an entire book merely in order to confirm something that seems quite obvious already is somewhat silly. The book description plus reviews comprise a nice bite-sized summary however!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    --------------------------

    To those who would defend monogamy, and 'closed' relationships:

    ......please, don't even bother (...not on the basis of my posts anyway) - there's no need to! I'm not arguing that monogamy isn't an option - what I am arguing is that it isn't the only option! To offer another quote from the editorial review of the afore-mentioned book:

    So ...yeah ...if you want to spend your entire life with one other person, then go for it - and all the best with that! ....but please don't prescribe the same rules for everyone else!

    --------------------------

    (...assuming that you haven't fabricated this entire scenario - care to provide references?) if you're implying here that polygamy/polyamory is associated with an increased tendancy to hold people against their will (...presumably for the purpose of sexual gratification - is that what you're implying?) then - in the vast majority of cases - the answer is obviously "no" - "one" most certainly "ain't got nothin' to do with the other"*!

    It's quite obvious, Baron, that no one here is advocating anything other than consensual relationships between adults; and trying to insinuate otherwise would be quite ignoble ...and - frankly - pathetic. Only a bitter, plotting coward would do that sort of thing! ...You're not one of those, are you?

    Encouraging people to draw societal-wide conclusions based on rare, isolated incidents - while ignoring everything else in society that pertains to the issue - is rarely, if ever, a legitimate method of debate.

    * I'm ignoring your double-negative by the way - and treating it as a single-negative
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2005
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    Sorry, Max, but the burden of proof falls on the positive claimant. If no evidence could be offerd for either case then the point is simply arbitrary and worthless. In this case the absence of any evidence simply counts toward certainty of non-existance. This is just logic here, not theology.

    If you'd like, though, you can go ahead and get really high and feel like you're getting into a really deep conversation about intelligent design or the like, but objective reality will continue to exist despite your own ego.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. getts Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    87
    To me, it is a simple fact of life....I am in corporate America, and I see it all the time. Monogamy does not work for the masses. It is amazing how many flowers get thrown in the trash on valentines day....I have had many women come up to me and ask if I would like to take flowers home to my wife, because they can't let their husbands know that their boyfriend sent them flowers. It is amazing to sit and observe the cheating that goes on around here. My boss, who was recently divorced, has always kept at least two (2) girlfriends on the side....and they both work here!!

    'Monogamy' may be the norm, but it isn't true monogamy....Just because you are married to one person and have sex behind that persons back does not a monogamous relationship make!

    The scary thing is STD's...My wife doesn't have to worry about me bringing something home, because she is always there to remind me to wear a condom (and she has had to remind me more than once!!).

    I just don't believe that, on the average, people are capable of monogamy. In a poll of 1,000 married women conducted by the Chosun Ilbo, the Korea Institute of Sexology, Pfizer and Research Plus, 63 percent of respondents said they could imagine having sex with a man other than their husband. Some 21 percent said they were sitting on the fence, and only 16 percent said they could never sleep with anyone other than their husband.

    Here are some other statistics:

    1 of every two marriages ends in divorce.
    Half of those marriages ended because of an affair.
    75% of men and women have had sexual fantasies about their co-workers.
    Half of those men and women carried out their fantasies!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Your comments stuck me as representative of our present agricultural based, patriarchal culture which we could call "family values". Things were not always so. An integrated community of males and females can raise children collectively. In this scenario, the "chaos" you describe would be properly termed an orgy. Attention to male lines of decent only occurred after the rise of agriculture with the subsequent accumulation of wealth and customs of inheritence.
     
  8. Enigma'07 Who turned out the lights?!?! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,220
    I'm not saying that evolution has a goal; I'm just saying that the only purpose a living being have is life is to pass on its genes to the next generation
     
  9. getts Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    87
    So, what do you say to people that are unable to reproduce?? They have NO purpose in life?

    That is a rather shallow outlook on life, in my opinion. Based on your statement, should we euthanize sterile people?? I think not!!
     
  10. jayleew Who Cares Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    How can you call your self Christian if you and your wife are swingers? If you are having sex with more than one woman, there is only one thing you can call yourself according to scriptures. Please explain!
     
  11. Yamayama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    Yes - a follower of the footsteps set by Jacob, David and Solomon!
     
  12. getts Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    87
    Exactly! If David could have concubines, why not swing? In reality, there is no difference between the practice of swinging and haveing concubines. I am certainly not cheating on my wife, she is there and in agreement with what I am doing....I am not sure what your position is on polygyny, but if it is the Biblical view, I am not sure why you woul dhave a porblem with swinging....
     
  13. jayleew Who Cares Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    Just because you see a Christian doing something (right or wrong), doesn't make it right. Go to chruch, you will see what I mean. Man wants his own way and forgets the way of God.

    The laws of Moses stated "Thou shalt not commit adultery." So, how did these men of God do this? Well, concubinage/polygamy wasn't meant to become what it did. The first act of adultery (which he called concubinage) was from Jacob, but it stemmed from Abraham's lack of faith in God, which he had lapses of ocassionally.

    Here's what happened:
    Concubinage first began when Abraham chose to have a child through Hagar. It was permitted in those days to do only in case of the wife be barren. Abraham screwed up! He thought that maybe a concubine was the way God wanted him to have a child. Well the price of this sin was costly, and still war is waged between the two sons of two nations today in the Middle East. Remember, sins are forgiven, but they are not excused. We all must ask for forgivennes for our own sins, as well as the sins of our father's.

    What happens to sin if left unrepented? The sins of the father become the sins of the son. Jacob, son of Abraham, took the first couple concubines and made his own law (not God's), but he took them for pleasure. Thus, polygamy was born. You see, the scipture gets distorted by man and man's traditions. Soon, it became tradition to have concubines. Then, David took concubines down the road, but it was the law of man for him to do so. Then Solomon, son of David, was the worst of them all.

    Concubinage was not God's intention, but the sin of man. Jesus came and cleared this mess up. Man messed with God's law. We mess it up even today. That is why we need a sacrifice of the most high.

    Adultery:
    Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

    Matthew 5
    27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    Jacob, David, and Solomon were under the laws of Moses. Jesus came to perfect the law. He narrowed the law further and said: even if you allow yourself to think of adultery and take pleasure in it, you are already guilty of it.

    Look what man did with the laws of Moses. What a distortion! It didn't happen right away, just like today. We are inching toward our own desctruction. We are still paying for Adam's sin AND Abraham's sin. Goodness! When are we going to learn that we cannot play God and mess with God's laws and bend them to fit our lifestyle. Everyone in history did it. When are we going to learn?

    Thank God for Jesus Christ.
     
  14. jayleew Who Cares Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    The footsteps are laden with sin started by Abraham. Follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ and you can never go wrong.
     
  15. getts Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    87
    I have a few questions for you.....what verse states that it is ok to have a concubine only in cases of a barren wife? I have read the Bible through, and can't seem to recall that one.....Please provide book, chapter, and verse....

    Secondly, for concubinage to be 'immoral' and 'sinful', polygyny would have to be sinful. God even commanded polygyny, so how can it be sinful? You doubt me?? I thought so....look at the Leverite marriage. When a married man dies, his brother is to marry him....if he does not, his sister in law can take him to the city gate.....and call him the 'man with no sandal' (What that means, I don't know, but obviously it was bad back then). The Bible does not state 'if the brother is not married, he must'.....it simply says 'he must'.

    God told David that he would have gladly given him more wives than he already had if he had only asked.....Would God really give David something that would be sinful?????
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2005
  16. jayleew Who Cares Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    I didn't say it was God's law, I said it was permitted in those days by the law of man. The Code of Hammurabi, which we have archeological findings of the law of man:
    http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/topics/arch2.htm

    Abraham, in his worldly wisdom, thought maybe God wanted to work in that way, so he took it upon himself at the request of his wife.
    Hagar was the property of Sarai, given by the Egyptions.

    Polygamy and concubinage are the same thing, sinful and are laws of man, not of God.
    The Leverite Marriage Law is not polygamy, it is for a widow that doesn't have an heir. It was established to keep the lineage. How do you equate the two? It is not the definition of polygamy. The brother-in-law is to have a firstborn with her, in the name of the dead husband. He is not to wed her. Read Deuteronomy 25 again!

    Today, if your wife dies (God forbid), you CAN marry another. The Leverite Marriage Law is not polygamy or concubinage, which are both laws of men.

    As far as God offering more wives. Where do you get that? Nathan (from God) told David that he WAS given his master's wives. God was not pleased with the laws of men, which legalized concubines, but they were given to David because women were property of the husband in that time. God did not say he would have given him more if he asked. If he has, please provide the reference.

    We cannot equate the traditions of that time with today, nor should we seek more sinful ways, such as times of old. Jesus came and cleared up the mess that man left. The laws of Moses (other than the Ten Commandments) are made from the hand of Moses, who combined the laws of God with the traditions of the day. This is one of the reasons Jesus came.
     
  17. getts Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    87
    AGAIN, the Bible does not state...'If you are an unmarried brother, you must marry your dead brothers wife', it simply state that you MUST marry your brothers wife. So, if you already have a wife, you would then have two wives, therefore......ding, ding, ding!!! POLYGYNY!!!!!!! See, wasn't that easy??

    He is not to wed her??? What Bible do you read???

    King James:
    the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her

    New Living Translation:
    and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Instead, her husband's brother must marry her and fulfill the duties of a brother-in-law.

    New American Standard:
    has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be {married} outside {the family} to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.


    How can you possibly say that Deut 25 says he is not to marry her?? It CLEARLY states it in the above bold passages. YOU need to re-read Deut 25....

    As far as God being willing to give more, the scripture is 2 Samuel 12:8....
    'I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if {that had been} too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!

    so, where in the NT (When Jesus came to clear this mess up) does Jesus 'ban' polygyny?
     
  18. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Yamayama, have you ever seen how bonbons act (sorry if i misspelt that) They screw to show dominance, to bring tribe together, basically anywhere we would use a hand shake

    and dolphines screw for entertainment and pleasure
     
  19. jayleew Who Cares Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    I stand corrected. It does say to wed, but it is not important today since the law is not from God. It doesn't change the fact that it is not the intentions of God, it was the intentions of Moses, who is not God and many times made mistakes.

    God doesn't change his mind when it comes to morality. He does not ever say to one generation, Polygamy is okay and then send his Son to abolish it. Jesus came to abolish the laws of men that are distorted truth of God.

    Do you want to follow Abraham, David, Jacob, Adam, Solomon, Paul, and Peter, or do you want to follow God? Saying that it was okay to do something back then makes it okay today opens the door for lots of stuff. All these good men screwed up, does that make it okay for me to screw up too?

    That is a little vague to be gambling on. "More things like these" If I gave you a penny, nickle, and dime, and I said I will give you more things like these, what might I give you? I may give you the same, but I might give you a quarter. You are gambling on the terminology used there.

    Jesus said in Matthew 5:
    27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    Adultery:
    Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

    ANY sex outside of marriage is adultery.

    I have to admit, that this argument is weak against Polygamy. But as with everything that is unclear, it is better error on the side of God:
    Romans 14:
    22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

    Still, as far as the Bible is concerned, God has, from the beginning, meant for one man and one wife and it is the laws of man that have made their own traditions. The only verse in the Bible that has a small chance of being pro-polygamy is the one you quote in 2 Samuel 12:8. Which side do you error on?
    Your own side? Again and again: The hearts of men look only to themselves, and many times to themselves for morality.

    In the United States, polygamy is not legal.

    I would be less concerned for you, if you had two wives and were in a Polygamous marriage, but you said instead that you have an "open" marriage. So, I must question you again. How can you be a Christian and have a non-polygamous, open, marriage?
     
  20. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    and what about those who think that god is a myth? why the hell should WE care what god says?
     
  21. getts Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    87
    Maybe 'open' is too strong of a word. We have a select few folks that we swing with....therefore they are the modern day equivelent of our concubines.
     
  22. jayleew Who Cares Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    Do you feel better that you call them a concubine? That's like saying you tell "white" lies so you can sleep at night. Concubinage got the men of the old testament into trouble. If that is they way you wish to live, I am no one to say otherwise. Your sin blinds you and I pity you. I have been there, I know what it is like to be blinded by sin. It is between you and God.

    I can tell you from experience that this kind of sin with destroy you. But there's hope! In my destruction, God rebuilt a stronger foundation. One that has withstood the storms!!!
     
  23. Arditezza Banned Banned

    Messages:
    624
    I personally feel that honesty with the person you love, and understanding is more important than staying sexually faithful. I personally have not wanted to have sex with anyone other than my husband since we have been together. I simply don't feel the need. The sex is good and open, and it's fun. Why would I go anywhere else? I also know what kind of person I am, and that is a very emotional one. Sex, even for pleasure is a bond for me. So I don't indulge in swinging type behaviour because I personally know that it would cause me confusion. I don't think that others are like me, and I don't blame them for searching out other partners other than their own. And as long as you are open with your partner about your needs and wants, I see no harm. It's personally not for me, but who are we to judge others?

    I am also a strong believer in polygory. I think that in cases outside the Mormon cults in Utah, they can be very healthy loving relationships for all people involved. And why not? Open your mind and think about it... wouldn't it be nice to have a night off from your relationship and responsibilities and have a night to yourself to enjoy? Wouldn't it be grand to share your chores with another in the family to make the burden easier? I wouldn't mind a big family if I had someone to share in the responsibility. I'm a great cook, but I suck at laundry and it would be nice to have someone to cover the areas that I lack to make my burden less. It's really the same concept of communal living, except that there is also sexual contact and love. But I feel that you could all easily love each other, albeit just for company or for something more. As long as you were honest with each other, there wouldn't be a problem.
     

Share This Page