Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy

[BVS]

Im against both for different reasons.

dbs

But you use religion to justify your stance, you want YOUR religion's definition. Well once you argue anything on religious grounds then other religions have to be welcome...

 

[Liesje]

I've nothing against polygamy. The Bible does not condemn it, so I can't even make a religious argument against it, even if it's something I'd never personally do.

I think it's very much appropriate in certain cultural contexts. For example, in Tanzania there are three forms of legal marriage, polygamy being one. This is because the majority of the population is more traditional, culturally, so women have no chance outside of their marriage. In many cases, a wife's sister will be widowed and she will beg her husband to take the sister as a wife. If not, she has nothing, no power, no money, and dies of starvation. Most times, the wives help choose the new wives, or even say to the husband "We had 15 kids, I don't have enough time to cook and care for all of them, you must take another wife." How is it Christian to tell a woman that polygamy is wrong and she should starve to death, have all her children and possessions taken, and be disowned by her family rather than join a marriage, because that's just gross?

The problem I have with the Western view of polygamy being wrong is that we're using our social norms to define something that's not even part of our culture. It's like using a cookbook to determine whether a math equation is correct. We get married for love and companionship, but in many cultures, marriage is about security, power, and bearing children. There's no point in arguing which one is right or wrong, because they are both appropriate for different groups of people, thus there is more than one "right" form of marriage.

I'm not sure what purpose polygamy has as part of Western culture. It seems like it would just create a hotbed of lawsuits and questioning rights as far as custody of the children if the marriage ever split. However, I don't feel it's my place to say definitively that polygamy is right or wrong.

 

[CTU2fan]

Why not polygamy? As long as it's consensual, I don't have an issue with it. Legalize prostitution while we're at it...but that's an issue for another thread.

 

[AEON]

Why not polygamy? As long as it's consensual, I don't have an issue with it. Legalize prostitution while we're at it...but that's an issue for another thread.

I agree. While we are at it - let's let brothers and sisters marry. As long as it is consensual - anything goes! How about whole towns? Cities? States? Just think of the wonderful, consensual possibilities!


Just curious - who said 18 should be legal? In some states it 16. Why not 14? 11? 4? 1? Who are we to judge?

Actually - who said mutual consent is a requirement? Where in the world did this dumb rule come from? All throughout history women never had consent. I say - if I point at you - you are now my wife!

 

[nathan1977]

Why not rewind and go back to how marriage was defined in the Pentateuch? ... As I noted, Jewish law defined "adultery" as a married woman cheating on her husband, not the other way around. As such, it was fully lawful to take more than one wife.

Off-topic here, but Melon has noted incorrectly. (I'm only pointing out scripture because he brought it up.) Leviticus 20:10 -- the basis for Jewish law -- says, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." (Deuteronomy has a different law in the case of rape, in which the rapist is put to death.) Jesus places the burden of adultery squarely on the man's shoulders in Matt 5:27-28 -- "if any of you looks at a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart."

Just sayin'...

 

[AEON]

Off-topic here, but Melon has noted incorrectly. (I'm only pointing out scripture because he brought it up.) Leviticus 20:10 -- the basis for Jewish law -- says, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." (Deuteronomy has a different law in the case of rape, in which the rapist is put to death.) Jesus places the burden of adultery squarely on the man's shoulders in Matt 5:27-28 -- "if any of you looks at a woman with lust, has already committed adultery in his heart."

Just sayin'...

Melon has mis-represented so many Bible versus I would have to drop school to respond to each one of them.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I agree. While we are at it - let's let brothers and sisters marry. As long as it is consensual - anything goes! How about whole towns? Cities? States? Just think of the wonderful, consensual possibilities!


Just curious - who said 18 should be legal? In some states it 16. Why not 14? 11? 4? 1? Who are we to judge?

Actually - who said mutual consent is a requirement? Where in the world did this dumb rule come from? All throughout history women never had consent. I say - if I point at you - you are now my wife!

Great, now you start with some kind of anarchy. Good point!

 

[Dreadsox]

Melon has mis-represented so many Bible versus I would have to drop school to respond to each one of them.

Wow...

Thank goodness we have so many loving Christians here to make sure its all right.

Maybe he can follow your advice and become a Priest so that he can get ejucated

 

[AEON]

Great, now you start with some kind of anarchy. Good point!

What is wrong with anarchy? Who ever said anarchy was wrong?

 

[Dreadsox]

I think our society is pushing us to a place where this may be necessary in the future.

Without sounding sexist I think with the two income homes our children are suffering. They are absent a parent much of the time. I also think it unreal that even with dual income families it is insane to me how much families are struggling to make ends meet.

I am thinking outside the box, but there was a time when kids received the parental guidance at home, and more and more it is not happening. I think of children picked up from day care at 6:00 PM. Leaving very little time for contact with Mom or Dad in the evening time.

There may be an advantage to a polygamous relationship that provides a family unit some stability.

I am not for it in reality, but there are some benefits.

 

[Vincent Vega]

In my view it is acceptable to legalize different ways of marriage, but of course nobody will say that there are no borders at all.

The harming effects of inzest to the new born are well known, so you can't just connect this with polygamy.

It's also well known that a society needs some rules and conception to function as a whole.
That's why anrachy won't work.


But I know that you know that

 

[yolland]

Off-topic here, but Melon has noted incorrectly. (I'm only pointing out scripture because he brought it up.) Leviticus 20:10 -- the basis for Jewish law -- says, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." (Deuteronomy has a different law in the case of rape, in which the rapist is put to death.) Jesus places the burden of adultery squarely on the man's shoulders in Matt 5:27-28 -- "if any of you looks at a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart."

Just sayin'...

I think melon's point was that the definition of adultery rested on the marital status of the woman involved, whereas the marital status of the man was irrelevant. Any man who had sex with a married or betrothed woman (other than his wife/fiancee) was an adulterer--regardless of whether he was himself married/betrothed or not. But if a married man had sex with an unmarried/unbetrothed woman, it was not adultery (though still a crime). Whereas it was not possible for an unmarried/unbetrothed woman to be an adulteress, even if the man she had sex with was married. That seemed pretty clear from melon's post on the same topic in the Elton John thread.

 

[Ormus]

Off-topic here, but Melon has noted incorrectly. (I'm only pointing out scripture because he brought it up.) Leviticus 20:10 -- the basis for Jewish law -- says, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." (Deuteronomy has a different law in the case of rape, in which the rapist is put to death.) Jesus places the burden of adultery squarely on the man's shoulders in Matt 5:27-28 -- "if any of you looks at a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart."

Just sayin'...

Look at the key words there. "A man" and "another man's wife." Not "another woman's husband." And, let's remember the last key phrase, "Jewish law."

Jewish law defined adultery, as written in the Ten Commandments, as a man, whether married or unmarried, having sex with a married woman.

Don't believe me?

http://koshersex.com/adultery.html

In Judaism, according to Rabbi Gold, "Adultery is the ultimate crime against the family." Contemporary as it may be, adultery is still the leading cause of dismantling the family unit. Rabbi Gold addresses three very interesting problems in the Torah’s view of adultery:

1) Gold argues that there exists a double standard: Halakha defines adultery as a sexual encounter between a married woman and a man not her husband. An affair between a married man and a single woman is not considered adultery.

2) Jewish Law does not forgive: The Rabbis have ruled that a woman who commits adultery becomes forbidden to both her husband and her lover. Nevertheless, Rabbi Gold says, "Tshuva, to return to the path is, a major principle in Judaism, and therefore, after an affair, the couple should get a second chance and rebuild trust--if possible."

3) Children (the innocent victims) pay for the actions of their parents: A child born of adultery becomes a mamzer or bastard, and is forbidden to marry a legitimate Jew. Mamzerut presents a tremendous problem for Jews today because of the high divorce rate among couples. Women remarrying without getting a Jewish divorce are considered by Jewish Law as engaging in adulterous relationships, and children from such marriages are labeled mamzers. Talmudic Rabbis bend over backwards to ignore proof of Mamzerut, reserving judgment to keep the legitimacy of the child intact. Today, even Orthodox Rabbis look for technicalities to remove the stigma of mamzerut.

And, Nathan, I'm actually going to thank you for bringing up Deuteronomy, because you're going to illustrate this double standard perfectly.

Like you said, Deuteronomy has a different law in the case of rape, in which the rapist is put to death--but only when the victim is a married woman.

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife.

"If, however, it is in the open fields that a man comes upon such a betrothed maiden, seizes her and has relations with her, the man alone shall die. You shall do nothing to the maiden, since she is not guilty of a capital offense. This case is like that of a man who rises up against his neighbor and murders him: it was in the open fields that he came upon her, and though the betrothed maiden may have cried out for help, there was no one to come to her aid. -- Deuteronomy 22:22-27

Take notice that urban rape of a married woman involves killing both the rapist and the victim, while a rural rape only kills the rapist. Either way, like you said, Deuteronomy does provide a punishment for the rapist...except when it comes to the rape of an unmarried woman:

"If a man comes upon a maiden that is not betrothed, takes her and has relations with her, and their deed is discovered, the man who had relations with her shall pay the girl's father fifty silver shekels and take her as his wife, because he has deflowered her. Moreover, he may not divorce her as long as he lives." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29

So not only is the rapist not punished, but the victim is forced to marry him!

As for Jesus' quote in Matthew, that has nothing to do with my point. Jesus redefined adultery to make it a mutual offense with the husband and the wife--and that has nothing to do with my original point about Jewish law.

Hope you found this to be informative.

 

[Ormus]

Melon has mis-represented so many Bible versus I would have to drop school to respond to each one of them.

You might as well drop out of school, because it's apparent that your Biblical scholarship from them is painfully lacking.

 

[AEON]

Wow...

Thank goodness we have so many loving Christians here to make sure its all right.

Maybe he can follow your advice and become a Priest so that he can get ejucated

I have no choce but to question the conclusions that Melon arrives at because his motivation will will always cloud his judgement. He said himself:

Orignally posted by Ormus
It wasn't enough to appeal to religious freedom. No, I had to start citing the Bible. So I started taking it upon myself to study the Bible, so I could start arguing at your level.

It's easy to specifically target Bible versus to prove your point. It is quite another thing to throw yourself into the entire text and ask God to illuminate it to you - to spend countless hours studying the Greek background of a specific word.

Melon has found in the Bible a justification for what he wanted to believe before he studied it. David Koresh can do that. Jim Jones can do that. Heck, I used to do it.

Melon studies the Bible in order to argue that homosexual sex will not be considered sin. The pastors I know, and the pastor I want to be, study the Bible to comfort a family who has lost a young child, to bring people to close relationship with Christ, and to quite simply - lead them to God's agenda for their lives.

Melon is ovbiously quite intelligent. I actually have no doubt that some day - if he so wanted, he would make a good priest. I mean that with all sincerity. However, he has to look at the Bible not as a tool to cut and paste to defeat conservatives - but as the genuine, living, breathing Word of God.

 

[Ormus]

Melon is ovbiously quite intelligent. I actually have no doubt that some day - if he so wanted, he would make a good priest. I mean that with all sincerity. However, he has to look at the Bible not as a tool to cut and paste to defeat conservatives - but as the genuine, living, breathing Word of God.

Flowery condescension? Check!

Refusal to acknowledge non-fundamentalist Christian denominations? Check!

I started arguing at a fundamentalist level, contrary to my own theological background, out of the assumption that "fundamentalism" meant a strict adherence to the text of the Bible. As such, I took it upon myself to study the Bible critically, in the tradition of Pope Pius XII's encyclical, to see for myself if conservative Christian traditional interpretations were correct.

I discovered how tremendously wrong they were, and I discussed them here with the hope that people would see that man's prejudices were not God's prejudices.

Instead, I discovered that man enjoyed his prejudices all too well.

If you're looking for a deviant motivation to my arguments, then you're just grasping for straws. In fact, since I started my Biblical scholarship over these last six years, I have come closer to the opinion that the Bible is not all that bad or contradictory, really, if you can critically understand the history, culture, and circumstances behind what was written.

The thing is, my scholarship has led to a rejection of traditional interpretations. And these interpretations are not out of a vacuum. There's many scholars out there who share the same conclusions that I have come to, and I have properly cited from them where appropriate.

And, as for your snide comparison of me to a cult leader, I should only be so blessed to be condemned by a heretic like yourself.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]Melon has found in the Bible a justification for what he wanted to believe before he studied it. David Koresh can do that. Jim Jones can do that. Heck, I used to do it.
[/Q]

And you see nothing wrong with comparing a homosexual seaking justification to live and love like everyone else with David Koresh and Jim Jones.

Do you have a clue how sick it is to those of us who come from more liberal churches, who worship, share communion, feed the homeless, together with married homosexual couples, with adopted children to get viewed in the same vein as these people.

Take the log out of your own eye.

 

[speedracer]

Does it make me a libertarian nutjob if I suggest that we get the government out of the marriage business entirely and leave it to individuals to make their own legal arrangements?

 

[BVS]

Melon has mis-represented so many Bible versus I would have to drop school to respond to each one of them.

Read your own posts much? Come on, I and others have pointed out so many of your inconsistancies and contradictions it's not even funny...

 

[Dreadsox]

Does it make me a libertarian nutjob if I suggest that we get the government out of the marriage business entirely and leave it to individuals to make their own legal arrangements?

Nah...it makes you smarter than the rest of us....and where the heck have you been??? You are a welcome sight!

 

[Ormus]

Does it make me a libertarian nutjob if I suggest that we get the government out of the marriage business entirely and leave it to individuals to make their own legal arrangements?

Not at all. I've welcomed libertarian suggestions that government should only confer "civil unions." However, I'm not about to accept a double standard, where the government grants marriages to heterosexual couples and civil unions to gay couples. If the government is going to grant civil unions, it should be done equally to both opposite-sex and same-sex unions.

 

[The Tonic]

Ahem. Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention please? I would like to make an important announcement: the elemental difference between gay marriage and polygamy in America.

Right now, there exists a double standard. Marriage is offered to some people, but not others. That is, marriage is available to straight couples but not gay ones. This is what we call "INEQUALITY." Polygamy is available to neither gay couples nor straight couples. It is equally unavailable to everyone.

Thus, gay people have a legitimate complaint that they are being discriminated against based on their orientation. Polygamists do not, because they are not being singled out from anyone.

Thank you for your attention. You may now resume talking out of your asses.

 

[AEON]

I should only be so blessed to be condemned by a heretic like yourself.

Well, it's been a week since I've been called a heretic. Of course, I've been here in London on business - so I guess, out of sight - out of mind.

In case you missed it - I did throw my own name into the list of characters. My point was - it is possible for anyone to justify just about anything in the Bible - if they are only wish to see what they want to see.

If you enter Biblical Scholarship merely to provide debate points - then that's what you'll find.

I can selectively interpret any passage out of context and make it mean whatever I want it to mean.

Yes, I am sure you can find scholars to agree with you. I have searched some of your findings and found them on gay rights web sights designed to argue with conservative Christians.

I do not think I am a man that holds a lot of prejudice. I am sure you disagree, because I am "bigoted" enough to think the Bible says homosexual sex is wrong. But I do not harbor any ill feeling toward a homosexual or think of them as anything less than any other human being struggling to make their way in this world. This world is tough, for all of us, not just the gays. We all are victims of prejudice, hatred, jealousy, and discord.

 

[AEON]

[Q]Melon has found in the Bible a justification for what he wanted to believe before he studied it. David Koresh can do that. Jim Jones can do that. Heck, I used to do it.
[/Q]

And you see nothing wrong with comparing a homosexual seaking justification to live and love like everyone else with David Koresh and Jim Jones.

Do you have a clue how sick it is to those of us who come from more liberal churches, who worship, share communion, feed the homeless, together with married homosexual couples, with adopted children to get viewed in the same vein as these people.

Take the log out of your own eye.

ummm...I think I did put myself on that list bro.

 

[AEON]

Does it make me a libertarian nutjob if I suggest that we get the government out of the marriage business entirely and leave it to individuals to make their own legal arrangements?

Perahps you ARE right. Why should the government get involved in the marriage business. Why should we deny the chance for someone to do what is right in their own eyes.

I agree. While we are at it - let's let brothers and sisters marry. As long as it is consensual - anything goes! How about whole towns? Cities? States? Just think of the wonderful, consensual possibilities!


Just curious - who said 18 should be legal? In some states it 16. Why not 14? 11? 4? 1? Who are we to judge?

Actually - who said mutual consent is a requirement? Where in the world did this dumb rule come from? All throughout history women never had consent. I say - if I point at you - you are now my wife!

Why would I want the government to get in the way with my desire? It would be so - intolerant and bigoted for others to force their 11th century views on me....

 

[Ormus]

ummm...I think I did put myself on that list bro.

In the past tense. Not a very modest admission whatsoever.

 

[Ormus]

Well, it's been a week since I've been called a heretic. Of course, I've been here in London on business - so I guess, out of sight - out of mind.

No, I called you one yesterday, and you actually replied to the post. Makes me wonder how closely you read what I write.

In case you missed it - I did throw my own name into the list of characters. My point was - it is possible for anyone to justify just about anything in the Bible - if they are only wish to see what they want to see.

You didn't put yourself in that list. You put your "heathen" past life in that list before you were "born again." In fundamentalist Christianspeak, that's meant to be an insult.

You might think that my Biblical scholarship is only restricted to gay issues.

But, yet, when it came to the question of Jewish law and adultery, you were completely clueless. It makes me wonder about how many other questions of Biblical scholarship that you are unaware of, despite claiming to be an expert on this subject.

I've demonstrated my knowledge time and time again. You might disagree with my conclusions, but, I, at least, back up my assertions, rather than just saying, "Gee...the Holy Spirit must not be guiding your Bible interpretations, because you didn't come up to the same conclusion as me." If that's your answer for everything, then, I'm sorry. It's a piss-poor response.

If you enter Biblical Scholarship merely to provide debate points - then that's what you'll find.

I can selectively interpret any passage out of context and make it mean whatever I want it to mean.

So shall I take this to be an official confession?

This world is tough, for all of us, not just the gays. We all are victims of prejudice, hatred, jealousy, and discord.

Mind telling me how this prejudice, hatred, jealousy, and discord has affected how you live your life?

 

[martha]

Mind telling me how this prejudice, hatred, jealousy, and discord has affected how you live your life?

And how he's been denied basic rights because of it. That would be enlightening as well.

 

[anitram]

Why would I want the government to get in the way with my desire? It would be so - intolerant and bigoted for others to force their 11th century views on me....

Because of the fucking harm principle!

This thread is honestly beneath most of us but in the event you don't get it, this is why we need consent:

Your freedom ends where public or private peril begins.

 

[AEON]

No, I called you one yesterday, and you actually replied to the post. Makes me wonder how closely you read what I write.

I must have forgotten. But I was mostly thinking of my friends back home. They call me a "heretic" all of the time for my liberal views - if you can believe it.

But, yet, when it came to the question of Jewish law and adultery, you were completely clueless. It makes me wonder about how many other questions of Biblical scholarship that you are unaware of, despite claiming to be an expert on this subject.

I am only on year three - I guess there is still hope that I'll come to your conclusions...

I've demonstrated my knowledge time and time again.

You have not made a single point that I wasn't able to find in a google search and read in a gay activists web site on "how to argue with a Christian fundamentalist." Don't take youself too seriously here.

You might disagree with my conclusions, but, I, at least, back up my assertions, rather than just saying, "Gee...the Holy Spirit must not be guiding your Bible interpretations, because you didn't come up to the same conclusion as me." If that's your answer for everything, then, I'm sorry. It's a piss-poor response.

I'm sorry you don't see the importance of the Holy Spirit in understanding Scripture. Would you like the Biblical quotes that support this?

Mind telling me how this prejudice, hatred, jealousy, and discord has affected how you live your life?

We are all in this together. Every action we perform has an effect on others - whether we see it or not.