Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-21-2006, 12:55 PM   #31
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond



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...
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-21-2006, 02:11 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 11:04 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 04:44 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 12:04 AM
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.
__________________
CTU2fan is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 05:27 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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!
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 05:41 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 04:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus

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'...
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 05:44 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


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.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 06:11 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 05:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


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!
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 06:22 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


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
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 06:23 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


Great, now you start with some kind of anarchy. Good point!
What is wrong with anarchy? Who ever said anarchy was wrong?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 06:30 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:04 PM
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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 06:33 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 05:04 AM
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
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 06:34 PM   #42
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 06:35 PM   #43
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 12:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
"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:

Quote:
"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 is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 06:36 PM   #44
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 12:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
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.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-21-2006, 06:42 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


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:

Quote:
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.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com