I reply to all three posts here.
Is polygamy a sin? If you say yes, then why make it legal?
Are you saying that all sins should be illegal? Should, masturbation be illegal? Should lying – other than things like perjury or calumny – be illegal? What about non-abortifacient contraception? I don’t think that’s what you mean to be saying but let me know.
If it isn’t a sin, then defend your position as to why it isn’t.
St. Thomas Aquinas taught that polygyny (being married to more than one woman) did not violate the natural law whereas polyandry (being married to more than one man did). He held that the prohibition on polygyny is of what is known as “positive” divine law (“positive” means it was enacted by God as opposed to arising out of the law of nature)
theuniversityconcourse.com/II,3,10-16-1996/cc/Weldon.htm
*Polygamy (in both its forms) is forbidden according to the moral law of the Church. But there is a weak case to be made for polygyny in natural law, which goes as follows: It is critical for a child’s self-identity to know who his parents are. Therefore, the practice of polyandry is unthinkable as “man naturally desires to know his offspring, and this knowledge would be completely destroyed if there were several males for one female. Therefore, that one female is for one male is a consequence of natural instinct.” (Summa Contra Gentiles III. 124.1) In the practice of polyandry there is no certainty of family relations as the woman has sexual relations with numerous men.
Simply put, according to Thomas, polygyny does not directly conflict with natural law because in it the child knows who his parents are. However, this is not where Thomas’ discussion of marriage ends.
Relying on Aristotle, Thomas speaks of the need for friendship within the marriage covenant. Polygyny debases women because there is no opportunity for friendship. Friendship demands equality, and “the greater that friendship is, the more long lasting it will be, [and] there seems to be the greatest friendship between husband and wife.” (SCG III. 123.6) An unfortunate type of abandonment takes place in a polygynous environment. A covenant of love is eradicated for the utility of a contract involving the breeding of offspring. If this were the precedent for marriage, then there could be no real friendship, and no effectual love for children coming from a plurality of wives. The wife (wives) would then be relegated to a position of servitude. (SCG III 124.4)*
If St. Thomas is right and polygyny does not violate the natural law, then we cannot expect citizens who do not recognize the revelation that brings with it the positive divine law against it to abide by it.
But even if it were against the natural law, my position would be the same. (Non-abortifacient) contraception, lying and masturbation are all against the natural law yet we do not seek outlaw all those things. How is this any different?
Cor, read up some on the REALITY of polygamy. It is inherently exploitive of women and abusive by nature. History provides plenty of exhibits.
We already have laws against abuse. These laws would apply to polygamous families just as they would to monogamous families. I’m not sure what you are saying by “abusive by nature”
Your argument about religious freedom ignore the reality of human rights. Should muslims be allowed to kill relatives who convert to christianity because they have a religious tradition of it? Nope.
Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to do that because that would violate the freedom of those said relatives. But polygamy doesn’t violate anyone’s freedom. Those who enter into polygamy do so freely. Forced marriage should be illegal for polygamy just as it is for monogamy.
Wow. Some religions have required human sacrifice. Of others, or of themselves. Are one, or both, of these the types of religion freedom you suggest should be allowed by our civil society?
If it’s a suicide, who are you going to punish? If it’s a human sacrifice of another person, then that person would be sacrificed unwillingly and so that would violate his freedom. I believe in religious freedom to the extent that it is consistent with freedom.
