polygamy

  • Thread starter Thread starter eichenb2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eichenb2

Guest
Why should the civil law not allow polygyny? If marriage in not between one man and one woman, then why cannot a Muslim man marry 4 woman? It could be 4 separate marriages. It is religious freedom. If the state cannot impose the one man-one woman restriction, they why should it deny a woman who wants to marry an (already married) man? If there is no compulsion, then what is the problem? After all, I think science can prove that men are, by nature, are inclined to be polygamous.
 
Better yet, if marriage isn’t restricted to being a legal bond for a man and a woman whose primary purpose is the raising of children, why should it be only between people who have a sexual relationship? If marriage is just a legal bond between a couple in wuv why is it important that they have a sexual relationship? I love my sister, brother, and have many friends that I love. Why can’t I enter into an agreement to share certain benefits with them? If anything gay “marriage” only ends up discriminating against couples in a nonsexual relationship.
 
eichenb2 said:
Why should the civil law not allow polygyny? If marriage in not between one man and one woman, then why cannot a Muslim man marry 4 woman? It could be 4 separate marriages. It is religious freedom. If the state cannot impose the one man-one woman restriction, they why should it deny a woman who wants to marry an (already married) man? If there is no compulsion, then what is the problem? After all, I think science can prove that men are, by nature, are inclined to be polygamous.
Click to expand...
Some women are also inclined to have more than one man… there is no difference between the sexes in that regard… now when we are at it, why couldn’t a man marry his dog, or a girl marry her mobile phone…?
The possibilities are as many as they are absurd in the relativism and morally inadequate systems.
God created us for a love that looks like His own love: lasting, faithful, and fruitful … Our flesh is inclined to sinfulness and following lust but God has put His Image and likeness in us, with the calling to truly give our selves.

Those who say polygamy is more “natural” are the ones who select whatever historical evidence they wish. Very early antropological findings show families with one man and one woman… that is also in tune with the real human nature.
Every kind of polygami, concubinage or unfaithfulness is degrading to both men and women.
 
GraceDK said:
Some women are also inclined to have more than one man… there is no difference between the sexes in that regard… now when we are at it, why couldn’t a man marry his dog, or a girl marry her mobile phone…?
The possibilities are as many as they are absurd in the relativism and morally inadequate systems.
God created us for a love that looks like His own love: lasting, faithful, and fruitful … Our flesh is inclined to sinfulness and following lust but God has put His Image and likeness in us, with the calling to truly give our selves.

Those who say polygamy is more “natural” are the ones who select whatever historical evidence they wish. Very early antropological findings show families with one man and one woman… that is also in tune with the real human nature.
Every kind of polygami, concubinage or unfaithfulness is degrading to both men and women.
Click to expand...
What is I said that I think your posting is hate speech. I will that I am polygamous. Who are you to tell me I am not. It doesn’t matter what history we use. For you or anyone to say that polygyny is wrong is intolerant and rabble-rousing and hateful. 😉
 
Polygamy is always and everywhere evil and sinful. It is by definition adultery which is against the natural and divine law.

God Bless
 
I am going to Iowa this summer to marry my job. We’ve been living together for 15 years now, might as well make it legal.

-Tim
 
timotheos said:
I am going to Iowa this summer to marry my job. We’ve been living together for 15 years now, might as well make it legal.

-Tim
Click to expand...
This is rather offensive, although I sense it is made in jest. Many devout catholics living in Iowa find the fact that a county judge was able to overturn an Iowa law restricting marriage to one man one woman to be worrisome, troublesome, painful, etc. We have said many prayers, written many letters, and spent much time at the Capital building in protest to this situation. I would rather receive your prayers than be the subject of your jokes.
 
eichenb2 said:
Who are you to push your morality on me?
Click to expand...
Well, unless we’re getting into relativism here, it is not his morality, it is His morality. The poster is not pushing anything on you, he is simply stating what the Church teaches. If you’re discerning Catholicism but are still a moral relativist, one or the other needs to go because they are mutually exclusive.
 
I think this whole thread is intended in to poke fun at moral relativism, and ask the questions that nobody promoting gay marriage wants to answer. Because there is no difference between gay marriage and polygamist unions. Or between gay marriage and any other union, sexual or not, between other people.

The only argument I’ve heard from proponents of gay marriage is that only persons capable of consent are able to enter into a marriage, which restricts marriages based in pedophilia, bestiality, or between man and some object of some sort.

I maintain that if we are going to make marriage something other than a legal union of one man and one woman for the purpose is the bearing and rearing children, then they aren’t really marriages at all, and we should just create a union that anyone of any station can apply for…like roommates, or best friends, or siblings…if they so choose. Because it ceases to be worth anything to society at that point.
 
bugz2007 said:
I think this whole thread is intended in to poke fun at moral relativism, and ask the questions that nobody promoting gay marriage wants to answer. Because there is no difference between gay marriage and polygamist unions. Or between gay marriage and any other union, sexual or not, between other people.

The only argument I’ve heard from proponents of gay marriage is that only persons capable of consent are able to enter into a marriage, which restricts marriages based in pedophilia, bestiality, or between man and some object of some sort.

I maintain that if we are going to make marriage something other than a legal union of one man and one woman for the purpose is the bearing and rearing children, then they aren’t really marriages at all, and we should just create a union that anyone of any station can apply for…like roommates, or best friends, or siblings…if they so choose. Because it ceases to be worth anything to society at that point.
Click to expand...
👍
 
bugz2007 said:
I maintain that if we are going to make marriage something other than a legal union of one man and one woman for the purpose is the bearing and rearing children, then they aren’t really marriages at all, and we should just create a union that anyone of any station can apply for…like roommates, or best friends, or siblings…if they so choose. Because it ceases to be worth anything to society at that point.
Click to expand...
There already is such a thing. It’s called a well prepared will and durable power of attorney.

The answer to the original question is: Just give it more time. Gay marriage is step 4. Polygamy is step 5.

Step 1 was legal and socially acceptable contraception.
Step 2 was socially respectable fornication.
Step 3 was no - fault divorce.

Step 6 will be elimination of government recognition of marriage altogether. I mean c’mon, it’s a religious concept really. The constitution forbids government involvement is such thing, right? 😉

P.S. I think Islam only allows a man 3 wives. You’re a throwback Mormon once you hit 4…
 
manualman said:
There already is such a thing. It’s called a well prepared will and durable power of attorney.

The answer to the original question is: Just give it more time. Gay marriage is step 4. Polygamy is step 5.

Step 1 was legal and socially acceptable contraception.
Step 2 was socially respectable fornication.
Step 3 was no - fault divorce.

Step 6 will be elimination of government recognition of marriage altogether. I mean c’mon, it’s a religious concept really. The constitution forbids government involvement is such thing, right? 😉

P.S. I think Islam only allows a man 3 wives. You’re a throwback Mormon once you hit 4…
Click to expand...
I meant a union with all the benefits of marriage, while both individuals are alive…

But other then that, you pretty much communicated my same sentiments in your own words. I wish the government WOULD stop recognizing marriage if it’s just going to constantly mess around with what it’s using the word to refer to. Sure, tax benefits are nice, but they’re not why I would marry…so I’d marry without them.
 
Polygamy was allowed in the OT [Dueteronomy 21:15-17] and Moses himself had two wives [Exodus 2:21 and Numbers 12:1]. There is no reason to believe that polygamy was not practised in NT times either.
 
St. Thomas Aquinas on Polygamy:

“I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 7,8), plurality of wives is said to be against the natural law, not as regards its first precepts, but as regards the secondary precepts, which like conclusions are drawn from its first precepts. Since, however, human acts must needs vary according to the various conditions of persons, times, and other circumstances, the aforesaid conclusions do not proceed from the first precepts of the natural law, so as to be binding in all cases, but only in the majority. for such is the entire matter of Ethics according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 3,7). Hence, when they cease to be binding, it is lawful to disregard them. But because it is not easy to determine the above variations, it belongs exclusively to him from whose authority he derives its binding force to permit the non-observance of the law in those cases to which the force of the law ought not to extend, and this permission is called a dispensation. Now the law prescribing the one wife was framed not by man but by God, nor was it ever given by word or in writing, but was imprinted on the heart, like other things belonging in any way to the natural law. Consequently a dispensation in this matter could be granted by God alone through an inward inspiration, vouchsafed originally to the holy patriarchs, and by their example continued to others, at a time when it behooved the aforesaid precept not to be observed, in order to ensure the multiplication of the offspring to be brought up in the worship of God. For the principal end is ever to be borne in mind before the secondary end. Wherefore, since the good of the offspring is the principal end of marriage, it behooved to disregard for a time the impediment that might arise to the secondary ends, when it was necessary for the offspring to be multiplied; because it was for the removal of this impediment that the precept forbidding a plurality of wives was framed, as stated above (A[1]).”
 
A_Few_Good_Men said:
Polygamy was allowed in the OT [Dueteronomy 21:15-17] and Moses himself had two wives [Exodus 2:21 and Numbers 12:1]. There is no reason to believe that polygamy was not practised in NT times either.
Click to expand...
Yes, OT tells of a practice with polygami, even from Abraham… sadly.
But in the New Testament Paul explicitly preaches against it and there is no indication that any of the holy ones had severel wives… on the contrary we hear only of monogamy from Josefh and Mary to Peter and the teachings of Paul… also in the Jewish community back then and until today we have no indication that there has been any such tradition since the time before Christ…
 
Wrong! Paul taught a leader of a church ekklesia] should only have one wife [1 Timothy 3] but there is no proof that these stiplulations were enforced on the general congregation. In fact, it could be argued that the man in 1 Corinthians 5 had two wives. In is not likely that his son had sexual relations [1 Cor. 5:1b] with his own mother; more likely he was attracted to his father’s younger wife if one tries to read between the line!
 
St. Thomas sees to be assuming, in keeping with Christianity’s progressive relation view, that Polygyny was practiced for a time and in various places; but, now it is not needed. In fact, he indicates that polygyny was against the natural law, in a primordial sense. It seems to me that if the assumption of progressive revelation is dropped, polygyny would be just as acceptable as “gay marriage”. I tend to incline away from the progressive revelation concept, based on my anthropological belief that homo sapiens have, basically, been the same (sociologically) from thier first appearance. I think that if someone can make the claim that they are biologically predisposed to SSA and the state should sanction marriage, then I can make the claim that I am biologically predisposed to polygyny and the state should sanction my 4 marriages separately. Of Course, there would be no coercion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top