Why is polygamy wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jesusonthecross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, duh. To break up the marriage would have resulted in mortification and possibly death for at least one wife, who could never remarry and would live in shame. Furthermore, by marrying her, the husband had already promised to protect her to the best of his ability. He can’t take back his word now and abandon whichever he likes least to die. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Actually, an innocent wife can remarry after her husband and the mistress is killed for adultery. The Law and the NT clearly state that “widows” can remarry. If God wanted to be kind, all He would’ve had to do was send Rachel away since Leah would’ve been the valid marriage. But instead we find that God accepted POLYGAMY in this case (Genesis 29:30-33), he was concerned that a man did not LOVE “two” women and God acts on His concern by blessing the women with children that Jacob would enjoy.

God is all-good by definition and that would include His actions. God accepted polygamy and helped it function better (Genesis 29:30-33), therefore polygamy is good.
 
…God is all-good by definition and that would include His actions. God accepted polygamy and helped it function better (Genesis 29:30-33), therefore polygamy is good.
So, if something is NOT favoured by God, he must act immediately to change it, and any delay in doing so undermines the premise. My goodness, not much rational thinking there!
 
So, if something is NOT favoured by God, he must act immediately to change it, and any delay in doing so undermines the premise. My goodness, not much rational thinking there!
You are missing part of the point!

God can wait but one thing an all-good God can not do by definition is help a sin (polygamy according to some) take place. For God to do this is akin to Him helping plan a gay wedding and helping the couple to have children so that everyone can live happily ever after. No one will ever leave their sinful lifestyle at that point! That’s definitely not logical if polygamy or gay marriage were wrong, but God did this for polygamy, therefore polygamy must NOT be wrong!
 
You are missing part of the point!

God can wait but one thing an all-good God can not do by definition is help a sin (polygamy according to some) take place.
No, I’ve missed nothing. You’ve drawn inferences about the nature and purpose of God’s actions, the nature of sin at the time of the Old Testament, and of the means by which he draws a people to himself. On the back of all that, you draw a conclusion about a question of good versus evil.
.
 
Just to preempt any point about polygamy being okay only in Genesis just as incest was, since Genesis was pre-Law… please explain this…

2 Chronicles 24:2 (timeline of story is after the Law was given)
2 Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the years of Jehoiada the priest. 3 Jehoiada chose two wives for him, and he had sons and daughters.

Why would the biblical writer, knowing about God’s Law, in one breath state that Joash was righteous in God’s judgement and then immediately state that the guy had 2 wives? It also doesn’t make sense that a priest named Jehoiada, who was entrusted with God’s law and covenant at that time, gave Joash these wives. If polygamy was unlawful, then it wouldn’t make sense for Jehoiada, Joash, and the author of 2 Chronicles to speak of polygamists as being righteous “in the eyes of the Lord”. It’s just not logical unless polygamy was morally good.
 
I usually conduct informal polls on who usually thinks of polygamy as a good idea. It is usually men who think it is good. Women are generally against it. Understandably so. Men can think of the sexual variety while for women, the man’s resources are usually split between her and her children and the other wives and their children. Not to mention jealousy among the wives.
 
Back then he’d just beat his wives.-
Back then? Get serious.
Since we separated sexuality from “total gift of self” the domestic abuse and murder of women has skyrocketed.
And that’s what your comment is really about right? The dignity of women?
I’d hate to think you were championing sexual liberty at the expense of a woman’s value as a human being.
 
Back then? Get serious.
Since we separated sexuality from “total gift of self” the domestic abuse and murder of women has skyrocketed.
And that’s what your comment is really about right? The dignity of women?
I’d hate to think you were championing sexual liberty at the expense of a woman’s value as a human being.
I think she was being sarcastic.

Cultures who usually have polygamy usually do not give a rat’s behind on the dignity of women.

So when another poster trots out the old saw about being told by several wives that the husband is wrong the husband usually has the option to beat them all. Why? Read my previous statement.
 
I think she was being sarcastic.

Cultures who usually have polygamy usually do not give a rat’s behind on the dignity of women.

So when another poster trots out the old saw about being told by several wives that the husband is wrong the husband usually has the option to beat them all. Why? Read my previous statement.
Ah. I didn’t see that angle
 
I think she was being sarcastic.

Cultures who usually have polygamy usually do not give a rat’s behind on the dignity of women.

So when another poster trots out the old saw about being told by several wives that the husband is wrong the husband usually has the option to beat them all. Why? Read my previous statement.
Probably, the better term to use is not polygamy, but polygyny – one husband, multiple wives. Indeed, in many such cultures, the wives are seen as mere property to be sold off. I’ve even heard that in the FLDS and other polygamist Mormon sects, wives can indeed be “reassigned” from one leader to another, apparently whether the wives were into that or not. Such practices, not to mention marrying off very young girls, strike me as bordering on legitimized rape. Also, many powerful men in such sects will drive off the younger, lower-status men, to reduce the “competition” for wives.

There are also cultures that practice polyandry – one wife, multiple husbands. This is much more rare, and usually occurs where, for some reason, the ratio of women to men is so small, that monogamous marriage, would result in many men having no chance at all to father children. Better to share a wife and know there is some chance that your kids are indeed yours, not the other husbands’, then to not have any wife at all, and have zero chance of having kids.

I’ve also read that it many such cultures, the multiple husbands are brothers, or at least cousins, so the husbands know that their bloodline will be perpetuated in some way. The Jewish customs of a dead man’s younger brother marrying the widow, and having their children reckoned as the children of the dead man, is somewhat similar to this concept.

However, from a moral POV, it seems polyandry and polygyny are equally problematic.
 
However, from a moral POV, it seems polyandry and polygyny are equally problematic.
I don’t think that they are equally problematic. For example, in the case of polyandry, the children would know who both their mother and father were. But in the case of polygyny, the children would know who their mother was, but would not know who their father was.
 
I don’t think that they are equally problematic. For example, in the case of polyandry, the children would know who both their mother and father were. But in the case of polygyny, the children would know who their mother was, but would not know who their father was.
It’s the other way around…
 
I don’t think that they are equally problematic. For example, in the case of polyandry, the children would know who both their mother and father were. But in the case of polygyny, the children would know who their mother was, but would not know who their father was.
They present different problems but still they are both equally problematic. The marriage definition of one man and one woman is ideally much better.

I have spend some years in a Muslim country and even though men are allowed four wives, the vast majority of married men only have one. Why? The amount of resources needed to sustain a big household is huge. Only the richest have more than one wife.
 
An excellent article (April 2016) at Public Discourse by Christopher Kaczor Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount and the author of The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice (Routledge 2011).

Why Governments Haven’t, and Shouldn’t, Recognize Polygamy
Enlightenment thinkers provided non-theological arguments. For example, Henry Home (1696–1782) of Scotland’s high court justified monogamy as an expression of equality, “All men are by nature equal in rank; no man is privileged above another to have a wife; and therefore polygamy is contradictory” to the natural right of each person to marry. “Men and women are by nature equal, Home argues at length,” Witte points out. “Monogamous marriage is naturally designed to respect this natural gender equality.”
 
The objections to polygamy in this thread don’t really apply to polygamy inherently but rather to one of several ways that polygamy can and has been practiced. By that I mean, it is not necessary for polygamy to be practiced with 1 man and 20 wives and 80 children but yet many arguments on this thread DEPEND on polygamy being practiced which is the flaw in many objections when being used towards polygamy as a whole.

How do these arguments apply to a person who only wants two or three spouses, and all the spouses chose the relationship, they only have 1 or 2 kids each, all live in one house and all work to support the marriage overall? I bring this up because in the United States at least, these are the types of relationships that are beginning to come out rather than the typical FLDS or Middle East style polygamy.

If monogamy is ‘inherently’ ideal, then that would mean it can be practiced in any way and it would be good. But then how is FLDs- style monogamy and Middle East style monogamy heavenly, when in both cases women are often arranged into marriages or bought from their fathers, and the wife is subsequently suppressed since she has little to no say in the relationship and in the society at large?

Clearly if we can recognize that monogamy can be practiced differently than the FLDS and Middle East style, then it’s only intellectual dishonesty to not admit the same can and HAS (increasingly and as laws loosen up) been done for polygamy.
 
The objections to polygamy in this thread don’t really apply to polygamy inherently but rather to one of several ways that polygamy can and has been practiced. By that I mean, it is not necessary for polygamy to be practiced with 1 man and 20 wives and 80 children but yet many arguments on this thread DEPEND on polygamy being practiced which is the flaw in many objections when being used towards polygamy as a whole.

How do these arguments apply to a person who only wants two or three spouses, and all the spouses chose the relationship, they only have 1 or 2 kids each, all live in one house and all work to support the marriage overall? I bring this up because in the United States at least, these are the types of relationships that are beginning to come out rather than the typical FLDS or Middle East style polygamy.

If monogamy is ‘inherently’ ideal, then that would mean it can be practiced in any way and it would be good. But then how is FLDs- style monogamy and Middle East style monogamy heavenly, when in both cases women are often arranged into marriages or bought from their fathers, and the wife is subsequently suppressed since she has little to no say in the relationship and in the society at large?

Clearly if we can recognize that monogamy can be practiced differently than the FLDS and Middle East style, then it’s only intellectual dishonesty to not admit the same can and HAS (increasingly and as laws loosen up) been done for polygamy.
I get that you might find it fun to split attentions between 2 or more people who are supposed to be your one and only equal partner. I get that. Especially a guy like me gets it. Sort of like legalized variety. Cool.

But from the perspective of the multiple extra? Come on. Even if they walk into this arrangement with ABSOLUTELY no coercion. Even if they’ve always dreamed of this type of thing? They’re still a number in a row. They’re still never an equal partner in the relationship. Unless the idea is rule by committee. But even then you’ve got 2 against 1 averages. And a whole set of kids coming into the world thinking they need to be part of a club to make a marriage work properly.

And you know the set ups will be 1 guy and multiple girls on average. So that leaves a lot of eligible guys off to the side. That leaves a lot of room for restlessness.

And the reason we keep rocking back to the extreme is that that is where these things always end up. There’s always some guy with bigger muscles than anyone else. There’s always a guy ready to push the system to its edge. So unless there’s an incredible super-good that can come out of this that rides head and shoulders over any possible bad it’s just not worth getting into. Marriages are complicated enough without adding even more things like love triangles. I mean how do divorces in those cases even work? 1 wife wants to leave, but all 3 other sister wives testify she was a nut? Does she ever get her kids out of that mess?

Totally and utterly attractive for a guy who might only think with his **** to want that sure. Because some guys are like that. But totally and utterly awful to the women, to the kids, and to society in general. So no. Not worth it.

You can get some on the side a different way if that’s the way you roll. Without making the whole of society pivot along with you. :rolleyes:

-Trident
 
But from the perspective of the multiple extra? Come on. Even if they walk into this arrangement with ABSOLUTELY no coercion. Even if they’ve always dreamed of this type of thing? They’re still a number in a row. They’re still never an equal partner in the relationship. Unless the idea is rule by committee. But even then you’ve got 2 against 1 averages. And a whole set of kids coming into the world thinking they need to be part of a club to make a marriage work properly.
From what I’ve studied on polygamous relationships, some decisions are communal and some are dyadic (based on each couple within a relationship). In my view, children can experience both types of decisions but they also have the experience of other parents, like those of their friends, those on TV, media, etc.

You bring up a common but good point about legalities but keep in mind that this is not the same as moral harm. Secondly, laws can be created and formed no matter how complex the issue, and at times it may take trial and error such as the making of our (United States) Constitution and laws which tend to change from time to time or are open to change.
And you know the set ups will be 1 guy and multiple girls on average. So that leaves a lot of eligible guys off to the side. That leaves a lot of room for restlessness.

…Totally and utterly attractive for a guy who might only think with his **** to want that sure. Because some guys are like that. But totally and utterly awful to the women, to the kids, and to society in general. So no. Not worth it.
In reality, there will probably never be an equal number of men and women in the world so you will always end up with one gender outnumbering the other. We obviously must think of other options for those left single to do. Secondly if we look at just numbers, I would say that monogamy does not work in China where men outnumber women by the tens of millions. Had polyandry been approved then that would reduce the amount of men that are left single due to the lack of available spouses but here we are applying an inconsistent logic of quantity (availability of spouses) to preserve monogamy at all costs.
And the reason we keep rocking back to the extreme is that that is where these things always end up. There’s always some guy with bigger muscles than anyone else. There’s always a guy ready to push the system to its edge. So unless there’s an incredible super-good that can come out of this that rides head and shoulders over any possible bad it’s just not worth getting into. Marriages are complicated enough without adding even more things like love triangles. I mean how do divorces in those cases even work? 1 wife wants to leave, but all 3 other sister wives testify she was a nut? Does she ever get her kids out of that mess?
I’d rather believe that people keep rocking back to the extreme out of ignorance or out of bias because they so quickly forget how monogamy used to be practiced, virtually everywhere, in the same oppressive ways.

Divorces and other post marital situations should be handled on a case by case basis just as it is on other complicated cases involving a divorced woman who remarries and is having a custody battle with her ex-husband, etc. Ideally, before anyone enters ANY type of relationship, they should have some agreement on the terms of their relationship before and potentially after their marriage.
 
From what I’ve studied on polygamous relationships, some decisions are communal and some are dyadic (based on each couple within a relationship). In my view, children can experience both types of decisions but they also have the experience of other parents, like those of their friends, those on TV, media, etc.
My study of it came from 1) a father who can’t get his daughter out of a polygamist compound because she’s been blackmailed with being told to leave would mean she’d never see her kids again, and 2) from a girl who was traded off to a guy with only 1 other wife because he donated enough to the church compound to earn the next available girl. She eventually got away, but young girls can sometimes become a currency in these things. Young ones are really the ones who get hurt the most in these.

You see a lot of the girls get promised to other guys when they’re young. So they come into the relationship without all that even voting that you’d expect from a partnered relationship. It’s usually an older guy who can afford more than one wife to begin with. And that guy usually pitches to the younger options.

So yeah. Maybe your perfect ideal might exist. But I’d be willing to bet against it being the average. We’re not talking about a bunch of middle age swingers figuring it’s time for a change. Not in general. And those kinds don’t need legal protection anyway. The people who need protection are the vulnerable young people who can be coerced. Not the guys who like to **** each other’s wives.
You bring up a common but good point about legalities but keep in mind that this is not the same as moral harm. Secondly, laws can be created and formed no matter how complex the issue, and at times it may take trial and error such as the making of our (United States) Constitution and laws which tend to change from time to time or are open to change.
I don’t care. What do meaningless laws mean to manipulative guys with so much temptation on the table? They don’t protect people being blackmailed in vulnerable positions now. So why would I think they’d be the thing to lean on? With no moral standard there’s no community to help draw the line. And there’s nothing to keep the laws from sliding over and over again. There’s nothing to keep a guy from using ideals to keep pushing that bar.
In reality, there will probably never be an equal number of men and women in the world so you will always end up with one gender outnumbering the other. We obviously must think of other options for those left single to do. Secondly if we look at just numbers, I would say that monogamy does not work in China where men outnumber women by the tens of millions. Had polyandry been approved then that would reduce the amount of men that are left single due to the lack of available spouses but here we are applying an inconsistent logic of quantity (availability of spouses) to preserve monogamy at all costs.
lol this is quite something. I mean China basically blackmails people into aborting all extra after the 1st. The culture thinks boys are super special. You end up with extra boys because of it. And a ‘solution’ is to suggest the lower number of girls would just live up the chance to have five guys jumping them every night? Really? Biology is completely against this working.

I mean don’t you think polygamy would more likely just mean rich Chinese guys with extra wives and even fewer girls for the extra guys?
I’d rather believe that people keep rocking back to the extreme out of ignorance or out of bias because they so quickly forget how monogamy used to be practiced, virtually everywhere, in the same oppressive ways.
I know you would. That’s what idealism is. It’s the belief that people will be better than they are if only xyz. But they aren’t. The strong exploit any chink. The average follow the strong. The weak get crushed in the run for the finish line. That’s why morals are usually in play that suspiciously support the weak position. That’s why laws can’t be relied on that can be worn weak by the strong.

Monogamy got stronger because it moved towards a partnership of equals. Polygamy moves things back in the opposite direction.
Divorces and other post marital situations should be handled in a case by case basis just as it is on other complicated cases involving a divorced woman who remarries and is having a custody battle with her ex-husband, etc. Ideally, before anyone enters ANY type of relationship, they should have some agreement on the terms of their relationship before and potentially after their marriage.
They’d be handled case by case, sure. And the absolute hell that would be their complexity would make things take even longer than they do now and cost twice as much.

But in all this, you have not yet explained what the greater good is going to be yet. I mean what is this going to do for society that what we have isn’t already doing? If you want to be a guy with 15 live-in partners you can do that now. You don’t need to weaken laws to make it even easier to exploit. I don’t get it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top