You did not clarify anything, just made another one or your outlandish assumptions and reinforced your inability to comprehend... or your a troll.:spank:
Polygamy
- Thread starter Accountable
- Start date
And what outlandish assumption did I make?
Nah, just acknowledgment that it happens without any condemnation of the practice, which is far moderate than what is happening today. From what I can tell, nothing in the Bible indicates polygamy is immoral, contrary to what detractors claim. At most, monogamy is preferred, but that's still a judgment call, and we're admonished not to judge lest we be judged, right?
I thought you found a verse in the NT that said polygamy is wrong.
Not really. Paul recommended monogamy, but then again he recommended celibacy even more strongly. The more I study, the more I wonder why people think Paul was anointed to speak for Jesus. I keep running up on the logical conclusion that it was simply fallible Roman humans finding writings in their comfort zone and mistaking it for some kind of Truth (capital T), giving credence to their preconceptions of how life ought to be.
I see your point but it seems that polygamy didn't work out too well for those in the bible who practiced it.
The wisdom of the choice isn't relevant so much as the freedom to make it.
You need to be careful with that.
Just because you think a rule infringes on your freedom, doesn't mean it isn't a good rule.
If it can be shown that polygamy harms, then should you have the freedom?
One can argue that there are many laws that infringe on your freedom yet are valid for the protection of society.
So I guess the question is, does polygamy harm anyone or society and does that harm outweigh the freedom of being able to marry more than one person?
Yeah, that's a good point. Paul seems to have an agenda of his own.
EDITED AFTER THOUGHT
I haven't heard anyone cry to outlaw S&M, which undoubtedly causes physical harm to the participants. Couples practice it even while raising children and not a peep on national TV.
I haven't heard anyone cry to outlaw consensual multiple-partner sex such as wife-swapping, which undeniably risks harm to the health of participants, including transmitting HIV. Couples practice it even while raising children and not a peep on national TV.
True, but the rule has to do much more than simply limit freedom to prove worth.
Polygamy is the union of more than two consenting adults. That in and of itself cannot possibly be harmful. Any harm that might come from such an arrangement would be a result of the personalities of and relationships between the individuals and not of the union.
That's true as far as it goes. However, Name one that I cannot argue is to protect an individual other than the one whose choice is limited. No law is necessary to protect society without that condition.
Not "does polygamy harm anyone" but "does polygamy harm anyone else."
I haven't heard anyone cry to outlaw S&M, which undoubtedly causes physical harm to the participants. Couples practice it even while raising children and not a peep on national TV.
I haven't heard anyone cry to outlaw consensual multiple-partner sex such as wife-swapping, which undeniably risks harm to the health of participants, including transmitting HIV. Couples practice it even while raising children and not a peep on national TV.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, with the high divorce rates there are today(between two people) I imagine having more than one spouse at once would be even more difficult. It doesn't seem to be a very wise thing to do.
Oh I agree. I think it would be dumb as hell. I also think free rock climbing, paying for a college class then not studying, and sex with strangers are all pretty dumb. My choosing not to do these things is no reason to legally prohibit others from making a different choice.
Sorry but you live in the US where it is a law that you have to wear a seatbelt. I like having choices and freedom myself but more and more laws are passed to "save" us from ourselves. I like to visit other countries and when I return to the US I realize how screwed up everything is becoming.
Which I disagree with. More than that, It really pisses me off when I think of the unconstitutional way Washington strong arms the States into passing such crappy legislation.
The fact that it is, does not mean it is right.
BTW, free rock climbing, paying for a college class then not studying, and sex with strangers are all legal.
For now.....
My point is that laws designed only to legislate morality or protect people from themselves are wrong for America and go against what we stand for ... okay, what we used to stand for but should stand for again. This includes polygamy.
I agree. Trying to legislate morality where no one is victimized seems useless.
Let me ask you a question, since I don't know the answer...
When were these laws put on the books?
How many of these morality laws were on the books or created during the formation of this country?
The reason I ask, is that you keep referring to "the way it was" or "what we used to stand for" and if these laws were created or were in place back when the forefathers were designating the governments role, don't you think they would have addressed these laws then.
It's easy to sit here today and say that such and such law goes against what our founding fathers stood for, but for that statement to hold any credence, you would need to show where they lobbied against the same laws during their time. And if they didn't and said nothing, then maybe your interpretation of what we used to stand for is incorrect.
When I say we stood for liberty, I am certainly not dumb enough to believe we actually practiced everything we stood for. I too would like for a legal historian to bring some perspective. I do know that morality laws were in vogue in the 50s, along with In God We Trust and One Nation Under God. Some were undoubtedly passed then.
Morality laws? Which ones came about in the 50's?