I can't believe it-I never thought it'd be a reality show

[PineFarmMom]

I saw previews to this the other day. Gar-bage!!

 

I told dd that all you need now to be on TLC is to be a "Little person" with a bunch of kids, a cupcake shop, and several spouses. Our country and its sorry excuses for entertainment remind me more and more of Rome and their perversions!!

[PineFarmMom]

Obviously I do not agree.:D

 

If the sexuality factor shouldn't matter, then it shouldn't matter.

 

Some only want it to not matter as it pertains to them though and I understand that, illogical though I think it is.

 

If the sexuality doesn't matter, then how many are involved shouldn't matter either.

 

Personally, I think polygamy is no different or worse than baby mamas and serial divorces. Either way you have a segment of the population with multiple sex partners and multiple legal situations. To say it is only understandable if they just don't give a flip but is wrong if they claim to care and be religious seems like nonsense to me.

 

Not that I agree with any of it. I don't. I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me either.:D

 

 

I do!! It's a big slippery slope.

[PineFarmMom]

I disagree. I've read this material and still get freaked out by it. I think polygamy in the Bible was shown to be a bad idea every time. Fights between the wives, marital discord, divided children...

 

I think Solomon is a great example of why polygamy is a bad idea.

 

1 Kings 1:11:4-6

4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech [a] the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.

 

:iagree: Yup!! It doesn't take much more than a quick overview of the OT to see how bad of an idea it is. Paul also speaks of it in the NT for church leaders.

[katilac]

Nonsense. The govt recognizes unions/contracts between multiple people all the time from local communities to international relations that are far more complicated than marriage. Corporations, unions, nonprofits, schools, trades....

 

That's quite, quite different. There may be three or more people in a business partnership, but none of them have the right to make life-or-death decisions for each other. A person may be spiritually married to ten people, but only the legal spouse can make medical or legal decisions for him as needed.

 

If a man has 10 wives, which one gets to decide when to pull the plug? ;)

 

Also, in my numerous jobs, I have only once had a formal contract at work. I never had a contract when going to school, either primary or secondary. Definitely, none of those relationships have been more complicated than marriage, lol! Am I missing something in your example? Can you clarify? I really don't get the point. Regulations, such as those relating to non-profits and public institutions, are not contracts :confused: :confused:

[Murphy101]

That's quite, quite different. There may be three or more people in a business partnership, but none of them have the right to make life-or-death decisions for each other. A person may be spiritually married to ten people, but only the legal spouse can make medical or legal decisions for him as needed.

 

If a man has 10 wives, which one gets to decide when to pull the plug? ;)

 

Also, in my numerous jobs, I have only once had a formal contract at work. I never had a contract when going to school, either primary or secondary. Definitely, none of those relationships have been more complicated than marriage, lol! Am I missing something in your example? Can you clarify? I really don't get the point. Regulations, such as those relating to non-profits and public institutions, are not contracts :confused: :confused:

 

My point is simple:

 

Yes the govt most certainly can manage to figure this out if they can manage all the other regulations and contracts that the federal and state govt puts its nose in.

 

Regulations often serve as well as contracts. For example, in education there are mandates that if a school refuses to comply with in regards to a pupil, the student has the right to legal recourse.

 

And being married does not give someone the right to pull the plug on their spouse. A spouse has every right to request that someone else have that duty. And if others disagree with the spouse, they can go to court over it.

 

And people who are not married can just as easily name someone to stand in nonsuch decisions without marriage.

 

If no other arrangements are made and there is no reason to doubt the dying would defer to their spouses judgement, then yes the spouse is usually deferred to, but it is not part of the marriage contract, so your point is rather moot.

 

Any person can give any other person the right to make a life or death decision regardless of marriage. In fact, it is easier to make that happen than to get married.

 

So the argument that legal marriage gives rights that one cannot obtain otherwise is also bogus with rare exceptions. Who makes life and death decisions is not one of those exceptions.

 

And I don't know what you mean by legal decisions for a spouse. I cannot even find out when my dh's dr appoints are, much less get credit or anything else without his consent. I have no rights to it unless he puts in it writing that he wants his wife to have it. (which he has done, btw). But the truth is, he could just as easily say he would rather some other person have that right, even if he is married to me and certainly if he is not.

 

These are just some of the ways our govt already meets the needs of agreements between multiple people.

[Mekanamom]

It's when there's a *spiritual authority figure* that's involved telling these women that this is what they SHOULD do-it's emotional abuse as far as I'm concerned. I see no difference between it and suicide bombing-both are people who have been coerced by fundamentalist spiritual beliefs and people they've been trained to see as authority figures.

 

 

That's the problem I have with it too. It goes a bit further than "This is what you should do", and becomes more of a threat: "If you don't follow this commandment, you will be destroyed"

 

Relevant scripture here:

 

D&C 132

 

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified.

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take aHagar to wife.

 

Although this passage is part of mainstream LDS scripture, mainstream LDS are currently forbidden to practice polygamy and are excommunicated if they do. Though multiple sealings/marriages do apply after death.

[sadiegirl]

:iagree:seems more stages or planned what is going to happen each episode. I much prefer documentaries on things like this as I think it is more realistic.

I can't say I'm surprised by the show. Next year it will probably be mild to what reality TV is then. If it was a documentary, I would find it interesting just to get some insight. But as reality TV? It just seems wrong. Not from a spiritual perspective. I guess I just don't get why? Most reality TV seems like the Jerry Springer show. Why show your Q!@ on national TV?:glare:

[Slartibartfast]

I think polygamy in the Bible was shown to be a bad idea every time. Fights between the wives, marital discord, divided children...

 

 

That is a good point, they were fighting quite a lot.

[gpsings]

I wonder if this is all well and good 'as long as they're happy'...how far of a jump would it be for relationships with minors? When will the pedophiles come out and start fighting for the rights of minors to decide to be in a sexual relationship? Just sayin. How much farther?

[Audrey]

I can believe it. This is TLC, right? That channel is the "Freak Show" channel AFAIC. It seems like their sole programming purpose is to exploit anything even remotely outside the mainstream. I wouldn't even be surprised if the producers try to get the 4 or 5 of them to have an orgy for sweeps week. I wouldn't be surprised by any show that channel trotted out. :glare:

[Skadi]

I wonder if this is all well and good 'as long as they're happy'...how far of a jump would it be for relationships with minors? When will the pedophiles come out and start fighting for the rights of minors to decide to be in a sexual relationship? Just sayin. How much farther?

 

The obvious difference is that minors cannot consent. This is pretty cut and dry from a legal standpoint. It would be a huge, huge jump because of that fact. We're talking about relationships between consenting adults here.

[Miss Sherry]

I wonder if this is all well and good 'as long as they're happy'...how far of a jump would it be for relationships with minors? When will the pedophiles come out and start fighting for the rights of minors to decide to be in a sexual relationship? Just sayin. How much farther?

It's not a jump at all. Remember the documentary of the mormons practicing plural marriage that were forcing young girls into plural marriage ? Someone went to jail for that , I believe ,and I think that is where they belong.

There are so many reasons this is wrong. Putting Gods name on it, as if He approves, is just one of those wrongs.

[gpsings]

The obvious difference is that minors cannot consent. This is pretty cut and dry from a legal standpoint. It would be a huge, huge jump because of that fact. We're talking about relationships between consenting adults here.

 

Well, right now they can't consent, but maybe after enough marches and rally's and famous spokespeople...moderate examples of mature underage lovers, etc...we know the laws could change. I'm just wondering how far into the future we'll see that?

[Gwenhwyfar]

It's not a jump at all. Remember the documentary of the mormons practicing plural marriage that were forcing young girls into plural marriage ? Someone went to jail for that , I believe ,and I think that is where they belong.

There are so many reasons this is wrong. Putting Gods name on it, as if He approves, is just one of those wrongs.

 

you're talking about *specific people* though.....i don't know the story, but i can imagine based on some things that i've read before.

 

i don't believe in judging everyone by the actions of some - there are many people living in polygamous/polyamorous relationships who would immediately condemn the actions that you just described.

[Murphy101]

The obvious difference is that minors cannot consent. This is pretty cut and dry from a legal standpoint. It would be a huge, huge jump because of that fact. We're talking about relationships between consenting adults here.

 

 

I foresee a push to reduce the age of consent for sex/marriage then....

 

It wasn't that long ago it was 12/14. I think in several (many, most?) states it is 16.

 

It's not that big a jump to change the marriage laws for same sex, multiple partners, or reduce minimum age.

[gpsings]

I foresee a push to reduce the age of consent for sex/marriage then....

 

It wasn't that long ago it was 12/14. I think in several (many, most?) states it is 16.

 

It's not that big a jump to change the marriage laws for same sex, multiple partners, or reduce minimum age.

 

:iagree: It scares me sometimes. :(

I honestly couldn't care less what grown-ups are doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I don't even think marriage should be a legal contract. (that's another thread altogether...)

but I worry about minors.

[SWinner]

People have done way crazier things for their religion & as long as the result is peace and happiness I'm okay. I will not watch the show though, I have way better things to do with my time.

[goldberry]

I don't agree that the same logic/opinion should apply to both gay marraige and polygamy, and it has to do with the concept of consenting adults.

 

If you do any reading about the polygamous lifestyle, you will see that a majority of the time underage girls are involved. These girls have been raised in an environment where they are not exposed to any outside reasoning, and are not given a choice about what happens to them. There is no way these girls could be considered a "consenting adult" to the situation. First, they are usually underage, and second, if they are of legal age, they have been held in arguably abusive circumstances that prevent them from giving "informed consent".

 

In my mind, that is the problem at the root of polygamy.

[Tabula Rasa]

I wonder if this is all well and good 'as long as they're happy'...how far of a jump would it be for relationships with minors? When will the pedophiles come out and start fighting for the rights of minors to decide to be in a sexual relationship? Just sayin. How much farther?

 

Personally I think the age of consent for marriage should be 18. A 16/17 year old is not an adult and shouldn't be able to make a decision that should be a life time commitment. (I'd argue that an 18 year old is usually not that much of an adult either but a person is considered to be an adult at 18 in this country).

 

I do want to point out that there is a difference between polygamy and the compounds that practice polygamy. I personally find the compounds dangerous and full of coercion. Women and children are treated terribly and unlawfully. However a polygamous relationship between consenting adults is different and is not always associated with a particular religion.

[Tabula Rasa]

In a polygamous marriage, who is married to whom? Is the man married to each woman individually? Is the group married to everyone else in the group? Does everyone in the group have to consent to divorce one member? Can the majority force a divorce, say three of the women want the fourth out of the marriage but the husband doesn't want to comply, can he be forced legally?

[amey311]

 

If you do any reading about the polygamous lifestyle, you will see that a majority of the time underage girls are involved. These girls have been raised in an environment where they are not exposed to any outside reasoning, and are not given a choice about what happens to them. There is no way these girls could be considered a "consenting adult" to the situation. First, they are usually underage, and second, if they are of legal age, they have been held in arguably abusive circumstances that prevent them from giving "informed consent".

 

 

Yes. I will say that I have a friend in a polyamorous relationship that she entered as an over 25 year old adult. I don't think she was coerced - she's living in a small city in the eastern US. I haven't asked for details, but it's my understanding that some of these relationships are triangular (each member may choose to pair with the other) and some are Vs (one wife is intimate with each of her 2 husbands, but the men are not intimate with each other). Obviously this description only works with a triad. When you add a 4th (or more) the shapes change again. There is at least one society somewhere that practices polyandry (one wife, many husbands). More often it's polygyny (one husband, many wives).

 

The information I've gathered from reading about the FLDS group (the most public polygyny group) is that this business of marrying off girls below the age of consent is relatively recent (under Warren Jeffs). At least one previous "prophet" wanted girls to wait until they were of legal age. That said, a tenet of that particular faith is that in order to get to heaven, a woman has to be married. That was a common theme in all the memoirs I read - this underlying current of "i HAVE to get married! if I don't, how will I get to heaven?! the end times could come at any moment!" Even if a girl was more of a freethinker, that information was being drilled into her head all the time.

 

A girl at that point isn't giving consent. It's on par with a girl being solicited by her teacher - "even if I study, i might not do well if I don't hook up with Mr. Jones!" and case law generally supports that. While most (all?) states have statutory rape laws relating to minors, some have "Romeo and Juliet" exemptions (if the two are 4 years difference in age or less - aka my 15 year old can have consentual sex with her 17 year old boyfriend, even though officially she might be a minor since she's under 16 - AS LONG AS SHE CONSENTS). Those R&J exemptions don't apply if the older person is in a position of authority (my 15 year old daughter and her 18 year old shift supervisor at work, for example).

 

Another problem Warren Jeffs and gang had was the business of transporting minors across state lines to marry them.

 

I was actually really shocked by the recent decision involving Warren Jeffs - where his conviction was overturned based on jury instructions.

[AMDG]

I have read far too many books and heard far too many things about the abuse done to women in the FLDS. It is corrupt at its core. A TV show will not fool me...

[In2why]

You both just helped me figure my freakitude over this out.

 

You know, I have friends who live in plural marriages and they are pagan. I am totally OK with that. If it makes them happy, and they're consenting adults, if that's what you want, be free to do it.

 

But these people are attaching God's name to it, and THAT is the problem I have with it.

 

I am totally watching it. I loved Big Love, too, but never thought anyone would actually put their family on TV. And he's looking like he wants to be a rock star.

 

 

Plural marriages are in fact Biblical. I realize that culurally they are not in favor at this time, but I don't understand how anyone who is literal when it comes to the Bible would have a problem with it.

[In2why]

I don't know? Can they be married by their church but not do the legal marriage license thing?

 

I find it incredibly sad. We have been talking about how women deserve to be treated like equals in a marriage. This looks about as far away from equality as you can get.

 

 

There is a difference between a legal union and a religious marriage. They can be married in their church and not have it recognized by the state. Which is why I don't understand the hoopla about gay marriage. Why is the government in anyone's marriage. Even traditional marriage only means something when the paperwork is turned in, and no ceremony needs take place.

[justamouse]

Plural marriages are in fact Biblical. I realize that culurally they are not in favor at this time, but I don't understand how anyone who is literal when it comes to the Bible would have a problem with it.

 

Not in the New Testament they aren't and I'm not abiding by Mosaic law. You can text proof anything you want ("And Judas Hanged himself" "Go do ye likewise") and make it try and fit, but taken as a letters to churches-there are no plural marriages in the New Testament. And, this is why I don't believe in Sola Scriptura.

[Ravin]

Not all polygamists are FLDS.

 

I admit I have the show set to record on my DVR. But then, I watch 19 Kids, Little People, Big World, Cake Boos, and several others as well. DW#2 is curious about this one, too. We're not religious in our union, and fall more on the "polyamory" range of things than the "polygamy/polygyny" side, but it's still interesting, just like I find the Duggars interesting because they homeschool and I really like kids and wish I had a bigger family...for completely different reasons than them. I think TLC is usually tasteful in how they edit/present their family shows like this.

 

I admit I like this kind of reality TV. Can't stand shows like "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars" though.

[In2why]

Not in the New Testament they aren't and I'm not abiding by Mosaic law. You can text proof anything you want ("And Judas Hanged himself" "Go do ye likewise") and make it try and fit, but taken as a letters to churches-there are no plural marriages in the New Testament. And, this is why I don't believe in Sola Scriptura.

 

 

Very true. I also find it interesting that Jesus never condemned Homosexuality. Yet followers of Christ often do.

[Tea Time]

There is a difference between a legal union and a religious marriage. They can be married in their church and not have it recognized by the state. Which is why I don't understand the hoopla about gay marriage. Why is the government in anyone's marriage. Even traditional marriage only means something when the paperwork is turned in, and no ceremony needs take place.

 

Good question. The only interest that the government has in any relationship is children. The government doesn't care what happens in the bedroom EXCEPT that what happens in the bedroom, between one man and one woman, produces children.

 

Five men and one woman don't produce a child. Two women and one man don't produce a child. They don't all contribute. Only one of each sex will produce another living, human being. Two men do not produce a child. Two women do not produce children. Some heterosexual couples do not produce children. But heterosexual couples have the potential to produce children.

 

Moreover, heterosexual couples produce a child that they are both physiologically and emotionally invested in. Biologically, they are deeply invested. This biological link is why the government invests in them. Most societies, and certainly those in the West, decided a long, long time ago that this biologically connected unit was the most likely to survive and prosper. To produce thriving young. And so governments invested in that relationship, too. To be sure, other combinations end up with children as well, and thankfully so. And they can do very well also. People are vastly resourceful when they need to be. But with the limited resources of the state which belong to the collective taxpayer, that is the one relationship that the full weight of the state is thrown behind. Just to make things a little more likely to prosper. That is the motive. And the biological link makes for a reasonable and logical line in the sand against the slippery slope of various permutations of marriage.

 

Take away the government's investment in that one type of relationship and watch what happens. Look at the military benefits if you want an example. Give those resources to every possible combination of relationships and see how fast we go bankrupt. We are headed there so fast now it hardly matters, but that is another thread.

 

The state doesn't back marriage to give it legitimacy or because it is a right. It has no power to make "legitimate" or to bestow "rights"! It never had that power in the first place. The state backs marriages to hopefully encourage them to last for the sake of the children. Nothing more. It is a very practical purpose.

 

So, if consenting adults want to be married, they should not wait around for the state to recognize their union. But they should also not be hurt or resentful when the state (the collective taxpayer) doesn't recognize or fund their social experimentation. The state should have no obligation to do so.

 

I should also add that it is not just that the state bestows certain benefits on married couples to help them support children, the state also expects a certain level of responsibility from married people toward each other and their offspring. Thus we have alimony/patrimony and child support laws. In other words, it demands from those relationships in accordance to what it gives. At least it should. Perhaps that has not been stressed enough for too long.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Tea Time

[Miss Sherry]

Plural marriages are in fact Biblical. I realize that culurally they are not in favor at this time, but I don't understand how anyone who is literal when it comes to the Bible would have a problem with it.

In the sense that there are plenty of people who lived that way , yes,it is recorded in the Bible. In the sense of it being what God planned for marriage and families,polygamy is not Biblical. People's lives are recorded in the Bible including the good things they did and the unacceptable things they did. Just the fact that people did things and it was recorded in the Bible does not mean that God approved of it. For example, do you really think that murder is an acceptable action to God ? David committed murder and so did Moses, however, we know from the rest of the Bible that it is a sin.

[Miss Sherry]

Very true. I also find it interesting that Jesus never condemned Homosexuality. Yet followers of Christ often do.

Jesus did not come to condemn anyone. He came so sinners could repent and have a relationship with Him. However, the New Testament was inspired by the Holy Spirit - which is the Spirit of Christ, and the New Testament clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. But just like any other sin, Christ calls people to repent of their sin and believe on him and receive forgiveness. Christ hates sin but loves sinners.

[justamouse]

Very true. I also find it interesting that Jesus never condemned Homosexuality. Yet followers of Christ often do.

 

this one doesn't.

[StephanieZ]

I did.

 

If homosexual marriage is okay, there is not a single legit reason to ban plural marriages.

 

Hmm, really? You mean there is no difference between being married to one human being (at a time) or being married to several?

 

Huh.

[Murphy101]

Hmm, really? You mean there is no difference between being married to one human being (at a time) or being married to several?

 

Huh.

 

If it does not matter who they are having sex with, whether it be a man or a woman, then why does it matter if it is two or more or either?

 

I don't think marriage is a right, I think it is a sacrament.

I happen to believe marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman.

 

What I believe is not what I am interested in discussing though.

 

I'm curious why the homosexual marriage reasoning is not followed through to it's logical ends.

 

If homosexuals are going to argue that marriage is a right that they deserve simply because they want it, then why does the same logic not apply to plural marriage?

 

Whether one is adding two spouses to their insurance plan, or sharing property right between four people (already possible) or designating more than one person be in agreement on ending life support (already possible), and many other supposed injustices, then it would be no harder for the govt to permit plural marriage than homosexual marriage. And I would think bisexuals would not be served by either heterosexual or homosexual marriage, so demanding plural marriage would be the next logic "rights" issue to come about.

 

Again, I'm NOT for any of this.

 

I think there is no valid argument for homosexual marriage based on current claims.

 

But if one were to base a supposed right on claims made by the homosexual marriage movement, then it stands to reason that any demographic that can make the same claims should be able to claim the same supposed right.

[Critter]

 

This is an interesting article that speaks to the issues that Teatime wrote about in her post.

 

www.nationalreview.com/articles/245649/case-marriage-editors

[AFwife Claire]

Good question. The only interest that the government has in any relationship is children. The government doesn't care what happens in the bedroom EXCEPT that what happens in the bedroom, between one man and one woman, produces children.

 

Five men and one woman don't produce a child. Two women and one man don't produce a child. They don't all contribute. Only one of each sex will produce another living, human being. Two men do not produce a child. Two women do not produce children. Some heterosexual couples do not produce children. But heterosexual couples have the potential to produce children.

 

Moreover, heterosexual couples produce a child that they are both physiologically and emotionally invested in. Biologically, they are deeply invested. This biological link is why the government invests in them. Most societies, and certainly those in the West, decided a long, long time ago that this biologically connected unit was the most likely to survive and prosper. To produce thriving young. And so governments invested in that relationship, too. To be sure, other combinations end up with children as well, and thankfully so. And they can do very well also. People are vastly resourceful when they need to be. But with the limited resources of the state which belong to the collective taxpayer, that is the one relationship that the full weight of the state is thrown behind. Just to make things a little more likely to prosper. That is the motive. And the biological link makes for a reasonable and logical line in the sand against the slippery slope of various permutations of marriage.

 

Take away the government's investment in that one type of relationship and watch what happens. Look at the military benefits if you want an example. Give those resources to every possible combination of relationships and see how fast we go bankrupt. We are headed there so fast now it hardly matters, but that is another thread.

 

The state doesn't back marriage to give it legitimacy or because it is a right. It has no power to make "legitimate" or to bestow "rights"! It never had that power in the first place. The state backs marriages to hopefully encourage them to last for the sake of the children. Nothing more. It is a very practical purpose.

 

So, if consenting adults want to be married, they should not wait around for the state to recognize their union. But they should also not be hurt or resentful when the state (the collective taxpayer) doesn't recognize or fund their social experimentation. The state should have no obligation to do so.

 

I should also add that it is not just that the state bestows certain benefits on married couples to help them support children, the state also expects a certain level of responsibility from married people toward each other and their offspring. Thus we have alimony/patrimony and child support laws. In other words, it demands from those relationships in accordance to what it gives. At least it should. Perhaps that has not been stressed enough for too long.

 

Excellent post!

[justamouse]

/homosexualthreadhijack

 

write a spin off post if that's where you want to go

[delaney]

Okay here is what I don't buy. Women get jealous. Plain and simple. How do you share your husband and it not bother you? Why does this idiot get to have his cake and eat it too? I think he is gross, they are gross, the whole thing is gross. I have no issue with homosexuality because I believe you are born that way.

[justamouse]

This is an interesting article that speaks to the issues that Teatime wrote about in her post.

 

www.nationalreview.com/articles/245649/case-marriage-editors

 

 

 

That's a conservative periodical, just say'n

 

BUT those youtube clips from Oprah? That's MY Govenor. I love him awful and he makes me so proud. (But I otherwise vote a dem ticket;))

[Murphy101]

/homosexualthreadhijack

 

write a spin off post if that's where you want to go

 

:001_huh:

 

I never intended to hijack the thread.

 

Only to illustrate that one could open the door to the other.

 

 

Okay here is what I don't buy. Women get jealous. Plain and simple. How do you share your husband and it not bother you? Why does this idiot get to have his cake and eat it too? I think he is gross, they are gross, the whole thing is gross. I have no issue with homosexuality because I believe you are born that way.

 

And I'm sure they would argue that they are born needing a plural marriage.

[BlsdMama]

 

Not that I agree with any of it. I don't. I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me either.:D

 

Well, everyone at my house is napping and obviously I'm bored. :D

 

I agree.

 

If you're going to be opposed to plural marriage on a biblical basis, then you must be opposed to gay marriage on a biblical marriage. I don't see how one can be correct and the other not.

 

To be honest, I'm still a little surprised the Jewish religion is opposed to plural marriage - many godly men in the OT were married to more than one wife. It was in the NT, as far as I'm aware, that it was said that an elder, a respected man of the church, should be the husband of one wife.

 

I'm actually opposed to homosexual marriage and plural marriage, but because I'm a follower of Christ and believe in the NT. I'm confused as to why someone who is liberal would be okay with homosexual marriage but opposed to plural marriage - after all the whole "consenting adults" thing here should apply. Let's at least be consistent. Frankly I suspect either are not pleasing to God?

[Miss Sherry]

Well, everyone at my house is napping and obviously I'm bored. :D

 

I agree.

 

If you're going to be opposed to plural marriage on a biblical basis, then you must be opposed to gay marriage on a biblical marriage. I don't see how one can be correct and the other not.

 

To be honest, I'm still a little surprised the Jewish religion is opposed to plural marriage - many godly men in the OT were married to more than one wife. It was in the NT, as far as I'm aware, that it was said that an elder, a respected man of the church, should be the husband of one wife.

 

I'm actually opposed to homosexual marriage and plural marriage, but because I'm a follower of Christ and believe in the NT. I'm confused as to why someone who is liberal would be okay with homosexual marriage but opposed to plural marriage - after all the whole "consenting adults" thing here should apply. Let's at least be consistent. Frankly I suspect either are not pleasing to God?

Gods pattern for marriage has always been one man and one women. However, there are plenty of examples of people in the OT with more than one wife. This does not mean that God intended for them to have more than one wife, just as God did not intend for David or Moses to commit murder (just using as an example men who pleased God in some ways but not in certain other matters ). People in the Bible are portrayed in how they served God, but also in how they lived in error. Them living in error in some aspects of their lives does not equal God approving of that error.

[Tea Time]

/homosexualthreadhijack

 

write a spin off post if that's where you want to go

 

Not a hijack in any way. Let me explain.

 

I really don't see the correlation between gay marriage and plural marriage. Legally there is very little difference between a homosexual and heterosexual union, it simply involves two people. Add more to that number and the logistics change, things would get complicated and the laws governing rights between married couples would have to change to include multiple spouses.

 

Morally is something else altogether. There are legitimate reasons to legalize gay marriage while still banning plural marriages, but if you (universal you) believe there is something wrong with both homosexual and plural marriages I can see where the line is much more blurred.

 

My post and Critter's completely address this post and similar ones. That is why the thread moved in this direction as it logically must. It is all part of the same discussion. The definition of marriage.

 

It doesn't matter where Critter's argument came from. What does that have to do with the logic of the argument? Is the argument flawed somehow? Please address that if you think so. Let's stay on topic. Just sayin'!

 

I'm curious why the homosexual marriage reasoning is not followed through to it's logical ends.

 

 

That is an excellent question, Martha. Why can't we follow this idea through to its logical conclusions?

[silliness7]

Obviously I do not agree.:D

 

If the sexuality factor shouldn't matter, then it shouldn't matter.

 

Some only want it to not matter as it pertains to them though and I understand that, illogical though I think it is.

 

If the sexuality doesn't matter, then how many are involved shouldn't matter either.

 

Personally, I think polygamy is no different or worse than baby mamas and serial divorces. Either way you have a segment of the population with multiple sex partners and multiple legal situations. To say it is only understandable if they just don't give a flip but is wrong if they claim to care and be religious seems like nonsense to me.

 

Not that I agree with any of it. I don't. I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me either.:D

 

:iagree: I agree with ya! :iagree:

[jazzyfizzle]

 

If homosexuals are going to argue that marriage is a right that they deserve simply because they want it, then why does the same logic not apply to plural marriage?....

 

 

But if one were to base a supposed right on claims made by the homosexual marriage movement, then it stands to reason that any demographic that can make the same claims should be able to claim the same supposed right.

 

 

Exactly.

[silliness7]

Plural marriages are in fact Biblical. I realize that culurally they are not in favor at this time, but I don't understand how anyone who is literal when it comes to the Bible would have a problem with it.

 

Just because something is IN the Bible it doesn't mean it is God's will. David had lots of wives. He also committed adultery and covered it up with murder. Neither are Biblical but both are IN the Bible.

 

Human marriage is a picture of Christ (the bridegroom) and the Church (the bride). Recognizing the fact that Church is a collective noun does not change the fact that it is still singular. There is ONE Church. There is ONE Christ. This is the picture.

[silliness7]

Good question. The only interest that the government has in any relationship is children. The government doesn't care what happens in the bedroom EXCEPT that what happens in the bedroom, between one man and one woman, produces children.

 

Five men and one woman don't produce a child. Two women and one man don't produce a child. They don't all contribute. Only one of each sex will produce another living, human being. Two men do not produce a child. Two women do not produce children. Some heterosexual couples do not produce children. But heterosexual couples have the potential to produce children.

 

Moreover, heterosexual couples produce a child that they are both physiologically and emotionally invested in. Biologically, they are deeply invested. This biological link is why the government invests in them. Most societies, and certainly those in the West, decided a long, long time ago that this biologically connected unit was the most likely to survive and prosper. To produce thriving young. And so governments invested in that relationship, too. To be sure, other combinations end up with children as well, and thankfully so. And they can do very well also. People are vastly resourceful when they need to be. But with the limited resources of the state which belong to the collective taxpayer, that is the one relationship that the full weight of the state is thrown behind. Just to make things a little more likely to prosper. That is the motive. And the biological link makes for a reasonable and logical line in the sand against the slippery slope of various permutations of marriage.

 

Take away the government's investment in that one type of relationship and watch what happens. Look at the military benefits if you want an example. Give those resources to every possible combination of relationships and see how fast we go bankrupt. We are headed there so fast now it hardly matters, but that is another thread.

 

The state doesn't back marriage to give it legitimacy or because it is a right. It has no power to make "legitimate" or to bestow "rights"! It never had that power in the first place. The state backs marriages to hopefully encourage them to last for the sake of the children. Nothing more. It is a very practical purpose.

 

So, if consenting adults want to be married, they should not wait around for the state to recognize their union. But they should also not be hurt or resentful when the state (the collective taxpayer) doesn't recognize or fund their social experimentation. The state should have no obligation to do so.

 

I should also add that it is not just that the state bestows certain benefits on married couples to help them support children, the state also expects a certain level of responsibility from married people toward each other and their offspring. Thus we have alimony/patrimony and child support laws. In other words, it demands from those relationships in accordance to what it gives. At least it should. Perhaps that has not been stressed enough for too long.

 

Quite excellent and well said!!! This has been my feeling on the matter for a few years now. You expressed it very well! :thumbup:

[Forget-Me-Not]

It's not a jump at all. Remember the documentary of the mormons practicing plural marriage that were forcing young girls into plural marriage ? Someone went to jail for that , I believe ,and I think that is where they belong.

There are so many reasons this is wrong. Putting Gods name on it, as if He approves, is just one of those wrongs.

 

As a mainstream Mormon/LDS person, I'm respectfully clarifying that those were *fundamentalist* Mormons or FLDS. Mainstream Latter-day Saints do not practice polygamy; in fact, practicing polygamy is grounds for excommunication.

 

And yes, Warren Jeffs was charged with something, and I believe convicted and sentenced, though I don't know the details.

[Shawna in Texas]

I've been thinking the past day about what rubbed me wrong about the logistics of plural marriage because I don't have a problem morally or legally of 3-4 people living together and having the same rights as a singular marriage. I guess it's because plurally speaking, you could marry 100 people, or a thousand. I could see, quite often in fact, a couple splitting up and remarrying, but delaying the divorce proceedings. A man could force his wife from getting half his money by marrying the girlfriend and saying that he has two spouses. With the divorce rate what it is, it seems probably that there would be a lot of cases of "I didn't know he/she had another wife/husband." Unless in order for another person to be brought in, both spouses would need to be present. I would think you would need some explicit rules.

 

Is there a movement of polygamists wanting rights? I don't think most are concerned with governmental rights. I'm not sure about polyamorous folks.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Shawna in Texas
added stuff

[justamouse]

 

If you're going to be opposed to plural marriage on a biblical basis, then you must be opposed to gay marriage on a biblical marriage. I don't see how one can be correct and the other not.

 

 

 

I'm not opposed to plural marriage-I'm opposed to people who keep saying God Said So. I'm not opposed to gay marriage, either. Frankly, I agree that the government shouldn't be anywhere near our bedrooms. I have pagan friends in poly relationships, I'm totally cool with that. Just don't spin the bible to say so.

[Murphy101]

I've been thinking the past day about what rubbed me wrong about the logistics of plural marriage because I don't have a problem morally or legally of 3-4 people living together and having the same rights as a singular marriage. I guess it's because plurally speaking, you could marry 100 people, or a thousand. I could see, quite often in fact, a couple splitting up and remarrying, but delaying the divorce proceedings. A man could force his wife from getting half his money by marrying the girlfriend and saying that he has two spouses. With the divorce rate what it is, it seems probably that there would be a lot of cases of "I didn't know he/she had another wife/husband." Unless in order for another person to be brought in, both spouses would need to be present. I would think you would need some explicit rules.

 

I suppose that could happen, but I don't know that a spouse getting half will continue being the default for much longer anyways, it already is not in many states and circumstances.

 

I see more and more people stating marriage terms prior to entering or even during the marriage. For example, it would never in a million years occur to me that our home wouldn't be listed as "and/or" under my husband and mines name, but people do it all the time these days. The house in his name, a car or business in her name, a credit card in his and so forth. I would think that would just become more the norm.

 

Yet another negative. That would obviously be hardest on STAH/D, but I think there is a large segment of our society that wouldn't care about that. Might even look at it as a possitive way to break what some view as an untenable dependency.