s/o plural marriage/polygamy and polyandry

[ktgrok]

Ok, so the thread about the woman divorcing her brain injured husband got me really thinking about this. At the time that polygamy was popular it has been said that the main purpose was to provide shelter/family/support for women that were left widowed, and for husbands to have enough wives to run the household. Obviously there were other less noble reasons as well, but let's put those aside a minute.

 

I'm wondering, in the age of alzheimers, brain injuries, and other situations where the person lingers but doesn't die, would plural marriage be a solution? If the woman in the article could have just taken on a second husband, rather than divorcing the first, would that have been better?

 

Discuss :)

[Jennifer3141]

Discuss :)

 

 

Here's my discussion:

 

EW.

Just EW. :D

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I would add this question on to yours:

 

In my Bachelor's degree program that was a xian program, mind you, the professor, who is a minister as well as a professor stated that "if two elderly people wanted to live together but could not get married due to finances (they would lose pension/lose health insurance) then I do not believe that this is sinful". He basically said that it was THEIR business and not his.

 

I found that to be a refreshingly magnanimous position and one that I was not used to hearing spouted by religious leaders. :001_smile:

 

I do not see a moral issue with the scenarios in your OP.

[*********]

Well, for one, there's this:

Here's my discussion:

 

EW.

Just EW. :D

 

:D

 

Seriously though Katie, like I said in the other thread, I'm glad you have challenged me on this, becuase it's a good opportunity for me to expand my understanding of scripture. I'm supposed to have an answer in every season, and it appears my answer regarding what I believe on this is rather weak.

 

My dh has been sick all day, and is sleeping now. I can't wait for him to be feeling better so I can get his thoughts on this. In the mean time, I'll be digging into the scriptures myself, and doing some research. I would post on my FB and ask my friends to chime in and help me learn, but I'd really rather discuss it with my dh first.

 

And I'm all :bigear: for this thread.

[ktgrok]

I would add this question on to yours:

 

In my Bachelor's degree program that was a xian program, mind you, the professor, who is a minister as well as a professor stated that "if two elderly people wanted to live together but could not get married due to finances (they would lose pension/lose health insurance) then I do not believe that this is sinful". He basically said that it was THEIR business and not his.

 

I found that to be a refreshingly magnanimous position and one that I was not used to hearing spouted by religious leaders. :001_smile:

 

I do not see a moral issue with the scenarios in your OP.

 

I think in that case what you have is a question about "what is marriage?" What are the requirements for a marriage? We think now of it being a government thing but it certainly wasn't always that way. I believe for a period of time that having sex with someone, supporting them, and living with them would be considered a marriage.

[Truscifi]

Ok, so the thread about the woman divorcing her brain injured husband got me really thinking about this. At the time that polygamy was popular it has been said that the main purpose was to provide shelter/family/support for women that were left widowed, and for husbands to have enough wives to run the household. Obviously there were other less noble reasons as well, but let's put those aside a minute.

 

I'm wondering, in the age of alzheimers, brain injuries, and other situations where the person lingers but doesn't die, would plural marriage be a solution? If the woman in the article could have just taken on a second husband, rather than divorcing the first, would that have been better?

 

Discuss :)

 

While I suppose it would legally be having 2 husbands at the same time, I don't think that practically it would be - her first husband is no longer able to act as her partner in any meaningful way.

 

As for polygamy/polyandry...well, I've read a lot of Heinlein and it always seems to work out well there. :tongue_smilie:

[Truscifi]

I think in that case what you have is a question about "what is marriage?" What are the requirements for a marriage? We think now of it being a government thing but it certainly wasn't always that way. I believe for a period of time that having sex with someone, supporting them, and living with them would be considered a marriage.

 

:iagree: Many states still have common law marriages based on people living together and supporting each other.

[frugalmama]

I see nothing wrong with it. Either way - a woman marrying more than one man, or a man marrying more than one woman.

 

HOWEVER - all spouses need to be treated equally and fairly, and have equal power in the relationship.

[Jen in PA]

As for polygamy/polyandry...well, I've read a lot of Heinlein and it always seems to work out well there. :tongue_smilie:

 

:iagree:

[celticmom]

While I suppose it would legally be having 2 husbands at the same time, I don't think that practically it would be - her first husband is no longer able to act as her partner in any meaningful way.

 

 

 

:iagree:Really even though he began as her husband when she remarried he was functioning more as her child since he will be perpetually dependent. In fact, having another adult to help care for first husband and to care for him and their children if something happened to her was one of her reasons for her second marriage.

[Ailaena]

I love the idea of plural marriage. I need a husband for the yard, a mechanic husband, an intellectual husband, a trophy husband, a wealthy husband...

 

And it would be great if they were all gay except for one.:tongue_smilie:

 

Or actually, how about some wives to go along with those husbands? I don't see why one couldn't make a commitment to another woman in a sister-wife fashion (or otherwise, whatever floats your boat). Think of the built-in moral support, sisterly love, motherly love, etc for all of the children.

 

Oh no, I think I'm talking about a commune...

 

I am firmly in the camp that whatever works for you is not only awesome, but none of my business. If you find a partner that loves you so much he is willing to help you care for (and love) your disabled ex-husband then you are the luckiest woman alive.

[TheHomeScientist]

I agree. I've never understood why marriage should be any business of the church or the state, or indeed anyone other than the people involved in the marriage. If gays want to marry, whose business is it other than theirs? If one man wants to marry several women, or vice versa, whose business is it other than theirs? Or if a group of people want to marry? No one is forcing anyone to participate in the relationship.

 

William James summed up a biological reality with his bit of doggerel:

 

Higamous hogamous, women are monogamous,

Hogamous higamous, men are polygamous.

 

Which accounts for the unfortunate reality that so many men leave their wives when the wives are no longer able to have children, in favor of younger women who are. I've always thought that that wouldn't happen nearly so often if plural marriage was allowed. Instead of dumping the older wife and marrying a younger one, guys would simply keep their current wives and marry more.

 

Of course, I've been married for almost 30 years, and my wife still smacks me when I introduce her as "my first wife".

[jennsmile]

I thought that might have been the perfect solution to the original post as well.

[BrookValley.]

I agree. I've never understood why marriage should be any business of the church or the state, or indeed anyone other than the people involved in the marriage. If gays want to marry, whose business is it other than theirs? If one man wants to marry several women, or vice versa, whose business is it other than theirs? Or if a group of people want to marry? No one is forcing anyone to participate in the relationship.

 

 

This. :iagree:

[DawnM]

Well, I often say I need a wife.

 

I need someone to cook, clean, and take care of the household. In fact, she can teach my kids too....I have a pedicure I need to get to.

 

I love the idea of plural marriage. I need a husband for the yard, a mechanic husband, an intellectual husband, a trophy husband, a wealthy husband...

 

And it would be great if they were all gay except for one.:tongue_smilie:

 

Or actually, how about some wives to go along with those husbands? I don't see why one couldn't make a commitment to another woman in a sister-wife fashion (or otherwise, whatever floats your boat). Think of the built-in moral support, sisterly love, motherly love, etc for all of the children.

 

Oh no, I think I'm talking about a commune...

 

I am firmly in the camp that whatever works for you is not only awesome, but none of my business. If you find a partner that loves you so much he is willing to help you care for (and love) your disabled ex-husband then you are the luckiest woman alive.

[The Girls' Mom]

Ok, so the thread about the woman divorcing her brain injured husband got me really thinking about this. At the time that polygamy was popular it has been said that the main purpose was to provide shelter/family/support for women that were left widowed, and for husbands to have enough wives to run the household. Obviously there were other less noble reasons as well, but let's put those aside a minute.

 

I'm wondering, in the age of alzheimers, brain injuries, and other situations where the person lingers but doesn't die, would plural marriage be a solution? If the woman in the article could have just taken on a second husband, rather than divorcing the first, would that have been better?

 

Discuss :)

 

No. IMO, that is no different than divorcing to remarry. It is still being unfaithful to your spouse.

[Nakia]

There's only room for three in my marriage: God, my husband, and me.

[Heather in Neverland]

There's only room for three in my marriage: God, my husband, and me.

 

:iagree:

[Outdoorsy Type]

I personally could not be involved in that way. I'm sure you could find instances where plural marriage meets everyone's needs, but almost all examples I know of end up hurting at least one person.

[Melinda in VT]

Ok, so the thread about the woman divorcing her brain injured husband got me really thinking about this. At the time that polygamy was popular it has been said that the main purpose was to provide shelter/family/support for women that were left widowed, and for husbands to have enough wives to run the household. Obviously there were other less noble reasons as well, but let's put those aside a minute.

 

I'm wondering, in the age of alzheimers, brain injuries, and other situations where the person lingers but doesn't die, would plural marriage be a solution? If the woman in the article could have just taken on a second husband, rather than divorcing the first, would that have been better?

 

Discuss :)

 

The part I bolded is a myth, at least with regards to polygamy in America.

 

I am not necessarily opposed to legalizing polygamy, but it raises some complications that I am not sure our government would handle well. We are used to a two-person marriage contract. Each additional person adds complexity.

[TheHomeScientist]

I'm sure you could find instances where plural marriage meets everyone's needs, but almost all examples I know of end up hurting at least one person.

 

How is that different from the way things currently are? The news is full of stories about abused wives and children. If anything, it might be better in a plural marriage. If the husband was abusive, the wives could gang up on the SOB and overwhelm him with weight of numbers.

[Aelwydd]

How is that different from the way things currently are? The news is full of stories about abused wives and children. If anything, it might be better in a plural marriage. If the husband was abusive, the wives could gang up on the SOB and overwhelm him with weight of numbers.

 

 

Or, in my fantasy, it would be two or more very hot husbands unleashing their bisexual fury on the offender.

[fairfarmhand]

I would add this question on to yours:

 

In my Bachelor's degree program that was a xian program, mind you, the professor, who is a minister as well as a professor stated that "if two elderly people wanted to live together but could not get married due to finances (they would lose pension/lose health insurance) then I do not believe that this is sinful". He basically said that it was THEIR business and not his.

 

I found that to be a refreshingly magnanimous position and one that I was not used to hearing spouted by religious leaders. :001_smile:

 

I do not see a moral issue with the scenarios in your OP.

 

 

ok, so this came up in a round about way with my parents.

 

My mom suffered a debilitating illness for 12 years. Toward the end she needed nursing home care, but was only 54. Dad's bill for her care was 5000 a month. On a pastor's salary, he could not afford that. He was trying everything he could to get her on state care, but really wished to not lose his home and the little they had worked so hard to get in their 30 year marriage.

 

His lawyer gave him 2 options. He could divorce my mom, so that she would be declared indigent and state would pick up the tab for her care. Or he could spend thousands in court/lawyer costs to have their accounts examined by a CPA who would then declare to the court that yeah, this guy is really pretty much broke and can't afford the nursing home bill. Eventually, the court came through . About 2 weeks after my mom died.

 

Dad said that he considered the "better or worse" part of their vows as this situation. It would have emotionally devastated my mom to know that my dad was divorcing her, even if it was only on paper. She already felt like she was holding dad back. She would have been so hurt.

 

At this point in their marriage, it wasn't about sex or even living in the same household. It was about staying true to the vows that they made years earlier.

 

What other people do is between them and God, but I saw the definition of love and commitment right there.

[Abeth78]

I haven't read all the replies but when I was a young 18 years old. I worked as a CNA. There was a man who came every week and shaved his wife's legs she was not in her late 60's. She crossed a double line to pass someone and hit an 18 wheeler head on. She was on a feeding tube and in no way able to be a partner.

 

Her husband was involved with another woman, yet he still came a cared for her. I don't know about polygamy but I do think that the other article and my personal experience with this couple have the most respectful merits.

 

I don't think I could ever agree to polygamy or polyandry. I do however thing that "till death do us part" is not black and white, and life is not over when one spouse becomes incapable of being a spouse.

[amey311]

Our running joke is that we'll happily welcome a second wife who comes with a trust fund and a love of cleaning.

 

I know that may be dismissive or flippant to people living in balanced polygamous relationships and that's not my intention. Honestly, I think DH would have a bigger issue with it than I would most days. He may be godless, but he's still very committed to his marriage vows ;)

[Mimm]

On one hand, there is simply no way I could be involved in a polygamous relationship. One the other, I have a hard time saying that just because I am in no way interested in something, or that I find it kind of yucky or whatever, that no one should be allowed. I'm a pretty live-and-let-live kind of person. I believe in right and wrong, but also believe in other people's right to believe in their own right and wrong. I can think they come to the wrong conclusions but really, that's their business.

[Tarreymere]

Or, in my fantasy, it would be two or more very hot husbands unleashing their bisexual fury on the offender.

 

 

Lovely....now you have me thinking about having two very hot husbands......how the heck am I supposed to go back to reviewing phonics with Ds now?

[mereminerals]

There's only room for three in my marriage: God, my husband, and me.

:iagree:

[Paige]

I don't think there is anything inherently amoral with polygamy. It has been a historically common practice and is still practiced in many cultures and I don't think I can claim to know better than millions, maybe billions, of people throughout the world and throughout human history. The problem is- it's illegal in the USA. So, unless we change the laws, which I would be ok with under the right circumstances, I do not think polygamy in the USA would be appropriate in any circumstances. Also, in the case of caring for a severely disabled and no longer cognitively competent spouse, let's be real- what's going on is not marriage anymore. A woman with a spouse the mental age of a 10yr old and another fully adult spouse would not be in a real plural marriage. She would not have 2 equal partners and her (new) spouse would not have a brother/husband. It would be totally different than a polygamous marriage.

 

Personally, I would not want any kind of plural marriage in my family. I became open to the idea of polygamy as a valid choice through an anthropology class. We heard from women in a polygamous culture who talked openly about what they liked about it and how they pitied us for not getting to have sister wives.

[frogger]

I think it had less to do with taking care of widows and such and more with the fact that children were a sort of wealth. If you were the Alpha male in the neighborhood, you had a lot of wives. If you were poor, disabled, or something similar, you would have none or maybe one if you were lucky. Of course, when there is less competition for wives it helps out the poor guys who would probably never get a wife in a polygamous society. The female having multiple husbands was very unusual. It seems kind of pointless since the female can only have one child at a time no matter how many husbands she has slept with recently.

 

The nice thing about having more guys married is that they become less of a problem to society in general so in some ways it is important to not have polygamy but now guys going around getting women pregnant without bothering to marry them so we are seeing a reverse. Not only can you have lots of babies but they will all survive because someone else will take care of them even if you don't so it's not really as important to take risks or make it big to get the women in our culture. I see little pockets of it but it is not as extreme as it historically has been.

[Aelwydd]

Lovely....now you have me thinking about having two very hot husbands......how the heck am I supposed to go back to reviewing phonics with Ds now?

 

:D

[Impish]

Technically, using the terms polygamy and polyandry is redundant.

 

Polygamy is the practice of having more than one spouse, no gender specified.

 

Polyandry is more than one husband.

 

The correct term (the media screws it up all the time) for more than one wife is polygyny.

 

Just sos ya know.

 

~Imp, who is always frustrated w/the misuse of these terms.

[mamajag]

I see nothing wrong with it. Either way - a woman marrying more than one man, or a man marrying more than one woman.

 

HOWEVER - all spouses need to be treated equally and fairly, and have equal power in the relationship.

 

I can agree until the however. DH and I each have areas where we are not equal but it is consensual and it's fine for us. DH is not good with money. When he tried to "help" manage the money, we were constantly broke and so we fought about it. Finally we agreed that I would be in charge of the finances and he would go along with my decisions. I wouldn't go buy an HDTV or computer without talking about it with him although I could technically, but in areas of what we save/what we spend/can we afford this yes I have the final say. We both have a monthly allowance we can spend without any questioning from the other. He's happy because we don't have bill collectors calling constantly and the utilities aren't in danger of being turned off, and he also gets more of the big ticket items he likes even if he has to wait. If we discuss him wanting something big, we come up with an amount I can put aside monthly until we can afford it. The key here is that I do these same thing when I want something. We benefit equally even if we don't have equal power in this area of our relationship.

 

Now me? I get overwhelmed by housework and shut down, so DH has pretty much laid out a schedule and instructions on how he wants the house run. Do I like that I'm accountable to someone else for that? Well, no, but I also don't miss the panic attacks from trying to figure out what to do first, especially since he's gone half the month to the other side of the country and I have to handle it myself. Having a consistent schedule and routine help me manage. We are constantly improving it, and I do have input, but sometimes he does just say "do it this way for a week" and I see the man is right when I was convinced his way just wouldn't work. He got involved in my HS routine this month and did just that. I'm saving 2 hours a day on HSing and getting everything done I had planned at the beginning of the school year (so all that planning wasn't a pipe dream :D).

 

As long as the relationship parameters are completely consensual and agreed to by all parties involved, I don't have an issue with it.

[AdventureMoms]

I don't have a problem with polygamy in it's various forms (and thank you Impish for the terms, it is an error that drives me crazy too!), provided that the marriage is consensual and occurs between adults capable of giving consent (and capable of retracting that consent and leaving). Often we tie polygyny in with child brides, and I do have a problem with that whether it is the first wife or the 12th. I think it makes far more sense to require that a person be 18 to marry than to outlaw polygamy in general.

 

DW and I joke all the time that we could use a 3rd around here. Someone with a penchant for cleaning would be great! Hotness optional!

[amey311]

Technically, using the terms polygamy and polyandry is redundant.

 

Polygamy is the practice of having more than one spouse, no gender specified.

 

Polyandry is more than one husband.

 

The correct term (the media screws it up all the time) for more than one wife is polygyny.

 

Just sos ya know.

 

YES!

 

Also, there is at least one culture where polyandry is practiced now. It makes sense from a financial standpoint - there are more men to provide for the woman doing the child rearing.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Funny, we attended a very conservative church in Tidewater Va. There was a small group of severely disabled adults who attended. They would arrive in a HandiVan and used wheelchairs. One couple fell in love, but would have lost significant benefits if married, even though neither could provide for the other.

 

The senior pastor blessed their becoming a couple without a state recognizes marriage. He pretty much said that God knew their hearts and that he didn't see it as a sin issue.

[Carpe]

If polygamy were legal, I would be fine with extra wives/husbands. And I'm convinced it's not legal simply for tax reasons.

 

Someone can legally have an affair.

Someone can legally rent out a room for any amount they want, including bartering as long as a dollar value is set. (ie Scrub my floors for 30 minutes once a week and I'll pay you $12 an hour to do so, and you pay me $24 a month in rent. With no money actually exchanging hands)

Someone can legally sleep with her landlord under most conditions, even if he's married.

However one can not rent out their room for any amount to someone he is sleeping with if he calls her his wife. The whole scenario is legal until he wants to call her his wife. Honesty should be more legal than secrecy.

 

It's easy to tax a family renting out a room, and to tax a single woman making $24/month. But it's very hard to figure out the taxes owed for a family with three adults. Can the second wife's tuition credit be applied to the taxes owed by the first wife? If only one person is working can he or she claim both spouses as stay-at-home members of the family? What about the kids, if there are multiple husbands can husband #1 claim all the kids, even those that are not biologically his? What if there is a divorce, how would they calculate child support owed or alimony for that matter, or visitation?

 

It would turn into a legal nightmare.

 

I think it would be in the best interest of the polygamist community to come up with their own regulations. Decide collectively that either all parents share all children, or only the biological parents have a claim to the children. Decide what they think is a fair tax system which should result in paying at least as much tax as they currently do with separate finances.

Then get a lawyer or ten to fight the government over it. If everything they do is legal if they are not married, then it should be legal if they are.

 

Not to say that I think we would ever have extra spouses even if it were legal. It took me decades to find the one I've got. It would be highly unlikely for us to find someone we both want to marry before we're old and bitter. :lol:

[amey311]

FWIW, plural marriage IS legal in the US if you don't involve the state. You cannot file for multiple marriage licenses, but you can be "spiritually" married (or whatever phrase moves you). Standing in the backyard, promising to be true to each other and declaring yourself married = legal.

 

Lawrence v. Texas basically makes it legal - that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is their own business.

[Carpe]

FWIW, plural marriage IS legal in the US if you don't involve the state. You cannot file for multiple marriage licenses, but you can be "spiritually" married (or whatever phrase moves you). Standing in the backyard, promising to be true to each other and declaring yourself married = legal.

 

Lawrence v. Texas basically makes it legal - that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is their own business.

 

Unless you live in a state with common law marriage laws. By living together as husband(s) and wife(s) you would be breaking the law. The same is true in Canada.

 

Polygamy is illegal, and you cannot simply get around it by not legally marrying because by common law marriage laws you ARE married by living together as a married couple/group/family/whatever the right word is.

 

That's why the beloved TV polygamists live in separate houses. Which defeats the purpose IMO.

[amey311]

Unless you live in a state with common law marriage laws. By living together as husband(s) and wife(s) you would be breaking the law. The same is true in Canada.

 

Polygamy is illegal, and you cannot simply get around it by not legally marrying because by common law marriage laws you ARE married by living together as a married couple/group/family/whatever the right word is.

 

That's why the beloved TV polygamists live in separate houses. Which defeats the purpose IMO.

 

I don't think that's necessarily true. Granted, this is wikipedia, but it says that in order to be considered common-law married:

 

1. Cohabitation alone does not create a common-law marriage; the couple must hold themselves out to the world as spouses (Saskatchewan, Canada, excepted); and
   
   1. 
      
   2. There must be mutual consent of the parties to the relationship constituting a marriage (Saskatchewan excepted).
      
   3. Both parties must be of legal age to enter into a marriage or have parental consent to marry.
      
   4. Both parties must be otherwise qualified to enter into a marriage, including being unmarried (Saskatchewan excepted), of sound mind, and, in many states, not sentenced to or serving a term of life in prison.
      

 

 

In Plural marriage, both parties wouldn't be otherwise qualified to be married. If John and Sarah get legally married (complete with marriage license), and then decide to also be emotionally married to Tom, then they can't be considered common-law married. Sarah can't be because she's already married to John, and John can't be either because he's already married to Sarah or (and?) because same-sex marriage isn't legal everywhere.

[Scarlett]

At this point in their marriage, it wasn't about sex or even living in the same household. It was about staying true to the vows that they made years earlier.

 

What other people do is between them and God, but I saw the definition of love and commitment right there.

 

Beautiful.

[HRAAB]

There's only room for three in my marriage: God, my husband, and me.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[JeneralMom]

Although I personally would not want to be involved in a polygamous marriage (or polyamorous relationship) I see nothing wrong with it as long as all the adults are consenting.

 

In the situation that started this thread, DH and I discussed it and we both agreed that we would want the other person to divorce us and remarry their new love, but that we would continue to have a loving, emotional relationship with the disabled spouse and would involve our new spouse in their care. But, we both also agreed that this would take years before we even thought about dating again.

[mamajag]

 

I think it would be in the best interest of the polygamist community to come up with their own regulations. Decide collectively that either all parents share all children, or only the biological parents have a claim to the children. Decide what they think is a fair tax system which should result in paying at least as much tax as they currently do with separate finances.

 

I think they should pay the taxes at the rate for married people, not single people. It wouldn't be that difficult to amend taxes to add to the standard deduction 1/2 what the two-person couple has for standard deduction for each additional partner and scale the tax brackets likewise. I also support stripping the entire tax code down to a flat tax on everyone in America, which would make things even easier.

 

As for children, that's always a messed up situation even if the couple ever marries. I think it would end up being a joint parenting situation or even a situation where it is declared at the creation of the marriage what the situation will be. It does not have to be complicated.

[ktgrok]

Technically, using the terms polygamy and polyandry is redundant.

 

Polygamy is the practice of having more than one spouse, no gender specified.

 

Polyandry is more than one husband.

 

The correct term (the media screws it up all the time) for more than one wife is polygyny.

 

Just sos ya know.

 

~Imp, who is always frustrated w/the misuse of these terms.

 

THANK YOU! I was laying in bed last night thinking I had that wrong but couldn't remember the right term.

[Chris in VA]

I have a little different take on it, and I really, truly don't mean to offend those on the board who are in that kind of relationship, so I hesitate to share, but... I will. :D

 

I believe in keeping the vow of marriage, even if the other person can't (not discussing divorce for other reasons right now--just in the medical cases given). I vowed "in sickness and in health."

 

I don't consider marriage a right. I don't consider sexual actions as a right. I see them both as a gift, and I believe God gets to determine how to use them, and I believe he's given the Church the one-woman-one-man form as best and even as Holy.

 

If Dh was disabled to the point of these folks we are talking about, I would stay married til the end. I would not seek relationship with another man. I would expect the same for him. This is because I don't see my happiness only coming from a relationship with a man--I know I could be happy as a single, because of God. Even if I could not be happy, happiness is not the point of my life--holiness is.

 

It seems the right thing, to "release" someone from their vows if the spouse is sick like this, but how much could be gained by staying together? What sort of work could God do in the heart if someone chose to stay? As far as financial provision, I've always believed God will give enough. Of course, that's sometimes thru the support of the community.

 

I do believe it is the Church's business, because I believe the Church/Christian life is not just about Sunday am, but about all of life.

[Daisy]

I have a little different take on it, and I really, truly don't mean to offend those on the board who are in that kind of relationship, so I hesitate to share, but... I will. :D

 

I believe in keeping the vow of marriage, even if the other person can't (not discussing divorce for other reasons right now--just in the medical cases given). I vowed "in sickness and in health."

 

I don't consider marriage a right. I don't consider sexual actions as a right. I see them both as a gift, and I believe God gets to determine how to use them, and I believe he's given the Church the one-woman-one-man form as best and even as Holy.

 

If Dh was disabled to the point of these folks we are talking about, I would stay married til the end. I would not seek relationship with another man. I would expect the same for him. This is because I don't see my happiness only coming from a relationship with a man--I know I could be happy as a single, because of God. Even if I could not be happy, happiness is not the point of my life--holiness is.

 

It seems the right thing, to "release" someone from their vows if the spouse is sick like this, but how much could be gained by staying together? What sort of work could God do in the heart if someone chose to stay? As far as financial provision, I've always believed God will give enough. Of course, that's sometimes thru the support of the community.

 

I do believe it is the Church's business, because I believe the Church/Christian life is not just about Sunday am, but about all of life.

 

I agree 100%

[Impish]

THANK YOU! I was laying in bed last night thinking I had that wrong but couldn't remember the right term.

No worries.

 

The media screws it up ALWAYS. It's always, "A polygamous sect..."

 

No, no it's not. If it was, then there would be families w/more than one husband, and *gasp* we just can't have that! :glare:

 

Personally, if you're going to be ok w/mulitple spouses, it *should* be polygamy...Wouldn't Warren Jeffs have kittens over THAT! Willing to bet there would be some pretty abrupt about facing if suddenly the women were allowed multiple spouses! :lol:

[ktgrok]

I have a little different take on it, and I really, truly don't mean to offend those on the board who are in that kind of relationship, so I hesitate to share, but... I will. :D

 

I believe in keeping the vow of marriage, even if the other person can't (not discussing divorce for other reasons right now--just in the medical cases given). I vowed "in sickness and in health."

 

I don't consider marriage a right. I don't consider sexual actions as a right. I see them both as a gift, and I believe God gets to determine how to use them, and I believe he's given the Church the one-woman-one-man form as best and even as Holy.

 

If Dh was disabled to the point of these folks we are talking about, I would stay married til the end. I would not seek relationship with another man. I would expect the same for him. This is because I don't see my happiness only coming from a relationship with a man--I know I could be happy as a single, because of God. Even if I could not be happy, happiness is not the point of my life--holiness is.

 

It seems the right thing, to "release" someone from their vows if the spouse is sick like this, but how much could be gained by staying together? What sort of work could God do in the heart if someone chose to stay? As far as financial provision, I've always believed God will give enough. Of course, that's sometimes thru the support of the community.

 

I do believe it is the Church's business, because I believe the Church/Christian life is not just about Sunday am, but about all of life.

 

hmm...but that again brings up the fact that polygamy was ok in the Bible.

[Jennifer3141]

No worries.

 

The media screws it up ALWAYS. It's always, "A polygamous sect..."

 

No, no it's not. If it was, then there would be families w/more than one husband, and *gasp* we just can't have that! :glare:

 

Personally, if you're going to be ok w/mulitple spouses, it *should* be polygamy...Wouldn't Warren Jeffs have kittens over THAT! Willing to bet there would be some pretty abrupt about facing if suddenly the women were allowed multiple spouses! :lol:

 

Wow. I learn something new everyday. Even stuff that gives me the creeps. :lol:

 

How did you know this, Imp? How many wolves are in your pack excactly babe? :D