Chris in VA Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 hmm...but that again brings up the fact that polygamy was ok in the Bible. No, I don't believe that. I believe the one-man-one-woman was the standard from the beginning. Just because God was silent on some things (like Solomon's many wifies) doesn't mean he was pleased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 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 Bwah hahahaha! Well, if all the males count as wolves, 4 in total. 3 bears (or Imps...but since dh calls me Mama Bear...and the girls tend to get '-bear' added to their names for a nic...) Honestly, I learned in sociology class in college. Warehouse of useless info, that's me! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairfarmhand Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 No, I don't believe that. I believe the one-man-one-woman was the standard from the beginning. Just because God was silent on some things (like Solomon's many wifies) doesn't mean he was pleased. I also see that not once in scripture (that I recall) was multiple wives a positive thing. Solomon's wives turned his heart away from the Lord. David's multiple wives/bazillion children began a civil war upon his death. Abraham/Sarah/Hagar GAH!!!!! Jacob's 2 wives, 2 concubines...yeah that was an awful situation. If you want to talk scripture, I think that God designed men and women to share their hearts and souls with only one other person. How is that possible if there are multiples in the bond? I also tend to give major credence to what JESUS had to say about marriage. I don't think he would agree w/polygamy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 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 :) Or, he could hire a housekeeper, putting aside the other interests in having another wife, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 hmm...but that again brings up the fact that polygamy was ok in the Bible. No, it wasn't. It happened, but it wasn't the plan from the beginning. Silence does not equal approval. And those extra wives from other cultures caused a lot of problems for Solomon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Smith Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 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. I learnt about one culture that does practice polyandry. The oldest brother gets to pick out the wife and then she also marries all his younger brothers. This way the family farm never has to be split up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHomeScientist Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 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: Eh? Polygyny and polyandry are both forms of polygamy, so it's completely correct to describe Jeffs as the leader of a "polygamous sect". There's no requirement for both forms to be present. Either suffices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Eh? Polygyny and polyandry are both forms of polygamy, so it's completely correct to describe Jeffs as the leader of a "polygamous sect". There's no requirement for both forms to be present. Either suffices. My understanding is that the actual term for multiple wives is polygyny, since the situation w/Jeffs did not allow for multiple 'spouses', it was specifically 'wives'. The general public seems to be thinking that 'polygamy' is specifically the practice of having multiple wives. It's not, it's multiple spouses of either gender, not just wives. I'm just sayin, call it what it is, or live the term you choose. Since polygamy is multiple spouses, not just multiple wives, then let the women have as many husbands as they want! :D Or, if it's only ok for the men to have multiple spouses, call it polygyny, since that's what it actually, specifically, is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amirah Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 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 live in Canada, but am American and there are plenty of ppl living in the U.S and Canada under marriages that are considered polygamy. some of them even live in the same house.... some of them don't. no one really knows unless you go out shouting to the world. i am in the toronto area and there are plenty of families here you would be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trish Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 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. Huh, that works out so well with my kids I can imagine it would be a breeze with adults and adult needs. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MistyMountain Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I have no problem with polygamy/polyandry or dofferent types of marriages from my own between consenting adults. The only time I think it is harmful is in the insular communities where there is no true choice and when it is an attempt to save a bad marriage. I have no problem with the situation from the other post. If I was the spouse that was brain injured and was left at a child level developmentally but happy I would want my husband to find someone else. We have small children now and I think it better for them and him to have another adult who can pitch in. I want to still be a part of their lives and to spend time with them but if I was at a child level I would not care if dh married and found a mother figure for my children. He better pick someone who is good for them and has similar values. ; ) To me morals are about hurting and harming other people. I do not want polygamy or an open marriage for myself but if someone else is happy in that situation then I don't see that as immoral. I thought the story that this on s/o was a great story and I do not think that situation is disgusting at all. Not everyone has the same morals and belief system. Not everyone makes the same vows. No one is being harmed from the situation even if it is different then what (g)you are comfortable with and would do yourself. I am a secular humanist or an atheist whatever you want to call it though. I am not an immoral person and I do not like when people assume that about people who do not believe in a God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amey311 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 hmm...but that again brings up the fact that polygamy was ok in the Bible. As was being married to a spice ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 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. :iagree: 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I also see that not once in scripture (that I recall) was multiple wives a positive thing. Solomon's wives turned his heart away from the Lord. David's multiple wives/bazillion children began a civil war upon his death. Abraham/Sarah/Hagar GAH!!!!! Jacob's 2 wives, 2 concubines...yeah that was an awful situation. If you want to talk scripture, I think that God designed men and women to share their hearts and souls with only one other person. How is that possible if there are multiples in the bond? I also tend to give major credence to what JESUS had to say about marriage. I don't think he would agree w/polygamy. Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 My personal opinion is that if everyone is consenting adults, have at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 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. Perfect. Well said and I agree with you 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.