So what's wrong with polygamy? Do you object on religious grounds?

Question

Assuming all people consent and are capable of giving consent (not minors, not in a coma).

Please note: Anyone objecting on non-religious grounds is conceeding that the definition of marriage is not for any one religion to make.

BTW: I asked earlier where One Man and One Woman was in the Bible...that went poorly. Suffice it to say, it's not.

Read the Profile, dear. Only one LabGrrl.

Hey Bob-
How many wives did Jacob have?

Squirrel-
That's the only rational objection I've ever heard, but I think employer based health benefits are going the way of the Dodo.

Answer 1

I'm not going to interfere with polyamory, because as you note, it involves consenting adults.

But polyamory's probably meets the definition of a disorder -- unlike homosexuality. Further, if polygamous marriages were recognized, it would put enormous strain on social services and benefits. (Can you imagine an employer having to pay medical insurance for eight wives?)

So for practical and psychological reasons, I don't think it should be recognized by the government as a legal marriage.

Answer 2

I would not object IF our culture was arranged to handle it, which it is not, culturally or legally. The problem is too many people see it as an "all you need is love" or "all orgy all the time" arrangement, when in actual polygamous societies, things like supporting the spouses, number of in-laws, childrens' inheritance, and hierarchy of the spouses is considered. In many polygamous societies, there is a chief wife who makes the decisions, and then subordinate wives. In our society, I have seen more polyamorous relationships go sour than succeed, and it was always because one partner was essentially the concubine, but no one was willing to admit this. I have however seen open relationships work; probably because they tend to not pretend it's about anything but the sex. Also, in countries where polygamy is legal, relatively few people practice it, because the larger the household, the more expensive it is to support.

Answer 3

I do not object to polygamy on religious grounds. I think it is appropriate if the women and the man all feel the same way about it, and the bed is only shared with one man and one wife at once. I know why Christians have only one wife, but I don't know for sure it is biblical. In the bible, when describing a bishop, we are told a Bishop should only have one wife. So it was not excluding those who had more than one from being members of the Church (and it DID NOT refer to divorce.)

Answer 4

Great question. I have to admit I have no personal objections to that actual concept of polygamy. Its the ramnifications that become tricky, for example:

Polygamous societies are generally male dominated, with one man having many wives. Women tend to become commodities, if nothing else because of a shortage of women.

If you had one woman with many husbands, you wouldn't be able to identify the biological father of any children (other than through genetic testing)

Personally, I wouldn't want more than one husband. I don't think I could give an appropriate amount of spousal love to multiple people, but that's just me. Polygamy historically has generally involved political marriages more than marriages for love.

Polygamy tends to produce very large families that are not easily provided for in this culture.

Answer 5

i'm oftentimes adversarial to gay marriage as a results of fact it is this type of trivial difficulty that's being inflated to create controversy the place none is mandatory. the project is which you're utilising the be conscious "marriage" that's historically defined as a heterosexual dating. call it some thing else. the reason i hit upon this difficulty ridiculous is that homosexuals characterize an extremely tiny minority. I see no explanation why their schedule must be on the leading fringe of politics different than for the certainty that it replaced into created to the two piss off religious human beings, or positioned homosexuals interior the spotlight (i'm guessing it incredibly is the main reason). the project with progressives is they constantly ought to locate some thing to "progression" on. the place their concept of progression is dismantling all of our previous values and traditions. I understand that it incredibly is the U. S., yet as a results of fact the Civil war the U. S. grew to become greater of a centralized u . s .. earlier then it replaced right into a incredibly a loose conglomeration of States and territories. If human beings had distinctive life or religious ideals which have been unlike of their locality they relocated to a place that perfect them. hence Utah and the flourishing of Mormonism there. it could be large if homosexuals ought to establish their own community someplace the place they could frolic in peace and cohesion and no-you could actually project them, yet lamentably, that dreaded 14th modification defeats that threat. I abhor the certainty that the standard public of folk ought to bend over to assuage a tiny yet very vocal minority team. besides the incontrovertible fact that it incredibly is the USA and democracy is our meant government. So then if the standard public disagrees with some thing for in spite of reason and places it to regulation, the minority ought to study to stay with it fairly of without end complaining approximately how their rights are being violated. you spot the desire of the human beings must be respected. If some choose makes a decision to overrule the desire of the standard public for the reason that it is "unconstitutional" then we don't probably have a functioning democracy, yet a judicial dictatorship. in my opinion, those divisive subject concerns will in simple terms deliver approximately greater social issues. If adequate anybody is displeased, the Union must be threatened back. I see secession of various States as a particular threat interior the destiny.

Answer 6

No, I object on practical grounds. I've seen quite a few polyamorous relationships in the Pagan community, and I've rarely if ever seen them work. It's hard enough getting two people to communicate effectively. Adding more people to the equation just makes that exponentially harder. And, there's always one person in the partnership who, on some level, would rather the relationship be one-on-one. Me, I'm a natural pair-bonder. That, and I have neither the money, the time, nor the patience for more than one girlfriend. But that's just me. If you can make it work, who am I to judge.

Answer 7

Oooh, that is a good one.

Also, look at this. In the US, laws cannot be made that favor religion. If a law is made based solely on a religious belief then it is an unconstitutional law. Therefore, if someone cannot give any reason why polygamy is wrong in a non-religious way then the laws against it are unconstitutional.

Answer 8

Real labgrrl is better.

I object in that as an organization, it tends not to work particularly well. In most instances, in our paternalistic culture, it is strictly one man with many wives, which is a difficult and often unpracticable situation. It can effect the well being of children and teach them ideas that women aren't people, or are chattle of some sort.

Edit: Well shut my mouth, it is you. Oops, apologies for the assumption.

Answer 9

Yes and no. I think that polygamy is much like divorce, God allows it and permits it sometiomes. However, it is not what He would want. Polygamy is more of a cultural issue. God allowed it because it was the norm at the time. Howver, in america today, absoutly not, we are to follow the law of the land.

Gods perfect design is for a man to have one wife and to cleave unto her, and her alone.

Answer 10

Because its Practice the Elimation of Infidelity, One Outsider can get inside of anothers Marriage or Relationship with Conflict, its also means that Both Man and Woman have to Open the Door to that other person in thier Relationship.