Polygamy

Rather than go to all the onorous burden of actually looking on Wikipedia or Googling it, I thought I would ask here: why is it, really, that multiple spouses are pretty much illegal here in the US? I seem to remember that there weren't polygamy laws until the early Mormons started advocating multiple wives - this would point to the laws being an example of Us vs. Them, no? Why should there even be laws about this issue, beyond those protecting the rights of the fourth wife as well as those of the first.And I would also like to hear some views on why polygamy could even be construed as "immoral" or "unchristian." Solomon, the wisest of men that he was, had some hundreds of wives, correct?First introduction of the topic of same-sex marriage to this thread will result in application of the Second Corrolary of Godwin's Rule: the introducer will become a Nazi and be sent to Nurenberg for trial.

Personally, I don't find it immoral and wouldn't mind if allowed alongside polyandry (as long as all parties are consentants). It may become a problem through with all rights like inheritance, insurance, etc... especially if there are too many wives/husbands. For example, you could get person a married to b,c,d, b married to e,f,g,h, c married to d,f,g,i ,etc... It would be a pain for the administration and very few people are pushing for it (at least they don't push for BOTH polygamy and polyandry).

I have no problem with polygamy. What I have a problem with is how polygamy plays out in the real world. Polygamist colonies tend to be isolationist which leads to de facto violations of civil liberties. Women often feel trapped, and they are threatened with physical violence if they leave. Young girls are often married off shortly after puberty. Young men are kicked out of the colony to fend for themselves. Also, wives are not allowed to have jobs so their children are often on public assistance. Polygamy, as it is practiced, leads to a very poor social structure.I am torn on the issue. On one hand I am all for allowing consenting adults to enter into any kind of relationship that they want to enter into. It's their business, and it is a free country. On the other hand, with polygamy as it is practiced consent is often given under duress, be it social pressure or "brain washing".If polygamy went "mainstream" it would certainly be interesting.

That's sort of a loaded question. It's important to note that many people do live in the US in polyamorous relationships that are identical in all ways to a marriage excepting the legal recognition.Polygamy in the US has a rather nasty history. It has meant such things as forced arranged marriages, often including incest and pedophilia. Actual marriage-polygamy is usually restricted only to a few fringe religious groups and cults, where in many (not all) cases there is a degree of coercion involved. This all on top of kickback against Mormons. The state doesn't have an interest in dictating who may marry whom, but it does have a strong interest in preventing child and spousal abuse, and those have unfortunately been strong features in American polygamy. So long as "polygamy" carries implications of young girls being forced to marry old men, raped, beaten, and forced to have more kids who are then married off to other polygamists without even reaching the age of consent, polygamy is likely to remain outlawed.But again, right now there are lots of people in polyamorous relationships. There are men with multiple live-in girlfriends, women with multiple live-in boyfriends, and even groups of people who all have relationships with each other. None of it is illegal - they just can't all get married. And while many of the reasons reach into the stigmas I mentioned above, perhaps the strongest real reason (if we can separate the child/spousal abusers from those who have legitimate relationships with multiple people) is a simple matter of spousal benefits. Which spouse would get to make the medical decisions if there were a disagreement? Do they all get all of the assets in a divorce? How many ways does the community property split if one partner divorces multiple others? Does the leaving party get half? It's a legal headache, and one where the law doesn't have much of a reason to try to accommodate anyone due to insufficient political will to make such changes.

Solomon's many wives lead him astray from Yahweh, and Yahweh was not pleased. ( 1 Kings 11:4)And Paul was broadly against marriage, "It is good for a man not to marry" 1 Corinthians 7:1Indeed, Paul seemed to suggest that it was best to avoid sex, but if it couldn't be avoided, marriage was the solution. Having multiple wives would tend to undermine this teaching.As for the broader issue: There's no compelling argument why multiple partner marriages should not be possible - but I would have thought that technically each member should be married to one another, which would mean we'd have to allow gay marriages which is scary and bad and our children will die. OR something.

If anyone wants to hear all the nasty details about what actually happens under polygamy I suggest reading Under the Banner of Heaven by John Krakauer. Definitely an eye opening experience about not only polygamy but Mormonism as well.

It shouldn't be forgotten that Paul believed the world as he knew it to be coming to an endChrist was returning and within his lifetime. A lot of his teachings on how to live make more sense if read in light of this belief: don't get too caught up in the present age because it will soon be over.I don't think Paul was against marriage at all.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Indeed. I'm not saying that Paul's opinions are nonsensical or at odds with his beliefs. I was just repeating his overarching view of marriage given the importance Christians place on Paul. 'against' marriage is a vague thing to be. He was of the opinion that it was better not to marry than to marry unless avoiding sex/lust is needed :

quote:

---

Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire

---

1 Corinthians 7:8-9

I cannot figure out why the government has any say in marriage to begin with. Nevertheless, there are some benefits that the government bestows upon the married in accord with the government's perceived value of that institution. Do the polygamous provide a value comparable to the benefits they may receive from each of those marriages? Are there any in-depth accounts of the values and benefits of government-recognized marriage?Would polygamists even benefit from government recognition of their unions? I cannot imagine any way that it could be immoral or unchristian in itself.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

i thikn this problem could be worked around, say a and b are married, and b wants to marry c, well if a gives the consent then c is married to a and b so all 3 are married and one family so if c dies and there is no will is belongings go to both equaly and if d wants to marry a all 3 haveto give the consent and he gets married to a b and c.

Yes ... yes it is.

they came up with those laws because this nation used to be one nation under God.Now it is one nation under many gods.they made those rules because the bible says it is wrong.Yes solomon had 700 wives but that doesn't mean God agread with it.And if you read carfully most of his wives were pagan believers.that ought to tell you some thing about his sin nature.

I suppose that you have some support that the US was "one nation under god" before the 50s or that it was ever a Christian Nation or that there is any Biblical support for opposing polygamy?

I have all support that this was one nation under God. We came over to america so we could follow God,the only God,But know we are mostly pagan beliefs such as, mormon,catholic.evolution,and many more.we came over to america to excape catholisisem and the burden of the government.

What on earth would possess you to suppose any of that? Did someone spike your coffee?