Posted on 03/31/2006 9:51:05 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
What's the veggie? I'm kinda hungry.
It's much more difficult to construct a Biblical arguement against polygamy than against gay marriage. The best way, I think, to do it is the quote from Moses, Jesus and Paul; "A man shall leave his mother and father to be joined with his wife; and the two shall become one flesh". The "two by two" approach to marriage is further bolstered by the fact that God created one wife for Adam, and that the people and animals went into the Ark two by two (male and female, I might add, but that's for another debate).
Still, key Old Testament figures, including the Patriarchs, engaged in polygamy. The Scriptures make clear that they were sinners and not everything they did was righteous, but I can't think off hand of an instance were their polygamy was criticized. Perhaps someone on this blog who are more steeped in the Books of Moses than I can tell us if polygamy is addressed in the Mosaic Law.
Roman law always forbade polygamy (Caesar's marriage to Cleopatra was not valid under Roman Law because he was already married to Calpurnia). Medieval law was based on Roman law, and, as a result, polygamy never gained a foothold in European civilization.
The Western ban on polygamy may be one of the longest lasting legacies of Roman law.
Not a good example because you can add hetrosexual and it works too. So you are allowing ALL of them to work. Don't add to the acceptance.
There is no biblical sanction of polygamy either. All polygamous marriages in the bible caused jealousy and friction with historical or generational consequences. Only the intervention of the Almighty restored harmony.
David and Solomon were both failed polygamist husbands and biblically punished/criticized for it.
In the new testament, Jesus specifically prescribes one man/one woman marriage and the apostle Paul forbade polygamists positions of leadership.
So now that it is here, who cares? I could care less if someone wants to marry their dog, cat, horse. I mean we can't use the argument of sacred when we have Vegas and Britney have thirty hour marriages. They are definitely one in the same. That women who married that douphin upsets me about the same as Britney's wedding did. They don't involve me AT ALL. Why does this bother you. I think it is funny that she is down there kissing the animal. Weird stuff but if it was not for the media would you know about it. How would this women involve your life if you did not know about this situation? I only have a problem with gay marriage. The rest is fair game because nobody takes it seriously. It is more a humorous joke.
Which is why I don't use the "equal rights for consenting adults" argument. But if you do, you are morally and logically bound to support polygamy, incest, and gay marriage.
In my opinion, marriage is based upon three things: (1) protect the children from parental abandonment, (2) protects the wife from the her husband abandoning her, and (3) protect the husband by helping to assure his paternity of the children to which he is now committed.
... and we can change the whole "1 Species" rule as well.
Before these people are done, they'll be okaying marriages between siblings, children and parents.
Let me put it this way: there is no biblical sanction for gay marriage while the Bible sees nothing wrong with polygamy. Just look at the lives of the patriarchs and the kings of Israel.
Holy crap. Your right. Wow then that is the discussion that should be used. Moses had millions of wife. So did Noah. Please explain why these saints are allowed but in the U.S. they can't. Trust me I absolutely don't want to. One wife is enough, but I don't see biblical teaching saying no to it.
In order for Utah to become a state, the federal government forced it to renounce polygamy.
LOL. Those millions must of surprised Zipporah and where did Noah stash all those wives on the ark, can you imagine when they had PMS, gak!
Please refer Deut. 17:17. Polygamy forbidden to the kings of Israel.
I only disagree with gay marriage. Your opinions are ok, but abandonment is rampant among marriages today so that opinion is fine, but just not happening. I follow the Bible on poligomy which does not say it is wrong.
Before these people are done, they'll be okaying marriages between siblings, children and parents.
That would be interesting and hopefully if we do get a constituational amendment (which I doubt), but I hope they don't just stupidly put marriage can only be between a man and women....because you are right that will open up the crazies to married sibling especially. They will need to be precise on what they say or the lawyers will be all over it.
Well if we use that line of logic, you must be for slavery too.
And treating women like property. And stoning people to death.
Oops. Not that good on bible obviously. Sorry, but thanks for the reference.
I'm still waiting for a good argument against plural marriages as long as it is between consenting adults...la
Suppose 10 men and 10 desirable women find themselves stranded on a deserted island. Suppose 2 of the men are much stronger than the other 8 and also have control (at least in the beginning) of all of the weapons on the island. These 2 men decide that they want all of the women for themselves and so they take 5 women each and warn the other men of dire consequences if they try to interfere. Violence is an almost certain result in such a situation.
Do we really want a society in which marriageable women become a scarce commodity? Look at Saudi Arabia, where the richest men take 4 (or more wives) and many, many young men are left without access to women. Their only hope is to go on jihad and maybe get 72 virgins from their moon god after they blow themselves up.
Why "must" I be for slavery, treating women like property or stoning people to death?
The Bible doesn't condemn ritual animal sacrifices and I'm not 'for' them.
Your logic isn't.
Many of those wives are imported.
But your theory supposes that every man always gets a wife, and that ain't true anywhere you go.
The powerful in life almost always get more than the weak and that is just the way it is. And should be.
"Many of those wives are imported."
They're just marrying the Saudis that other Saudis won't marry. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.