Posted on 12/17/2013 6:39:01 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Polygamy is back in the headlines.
Last week, a federal judge in Utah struck down part of the state's anti-polygamy law as unconstitutional, although he kept the ban on possessing more than one marriage license at a time. Fans of the "Sister Wives" reality TV stars, who filed the suit, are rejoicing in the news.
At the other end of the spectrum, TLC debuted its newest docuseries, "Breaking the Faith," which tells the dark story of women and children trying to escape from the practice.
Another lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice alleges that polygamous clans are secretly running the show in Utah and Arizona townships, manipulating the political process from behind the scenes. And in Texas, the Attorney General's Office is inching closer to seizing a massive polygamous ranch.
Across the country, angry citizens are calling for the government to follow its own laws and crack down on polygamy.
Meanwhile, celebrities like Akon and various news outlets encourage people of all ages to reconsider plural marriage....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
There was a time when polygamy made sense and even provided an important benefit to society. With constant wars between neighboring groups, there was a distinct imbalance between men and women. Polygamy was a way to build up the population by providing the excess women with a husband to support her and father her children, replacing the many young men killed by war, disease and famine. Indeed, in the Jewish faith, if a man died and left a childless widow, it was his next oldest male relative’s obligation to take the widow as his wife, even if he were already married, and give her children who would be the heirs of the dead man’s estate. (Read the Book of Ruth for a good example of this practice.)
That being said, marriage should be between one man and one woman. In our society, at least, there is no reason that polygamy should be necessary to sustain the population of the society, and I cannot think of any other benefit such a relationship would provide to society as a whole.
bump
I'll have to read Ruth again, but I don't recall that Boaz was already married.
In I Samuel, we do read of Elkanah who had two wives, Hannah and Peninnah. Peninnah had children but Hannah had none. When Elkanah gave sacrifices "But to Hannah he gave a double portion because he loved her" -- I wonder if Hannah was his first and beloved wife (though barren) and Peninnah was his dead brother's widow he had to marry. A while back I'd thought he married Peninnah second because Hannah turned out to be barren, but now I think his marriage to Peninnah it could have been a levirate marriage. What do you think?
LOL!
Yes, and this usually accompanies slavery and repression in order to prevent any frustrated men from revolting.
Not me... I want the one that has no std’s, no creditcard debt, never voted for obama... oh hell just forget it! ;-)
No, it is time to reconsider allowing government to have any role whatsoever in defining and regulating marriage.
Marriage is defined by God, not the State. When the people of a State were supportive of the godly institution of marriage, their laws tended to be in harmony with God’s Law. But now that forces that are hostile to God’s definition of marriage have gained sufficient control in many States, they are redefining marriage with the intent on destroying it.
In order to save marriage, we must restore the separation between marriage and the State.
Mark Twain said of the Mormon women when out in the territory in the 1860, any man who would marry more that one of them had his respect.
Not saying it was good or bad?
By redefining traditional marriage, they've opened the gates to hell. I say we shove them through it.
What polygamy does is put women under the control of a smaller set of men in the population. This creates a shortage of women for the rest of the male population. Do we want that?
Long ago, the Jews turned from human history towards heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman. This caused a change which took men into the modern age. Those societies that held onto polygamy, fell behind.
"“Turn back, my daughters; why will you go with me? Are there still sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands? Turn back, my daughters, go—for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say I have hope, if I should have a husband tonight and should also bear sons, would you wait for them till they were grown? Would you restrain yourselves from having husbands?"
Later, when Boaz meets with the "near-kinsman" at the city gate, Boaz tells him that he can buy (redeem) the inheritance of Elimelek, Naomi's husband who had died, and whose sons had died without heirs. The "near-kinsman" was prepared to buy the property until Boaz told him he would also have to take the wife (widow) of one of the sons of Elimelek as well, to keep the property in the name of the dead man's family. The near-kinsman declined because it would "mar his own inheritance", i.e, cause a conflict with his own children inheriting his property rather than any children he might have with Ruth.
There are other examples of this practice in the Old Testament - this is just the one that first jumped to mind.
Sure. Fine by me!
:-P
That's not a good argument to use in this topic because, things being what they are, your argument can then be used in other aspects of society to advance the leftist agenda for social engineering.
If government is supposed to engineer private relationships for some 'greater good' then they can impose all manner of tyranny on us 'for our own good'.
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. - C.S. Lewis
My look at polygamy is from a practical view. There is the shortage of women for the rest of the male population to consider. There is the temptation to overlook that practical matter and allow polygamy because of the adventure it would bring to man’s carnal nature. However, because of the practical consequences, I would keep the restrictions.
True, polygamy has its seductive qualities and, given the wild man within, monogamy is not a natural state. Man is polymorphous and has the same tendencies as much of the animal kingdom. However, our civilization tries to keep under control that wild man. This is not a matter as you say of some “leftist agenda for social engineering.” It is a practical thing. Monogamy has served the human society well for it has insured that males spend their resources caring for children rather than the provision of several wives and the need to satisfy their undisciplined sexual appetites. I think government should make sure that arrangement continues.
When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The Western world assent to power can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.
This change which heightened male-female love and sexuality also elevated the status of women who were no longer regarded as brood mares for the sexual satisfaction of their owners. You can imagine what kind of activity would occur if the restrictions were taken away and males could have sex with animals, parent-child incest and all nature of unchanneled sex. There is one thing for certain, the offspring would be the last thing of concern (except as a sexual outlet).
Ha, ha I love it! Maybe these are the kinds of ads Obama needs to run for Obamacare. It certainly is a crazy idea.
Too bad they’re trying to take us with them. I’m too old for this nonsense.
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.