• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Polygamy and Polyandry - You decide

Draka

Wonder Woman
Very easy. They get jobs.

but..but...it's the man's place in life to provide for his woman (or women as the case may be). Women are to busy themselves with popping out children and washing the clothes and sweeping and scrubbing the floors and making her man happy. They should greet him at the door when he comes home from work with a kiss and a drink and a foot massage and then bring him his meal. Then, she will feed the children, and if there's enough food left, she can eat in the kitchen before she bathes the children and packs them off to bed for the night.

Don't you know anything?
 
Last edited:

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
I don't think plural marriages should be legal, at least as far as a legal contract goes. Enforcing the terms of the contract upon dissolution by one or more members of the marriage, as well as defining the new terms upon entry of new members into the contract, would just be too wieldy. It's hard enough for the system to handle divorces involving two people.

I certainly have no problem with consenting adults having relationships with whatever configuration of people that works for them, but legally defining it within the context of a marriage contract makes no sense.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
I don't think plural marriages should be legal, at least as far as a legal contract goes. Enforcing the terms of the contract upon dissolution by one or more members of the marriage, as well as defining the new terms upon entry of new members into the contract, would just be too wieldy. It's hard enough for the system to handle divorces involving two people.

I certainly have no problem with consenting adults having relationships with whatever configuration of people that works for them, but legally defining it within the context of a marriage contract makes no sense.

This is the only issue I have with polygamous marriages. The setting up of rights and obligations such as beneficiaries, spousal benefits, retirement and social security and so on. When you are dealing with several adults in one relationship then the normal marriage legalities which apply to two people simply do not apply anymore. Now, if there was a set up as one legal spouse, while the others are considered more along the lines of dependents like children are, if they don't work that is, then maybe. Or one legal "spouse" with other religiously or otherwise recognized "partners".

If 3 or 4 people want to live together in what they consider one relationship, have ceremonies to establish it, then so be it, it's just when it comes to the actual legalities of it it becomes an issue. We would have to have something entirely different set up because, very simply, 3 or 4 people cannot enter into a contract which is legally designed to accommodate 2 people. I'm not saying that I don't believe people should be able to have their poly marriages, just that for the moment, they can't legally work within the government system we have simply because of the number of participants.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
So would you be perfectly fine if your girlfriend/wife shared you with 5 other men and you did not have the option of 5 women?

Would you be happy for your 1 night/day of the week to come along and have your turn?

I suspect that most men would happily have several wives but if the tables were to be reversed there would be quite the outcry.

As with any relationship, people work out and agree to fair arrangements.

by your logic, we should ban heterosexual, monogamous relationships because sometimes household chores aren't shared fairly. But obviously the problem is with them and their relationship, not with the idea of marriage itself.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Polygamy is contrary to God's purpose and forbidden to Christians. (Matthew 19:4,5)
Even though permitted by God for a time, God's original purpose was for monogamy. God regulated polygamy to protect women. (Exodus 21:10,11)
God's Son restored the original edenic standard of one husband, one wife. Therefore, polygamy or polyandry is a violation of God's law and constitutes adultery. While men may accept such practices that suit their desire for sexual gratification, the Bible warns that "God will judge fornicators and adulterers." (Hebrew 13:4)

The bible also instruct people on how to sell their own daughters into sexual slavery, and to murder people who wear mixed fabrics, rotate crops, work on Sunday, speak to menstruating women and eat shrimp. No sensible person uses that rubbish as a moral compass in the modern world.
 

Songbird

She rules her life like a bird in flight
People who wouldn't be happy with it probably wouldn't be in a polygamous relationship to begin with. What's your point?

Exactly.

Here's the beautiful thing about legalizing something you wouldn't be happy doing: You don't have to do it! In light of that, it's entirely, completely irrelevant that you don't want to do it! Think of all the people who don't drink alcohol for various reasons - religious adherence, history of addiction, personal feelings, allergy to nitrites - the law allows us to not drink alcohol. What freedom.
 

Somerled32

Traveler~ 2B1ASK1
Now, how would God view same-sex incestuous polygamy as advocated by some on this board?

I didn't see anyone talking about incest other than you, and why would same-sex plural relationships necessarily be incestuous? Just because someone is involved in something that is "wrong" (to someone else) doesn't mean that they are involved in other "immoral" behaviors. I think that by lumping all of these things together you're assuming quite a lot about a particular set of people...but that's just me.
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
I take it you viewed my photo on the other thread.

Legalise incest why not - sure they are not hurting anyone.

How about producing imbecile children - that certainly hurts society.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I take it you viewed my photo on the other thread.

Legalise incest why not - sure they are not hurting anyone.

How about producing imbecile children - that certainly hurts society.

It's likely the reason we end up with so many threads like this one. But like I said, nothing that couldn't be remedied with a good old fashion abortion.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
I'm curious, why start a thread about polygamy and talk about incest instead? Is it impossible to stay on topic or have a stance solely about one thing without trying to bring in unrelated things and trying to establish a slippery slope connection?
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
RE: if your wife had five husbands..

Originally Posted by nnmartin
and you did not have the option of 5 women?

Why would i not have that option in this scenario?

It could be possible that your wife was very attractive and thus had many husbands. However you may just be an ordinary Joe with access to only 1 wife.

How happy would you then be on your own for 6 nights of the week?
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
but..but...it's the man's place in life to provide for his woman (or women as the case may be). Women are to busy themselves with popping out children and washing the clothes and sweeping and scrubbing the floors and making her man happy. They should greet him at the door when he comes home from work with a kiss and a drink and a foot massage and then bring him his meal. Then, she will feed the children, and if there's enough food left, she can eat in the kitchen before she bathes the children and packs them off to bed for the night.

Don't you know anything?

Another sensationalist post and really quite off topic as no-one is actually proposing this to be the only acceptable form of marriage.

I'm not saying that I don't believe people should be able to have their poly marriages, just that for the moment, they can't legally work within the government system we have simply because of the number of participants.


Are you saying we should change the system then to allow for polygamy?

I note you have not answered any of my other questions on this thread so let's hope for better luck with this one.
 
Last edited:

Draka

Wonder Woman
That is a post seeped in sensationalism.

Many women do work and bring home the bacon of course but can you really see a hard working woman looking after 5 men who are happy just to lie around the house doing the occasional chore here and there?
Why would all 5 husbands have no job? You really do go with extremes a lot.

Because some people have suggested that it is ok to have incestuous polygamy. What is your stance on this?
I don't recall anybody starting that line of thought. It was you who started it. As for my stance on it, I honestly haven't thought about it.

Another sensationalist post and really quite off topic as no-one is actually proposing this to be the only acceptable form of marriage.
All I have done is kept in mind your own statements about "traditions" and gender "role models" and so on and extrapolated what appears to be an acceptable scenario for you. You don't like it? Don't complain...it's what you have been essentially inferring for a while now.

Are you saying we should change the system then to allow for polygamy?

I note you have not answered any of my other questions on this thread so let's hope for better luck with this one.
I haven't said anything of the like. I don't see completely reworking marriage from a two person contract. It works best when it is kept as simple as possible. No need to complicate. I've already given my suggestions as to how multiple spouses may be dealt with. That would have to be something worked out separately. As is, there's nothing keeping people from marrying one spouse legally and marrying any others by means of personal/religious ceremonies and setting up separate paperwork to try to provide protections for all involved.
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
I don't see completely reworking marriage from a two person contract. It works best when it is kept as simple as possible. No need to complicate.

So what ever happened to your oft repeated notion of - 'as long as it's consenting adults that love each other it's nobody else's business' ?

Isn't not allowing polygamy being discriminatory against those who want it?

I see a double standard here.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
So what ever happened to your oft repeated notion of - 'as long as it's consenting adults that love each other it's nobody else's business' ?

What are you on about? I explained what I was talking about in terms of legal contracts of marriage. Twice now as a matter of fact. Must I do it a third time? Obviously so. :rolleyes: As is, marriage is set up both at a state and federal level with provisions, limitations, restrictions, rights, and benefits for two people. Social security and retirement death benefits and medical proxy and care and so on all are already configured into the marriage contract for 2 spouses. An entire reworking of how those benefits, tax laws, medical care rights, and so on to incorporate any number of spouses would make the base marriage laws far more complicated than they are or need be. One of the main reasons that legally marrying more than one spouse is criminalized in many countries is because of the ability to take advantage of and fraud the current systems as they are presently set up. It's not about telling people that they can't love more than one person, it's about not having someone abuse the system. As I said, there is nothing that prevents someone from having one legal spouse and then having personal/religious ceremonies/marriages with more spouses and finding separate ways to include them legally into the family provisions. since polygamous marriages do vary so, both in number of participants and the set up of how those marriages work, then it would make sense to allow each family to personally set up their own provisions as necessary.

Have I made myself clear to you now? Or are you still just wanting to argue for the sake of arguing? My only issue with poly marriage is that it doesn't fit into the 2 person marriage contract. That is not to say that they can't set up their own on a personal and case by case basis.
 

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
As long as everyone involved is happy with the relationship is fine, I have no issues with it in terms of morality. In terms of practicality however I DO have reservations, in particular with how inheritance, custody, divorce etc are handled. But provided that they have a means by which to address those issues? Sure thing.
 

blackout

Violet.
MANY laws had to be changed and rewritten
when it was deemed that women were no longer the legal property of men.

Voting laws eventually changed,
personal ownership rights,
laws in the workplace,
tax laws,
divorce laws,
and all kinds of laws I won't even think of or know about.

If Poly marriages are important to a society
they will make the changes and inclusions necessary
to make it so.

There is no cap on business and corporation partnership
(that I know of)
and there are ways in place
of changing and disolving the makeup of these partnerships.

Where there is a strong enough will,
there is a way.

Paradigms change as laws change,
laws change as paradigms change.
 
Last edited:
Top