I'm fine with any and all truly consensual relationships. So long as nobody is being forced or coerced they can have at it.
-
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...your thoughts?
- Thread starter NewChapter
- Start date
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
I think it's bad. Polygamy lends itself to a culture where women become collectable and can be bartered or sold off for such things as business deals. I think that sort of thing makes marriage seem more like a transaction system than a personal commitment. And yes, I realise I've just described polygyny. I suspect polyandry would be subject to the same pitfalls.
I would say specifically that I think polygamy is bad in a patriarchal context but I consider that redundant because I don't think it has been a societal feature in anything other than patriarchal societies.
I would say specifically that I think polygamy is bad in a patriarchal context but I consider that redundant because I don't think it has been a societal feature in anything other than patriarchal societies.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Wrong, sir. There is no contradiction. You are mistaken.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Gen. 4:19 simply says Lamech took 2 wives. It does not say God told him to or was okay with jt.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I don't care what people do as long as it's consensual and they don't involve kids. In my experience, I've never seen any multi-partner arrangement that wasn't clearly unhealthy, but, then again, so are most two person partnerships.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Actually I think the exact opposite would occur in most cases. It would be like never lacking attention from the other wives to each child.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
That's pretty much how I feel about it. As long as consensual, no should be able to tell another how many partners they have to be limited to.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Children do not inherently need a father and a mother. They need a loving, supportive, and stable home life and environment. That's it. It doesn't matter the sex of the care takers or how many.
arthra
Baha'i
Polygamy has been an ancient practise.. but for some reasons I feel it is not practicable or just.
Plurality of wives creates jealousies between the wives and fosters divisions and quarrels and these have sometimes also been recorded in ancient texts.
It also fosters rivalries and favoritism among the offspring of these unions.
It is also not likely to be fair and equitable to more than one wife.
Baha'is practise monogamy
Plurality of wives creates jealousies between the wives and fosters divisions and quarrels and these have sometimes also been recorded in ancient texts.
It also fosters rivalries and favoritism among the offspring of these unions.
It is also not likely to be fair and equitable to more than one wife.
Baha'is practise monogamy
I'm against polygamous marriages. There's a problem with power dynamics, inequality, sexism, legal issues, jealousy, lack of resources (time, money, etc. to care for all of your spouses and children equally), etc. It's also socially destabilizing and the places where it is socially acceptable are chaotic, poor, wartorn and some of the worst places on the planet to be a girl/woman or child. What usually tends to happen is that wealthier males hoard girls and women and the younger, less wealthy males are expendable cannon fodder. Now, in the places where polygamy is accepted, it's mostly the same thing going on. The young men of those societies (North and East Africa, especially) are very poor, very angry, have little chance of a stable family life and are prime targets for extremist movements.
As for a woman having multiple husbands, that is extremely rare, historically, and I do not expect that to change if polygamy was legalized in the West. It would be a disaster in the West among the working class and poor, anyway, since married couples barely have enough time or money to take care of themselves and whatever children they have between the two of them, let alone having multiple spouses and dozens of kids.
Basically, with polygamy, one sex or another (almost always women) are treated as a resource. They tend to take on the reproductive strategies of insects - have as many children as possible and hope some survive. Not much time or other resources are spent on rearing the children. If so, it's usually between the mothers while the father is off boinking some other woman or partaking in other patriarchal social duties.
On a romantic level, I would say that it's not really all that realistic that a person is going to experience deep romantic love on the same level for multiple people at once. That's also factoring in the time and other resources required to sustain and nurture such psychological intimacy, along with being able to work and do everything else you have to do in life. Who really has the time for that, with multiple people at once? Or the money? See, already there is an inherent inequality in such setups. Someone (or multiple someones, depending on the number) is going to get shafted in the arrangement whereas one (maybe two?) spouses will be the favored. So all the spouses very likely are not going to get their needs, emotional or otherwise, met.
(I've noticed the same things going on in openly polyamorous relationships, leading to jealousy and resentment. It just doesn't really seem to work unless one or more of the people involved are okay with effectively being the "third wheel" and their involvement being more sexual than psychologically intimate, which involves much more than just meeting a few times a week/month for sex; even then, the "third wheel" tends to tire of it and move on. Then there's also the jealousy and resentment issues between the primary partners, even if they both initially agree to such an arrangement.)
So I think monogamous marriage (hetero or homo) is best for men, women, children and society in general. It promotes equality between the partners because they can both be able to focus their intimate needs on each other, without having to ration it out. So they are able to pair bond, which is an important bio-psychological need for most humans. Humans just do not seem geared towards romantically pair bonding with more than one person at once and to the same degree. We're more geared towards monogamy, in that respect. There is also the long process of rearing children, which takes a lot longer than most other species. So a monogamous marriage or couple have more time to devote to caring for their children as well for working and doing other things. It also does not inherently privilege one gender/sex or another. Better stability for having and caring for children, and definitely not as many legal issues dealing with property and inheritance.
As for a woman having multiple husbands, that is extremely rare, historically, and I do not expect that to change if polygamy was legalized in the West. It would be a disaster in the West among the working class and poor, anyway, since married couples barely have enough time or money to take care of themselves and whatever children they have between the two of them, let alone having multiple spouses and dozens of kids.
Basically, with polygamy, one sex or another (almost always women) are treated as a resource. They tend to take on the reproductive strategies of insects - have as many children as possible and hope some survive. Not much time or other resources are spent on rearing the children. If so, it's usually between the mothers while the father is off boinking some other woman or partaking in other patriarchal social duties.
On a romantic level, I would say that it's not really all that realistic that a person is going to experience deep romantic love on the same level for multiple people at once. That's also factoring in the time and other resources required to sustain and nurture such psychological intimacy, along with being able to work and do everything else you have to do in life. Who really has the time for that, with multiple people at once? Or the money? See, already there is an inherent inequality in such setups. Someone (or multiple someones, depending on the number) is going to get shafted in the arrangement whereas one (maybe two?) spouses will be the favored. So all the spouses very likely are not going to get their needs, emotional or otherwise, met.
(I've noticed the same things going on in openly polyamorous relationships, leading to jealousy and resentment. It just doesn't really seem to work unless one or more of the people involved are okay with effectively being the "third wheel" and their involvement being more sexual than psychologically intimate, which involves much more than just meeting a few times a week/month for sex; even then, the "third wheel" tends to tire of it and move on. Then there's also the jealousy and resentment issues between the primary partners, even if they both initially agree to such an arrangement.)
So I think monogamous marriage (hetero or homo) is best for men, women, children and society in general. It promotes equality between the partners because they can both be able to focus their intimate needs on each other, without having to ration it out. So they are able to pair bond, which is an important bio-psychological need for most humans. Humans just do not seem geared towards romantically pair bonding with more than one person at once and to the same degree. We're more geared towards monogamy, in that respect. There is also the long process of rearing children, which takes a lot longer than most other species. So a monogamous marriage or couple have more time to devote to caring for their children as well for working and doing other things. It also does not inherently privilege one gender/sex or another. Better stability for having and caring for children, and definitely not as many legal issues dealing with property and inheritance.
Last edited:
How so?
Digital_Monk
Member
I don't have a problem with polygamy. What I have is a lack of understanding WHY someone would want to do that. However, it's not for me to understand since I wouldn't take part in it, but I don't have a problem with other people wanting to do things like that. Whatevs...
I think polygamy/polygyny/polyamory can work for some people, but not for others.
Regardless of whether it's sexual, romantic, or both, polygamy requires exponentially more communication than monogamy. While it can have many benefits (it takes a village to raise a child), it can also have many drawbacks. These aren't even considering the context of Western culture, which focuses so heavily on monogamy in its cultural media, and romantic/sexual jealousy regarded as almost virtuous, that most people don't even know how to approach a polygamous relationship.
It's not something that should be approached lightly.
Regardless of whether it's sexual, romantic, or both, polygamy requires exponentially more communication than monogamy. While it can have many benefits (it takes a village to raise a child), it can also have many drawbacks. These aren't even considering the context of Western culture, which focuses so heavily on monogamy in its cultural media, and romantic/sexual jealousy regarded as almost virtuous, that most people don't even know how to approach a polygamous relationship.
It's not something that should be approached lightly.
Pasan
New Member
P
plygamy better for kingship not for normal people. Because this system depends on wealth. So person who has more money he can. But here problem is that polygamy concept is not longer value in modern society. Modern society is peace in one wife with huge family.
On the other hand in modern society there are many female then male so in this situation definitely we have to re perfome those early concept of polygamy. And effect of this concept we should accept and through this way human society will go into ill-being society. We cannot see more well-being society in this world.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
The Bible actually doesn't make it clear interestingly. A man with his wife is to be one (united). And if he has two wives he is to be one each of them.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
My Grandfather had eight wives and my father had two (that is something that was usually practiced by people of my culture).
I was speaking to my grandmother a while ago and she was telling me about when she met my grandfather - she basically said he was handsome and charming and she wanted to be with him, regardless of whether she was going to be one of many wives. Basically she didn't want to have to settle for someone she would love less simply because she wanted to be the only one. That's an interesting perspective.
I think most of us live in a culture where exclusivity is a major part of love. The connection has been made between romantic love and being the only one (even though most of know it is possible to love more than one person at once). And since a similar connection has been made between romantic love and marriage (a marriage not born out of romantic love is bad) we have therefore made monogamous marriages the standard.
There is one other perspective from which we can look at this: currently in many monogamous cultures there is pressure on people to get married. Some people aren't interested in getting married while some can't imagine their lives without someone in their life. Wouldn't it take the pressure off those who don't want to get married if those who wanted to marry could marry each other even if it meant forming polygamous relationships? And furthermore wouldn't it make it easier for those who wished to marry if they could marry anyone they wanted to and not just the person who was left (i.e. hadn't been picked by anyone else)?
I was speaking to my grandmother a while ago and she was telling me about when she met my grandfather - she basically said he was handsome and charming and she wanted to be with him, regardless of whether she was going to be one of many wives. Basically she didn't want to have to settle for someone she would love less simply because she wanted to be the only one. That's an interesting perspective.
I think most of us live in a culture where exclusivity is a major part of love. The connection has been made between romantic love and being the only one (even though most of know it is possible to love more than one person at once). And since a similar connection has been made between romantic love and marriage (a marriage not born out of romantic love is bad) we have therefore made monogamous marriages the standard.
There is one other perspective from which we can look at this: currently in many monogamous cultures there is pressure on people to get married. Some people aren't interested in getting married while some can't imagine their lives without someone in their life. Wouldn't it take the pressure off those who don't want to get married if those who wanted to marry could marry each other even if it meant forming polygamous relationships? And furthermore wouldn't it make it easier for those who wished to marry if they could marry anyone they wanted to and not just the person who was left (i.e. hadn't been picked by anyone else)?
Last edited:
First Baseman
Retired athlete
That doesn't make sense. A man is to leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and together they become one flesh. He can't be one flesh with more than one woman, that would be two unions, not one.
Genesis 2:24 makes it clear. If you don't think so it is because you are trying to read something in that isn't there because you want it to be there.