Approving Polygamy – Cross Swords

The Mesquite Citizen Journal ^ | February 6, 2014 | Terry Donnelly and Mike Young

[2ndDivisionVet]

For this week's Cross Swords column by Terry Donnelly and Mike Young, we asked this question: After gay marriage is legal, is polygamy next?”

Take a moment to participate in this week's poll in the left column that asks you to weigh in on this topic.

Mike Young’s Sword

The seemingly steamroller of approving gay marriage across our country begs the question - is polygamy next? It may seem a strange question, but it is a very valid question and needs to be asked in the light of the outward rise of gay marriages.

Back through history gay relationships have never been approved and in most of history the penalty for a gay relationship was death so we’re certainly breaking new ground here. The argument for legitimizing gay marriage is that it is a love relationship and who is to say a man can’t love another man or a woman another woman.

Yet somehow through time this has been forbidden. It’s just in the last generation or two that same sex relationships have become commonplace in the western world. We used to define marriage as two people of the opposite sex and now the definition is just two people.

But who defined it as two people anyway? It was in our Judeo-Christian principles that guided our country’s founding. But so was the definition of the oppose sex. However, now that those values are being discarded shouldn’t we reconsider the number, now that we have put aside the sex of the participants?

Polygamy has been around for a long, long time. We have it referenced too in the Bible and of course it is still practiced in some parts of the Islamic world. And there were some good reasons for it, the regeneration of the population after a war killing off most of the men and farmers needing more hands to work the land.

Those conditions don’t apply today but we still must ask why not a group of three or four? Certainty there have been two men in love with the same women and I’m sure two women with the same man. Through history they have had to choose, but why?

The men don’t necessarily have to love each other or the women the other women. This is getting more complicated as we progress through the possibilities. Here in America we have had a large number of people practice polygamy as a religious doctrine. In most places they were prosecuted for their beliefs but now that the Judeo-Christian principles are being swept aside and a live-and-let-live attitude seems to be prevailing. Should we not consider re-thinking our position?

Communes were somewhat along these ideas, share and share alike. Now not all men shared all women and visa-versa. But there were definitely some multiple relationships going on. Did society collapse over it? Of course not. But to a large extent the communes have passed in history and we might ask if the relationships did them in? I think not, but you never know unless you were there.

In any event, it only seems logical that the next big push to liberalize our society will be the push for multiple partners. Since we already have men and women changing partners frequently and now with same sex partnership it only seems like the next step. The only ones who would be against it would be the young boys who would be thrown out so all the old guys could have the young girls. Oh, isn’t that what is happening right now is some places?

Terry Donnelly’s Sword

For once our Cross Swords column is entirely progressive. The question is, “After gay marriage is legal, is polygamy next?”

That is taking a leap of faith that the 33 states that still ban gay marriage for one reason or another, will overcome that prejudice and will soon begin providing equal rights to yet another group who has to suffer bias because of someone else’s perception. Illinois just joined the ranks and Utah is trying, but is currently in limbo with a court stay until a state appeal can be heard.

We can even limit the discussion to Nevada. Sevick v. Sandoval, the case that will be adjudicated in November, challenges the constitutional amendment banning gay Nevadans from legally taking marriage vows. Let’s have some fun and pretend the court overrules the amendment and Nevada hops onto the right side of history and begins ringing wedding bells for anyone in the state.

Wait, there is yet another group who could step forward and demand their civil liberties. Those people who choose to marry more than one person at a time.

Polygamy is front and center on the minds of folks in this part of the country due to the Mormon hub of faith being so close at hand.

Mormons no longer condone polygamy as a mainstream practice, and it is illegal in all states. But, should it be?

First, we’ll need to set some ground rules. In my opinion, the reason polygamy is so polarizing isn’t because it is far out of the norm; it is because of how polygamists have created their tribe. There needs to be regulations attached, just like there are to any marriage. First, any multiple marriage would, by definition, have to be between people of majority age. The Mormon sects often arranged marriages for children to older men. Making children marry is not a civil right.

Another perceived problem is that, because the union is not recognized under state or federal law, the parties choosing polygamy can arrange their cooperative in any style they choose. Often that choice is to register one legal marriage and have the others live in the home as roommates. These roommates often have no source of income, and because they are not legally married, they are listed on welfare rolls. If polygamy were legalized, the number of legally wedded partners would have to abide by government regulations about how families get government assistance, pay taxes, inherit estates, and are privy to private medical processes.

The final acid test is whether or not people living in groups as husbands and wives will have an effect on any other marriage or living arrangement. The answer is “no”, polygamist lifestyles will not have one iota of influence on anything any of the rest of us choose to do.

There are those living within polygamous situations now and the only effect they render is when the parties are caught and news coverage ensues. We get to point and tsk-tsk at them because we think they are wrong.

Different never has been the single criterion for wrong. It wasn’t that long ago that inter-religious marriages were widely frowned upon–still are within some religions. Fortunately, frowning isn’t the same as legal estoppal. Loving v. Virginia in 1967 made banning interracial marriages illegal. And, in the more normal fashion in which America solves civil wrongs, slowly but surely, inch by clawed inch, states are overriding archaic laws against gay unions. There is no good reason that law-abiding lovers in packs should not be able to wed as well.

[faithhopecharity]

Hopefully not! So far not. So it seems a little humor is still ok here on FR. Thanks.

[Elsie]

He tells us in His Bible not to commit adultery...that’s polygamy kid...

Also in the BoM {Jacob 2:27} and in D&C 49:16.

But a LATER D&C (132:58-66) supercedes that.

Yes, a "To whom it may concern" message even supercedes THAT!

[Elsie]

I'm also unclear of where the Bible itself condemns polygamy or calls it a sin

Here's something...

Moses’ law said, the king “shall not multiply horses to himself… Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold” (Deuteronomy 17:16-17).

It says nothing about lesser mortals.

[Elsie]

I'm also unclear of where the Bible itself condemns polygamy or calls it a sin

1 Kings 11:1-3

1 King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.

[Elsie]

He is BAAAAAAAAAAD!

[Tennessee Nana]

Brigham Young, the Second Prophet, said that ANY of his sermons could be taken as scripture;
___________________________________________

yes it was Young who sermonized that God the Father was a polygamist...Young used the scripture from the Christian Bible ...Isaiah 6:1

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple.

Young claimed that the train was all the wives of God...

However God does not have a wife..

Young also claimed that the LORD Jesus Christ was a polygamist and was married to Mary and Martha going as far as to say that the wedding in Cana was Jessus’ own wedding...

The Mormons besides dead dunking their Mormon jesus have married him to Mary and Martha and Mary Madeleine and other women ..

so since their prophet claimed it was so and since Joey Smith the first Mormon prophet claims polygamy is necessary for exaltation etc the Mormons insist that polygamy is in the Bible and is sanctioned by the Christian God...

Yes polygamy is mentioned in the Bible...but so is homosexuality and murder...

but God never said we were to practice polygamy or homosexuality or murder..

polygamy is a sin..

God never told us to sin...and God does not tempt any man...

[Elsie]

... but I don't see it called a sin.

Interestingly, Homosexuality was called SIN before the LAW was given.

[Tennessee Nana]

much of it going on among some main players in the Old Covenant
______________________________________

the main players as you call them were just normal men and women... they sinned

David committed adultery and murder...

but God did not excuse him just because he was a “main player”

Been mentioned in the Bible did not give any of them a pass when they sinned...

Not David, not Moses, not any of the kings, not Peter..

[trebb]

Interestingly, Homosexuality was called SIN before the LAW was given.

I believe it was defined an "abomination in God's eyes" but that might as well make it a sin.

Thanks for your inputs on the topics - it looks like Solomon's many wives, who led him astray, and other references made polygamy to be more a distraction and a folly rather than an actual sin. Homosexuality was always condemned.

[Professional Engineer]

You always go the mother/daughter route to avoid multiple mothers in law...

[Elsie]

Genesis 13:13  (1611 King James Bible)

Viewing the 1611 King James Version. Click to switch to standard King James Version of Genesis 13:13

But the men of Sodome were wicked, and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

[expatguy]

Thanks FRiend

[Elsie]

Thanks for your inputs on the topics - it looks like Solomon's many wives, who led him astray, and other references made polygamy to be more a distraction and a folly rather than an actual sin.

I've always been taught that when God tells a person something; it's kinda like a COMMAND. If you do not follow His 'advice' that is sin.

---

1. the king “shall not multiply horses to himself… Neither shall he multiply wives...

2. the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them

(I'd think the king would be one of the 'Israelites'.)

[GenXteacher]

Polygamy is a relic of barbarism; as society degenerates to that level such things are to be expected.

[Durus]

How many wives did Moses have?

[Tennessee Nana]

1 at a time...

[Durus]

I disagree.

[skinkinthegrass]

*