Posted on 03/17/2006 12:29:44 PM PST by mathprof
Edited on 03/17/2006 12:37:26 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
With the sweetly titled HBO series ``Big Love,'' polygamy comes out of the closet. Under the headline ``Polygamists, Unite!'' Newsweek informs us of ``polygamy activists emerging in the wake of the gay-marriage movement.'' Says one evangelical Christian big lover: ``Polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle.''
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Frabkly, polygamy is less an assault on marriage than the Massachusetts abomination. And of course, the modern practice of "serial monogamy" is only one step removed from polygamy, anyway.
When it gets to the point that the state cannot even use dictionary definitions for words any more (marriage, family, love, consummation), maybe it is time for churches to marry people without looking to the state for approval (a la Braveheart, etc.)
"I'm not one of those who see gay marriage or polygamy as a threat to or assault on traditional marriage."
Here's the real danger.
Well, the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination (Lev 18:22).... Polygamy on the other hand was a matter of law in the Old testament and was practiced well after Christ arose.
It would certainly seem backwards to me to allow an abomination while prohibiting what was codified in the OT.
Given who's been saying it all along, I wouldn't be so sure it'll be the liberals.
Can the women have multiple hubbies, too? Or is this just something for perverted guys?
Only good thing I can see in polygamy, from my practical point of view, would be if I could be sure that they'd bitch at each other, preferably at the other end of the house, while they leave me alone to watch TV.
It was not a matter of law. It was not required of anyone and the Torah laws assume that the average person has one spouse.
And it was not practiced after Christ arose by either Christians or Jews - until some Jews living in Muslim lands half-heartedly revived the custom.
When Christ discusses marriage his uniform vision is of monogamy - nowhere when he discusses marriage either actually or symbolically does he reference, let alone sanction, polygamy.
"Can the women have multiple hubbies, too?"
Are you crazy? How many headaches can one have during the day?
Do I need to mention the...ahem...seat lid problem that STILL exists in the 21st century??
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
"The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection." Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive.
Yes.
From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm
One deviation from the typical form of secular union which, however, is also called marriage, is polyandry, the union of several husbands with one wife. It has been practised at various times by a considerable number of people or tribes. It existed among the ancient Britons, the primitive Arabs, the inhabitants of the Canary Islands, the Aborigines of America, the Hottentots, the inhabitants of India, Ceylon, Thibet, Malabar, and New Zealand. In the great majority of these instances polyandry was the exceptional form of conjugal union. Monogamy and even polygamy were much more prevalent. The greater number of the polyandrous unions seem to have been of the kind called fraternal; that is the husbands in each conjugal group were all brothers. Frequently, if not generally, the first husband enjoyed conjugal and domestic rights superior to the others, was, in fact, the chief husband. The others were husbands only in a secondary and limited sense. Both these circumstances show that even in the comparatively few cases in which polyandry existed it was softened in the direction of monogamy; for the wife belonged not to several entirely independent men, but to a group united by the closest ties of blood; she was married to one family rather than to one person. And the fact that one of her consorts possessed superior marital privileges shows that she had only one husband in the full sense of the term. Some writers, e.g. McLennan (Studies in Ancient History, pp.112, sq.) have asserted that the Levirate, the custom which compelled the brother of a deceased husband to marry his widow, had its origin in polyandry. But the Levirate can be explained without any such hypothesis. In many cases it merely indicated that the wife, as the property of her husband, was inherited by his nearest heir, i.e. his brother; in other instances, as among the ancient Hebrews, it was evidently a means of continuing the name, family, and individuality of the deceased husband. If the Levirate pointed in all cases to a previous condition of polyandry, the latter practice must have been much more common than it is shown to have by direct evidence. It is certain that the Levirate existed among the New Caledonians, the Redskins, the Mongols, Afghans, Hindoos, Hebrews, and Abyssinians; yet none of these peoples shows any trace of polyandry. The principal causes of polyandry were the scarcity of women, due to female infanticide and to the appropriation of many women by polygamous chiefs and strong men in a tribe, and to the scarcity of the food supply, which made it impossible for every male member of a family to support a wife alone. Even today polyandry is not entirely unknown. It is found to some extent in Thibet, in the Aleutian Islands, among the Hottentots, and the Zaporogian Cossack
Do you really want to argue the points you bring up or have you already made up your mind? If the later is the case, the we should simply agree to disagree.
I don't disagree with the points you made. It would just seem that polygamy, because of its practice by the patriarchs of the OT, would not be against Natural Law, whereas exclusive sodomy rights masquerading as a form of marriage does.
I am certainly not for polygamy, but it is not the abomination that homosexual acts are.
Duly noted.
While no expert, I have a pretty decent handle on the Scripture and the history in this matter and your claims strike me as completely unsupportable.
The underlying assumption of the Torah legislation is that a Torah observant Jew will have one wife. It doesn't forbid polygamy outright, but it proceeds as if polygamy really only applies to rarified individuals like David and Jacob.
And, as I said, the implicit assumption behind all of the NT Testament discussion of marriage is that marriage is monogamous.
If you feel that there is evidence for positive legislation favoring polygamy in the OT, or sanction of polygamy in the NT, or historical evidence for the practice of polygamy in the early Church, please submit it.
I agree - polygamy is not opposed to natural law, but it is opposed to sacramental marriage. Sodomy is opposed to both.
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.