Protect Our Traditional Marriage Rights!

[badstar]

You may not be aware of this but there has been and is a movement here in America(and probably in other, non-American places too) to erode or destroy part of the traditional, biblical definition of marriage. I'm talking of course, about polygamy. You see, these "social reformer" types want to limit marriages to one man and one woman, while this isn't biblical at all!

Lets face it - many of the prophets and patriarchs of the OT had multiple wives, so obviously God didn't have a problem with it so why should we let secular-humanist social conservatives dictate morality to us?

If polygamy was good enough for Moses, Abraham, Jacob and David, not to mention Solomon, it should still stand today.

Summary: Polygamy is traditional, biblical, scripture supports it comes from God. What more need be said?

edit: This came from fizzyland

Comments

[ranger-hotsauce.livejournal.com]

See now that right there is what they call funny.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

glad i could provide a moment of amusement

[ravenshrinkery.livejournal.com]

Of course, there's one small problem. Us modern polygamists like to think that fair is fair and that women can have multiple husbands also if they wish. Find Christian polygamists who want that idea.

The other problem is many of those Christian polygamists are also pushing the boundaries between consentual polyamory and child abuse. It comes down to the fact that men and women are born in almost equal proportion and without a way to reasonably get rid of excess males you're eventually going to run out of women for them - or you're going to have some men seen as inferior because they don't have their own personal harem.

Older cultures had a way of solving this - war. Those who came back with the spoils of war not only had extra wealth, they often had slave women they could marry in addition to those from their home tribe. Those who died... solved the excess male population problem. Seeing as we don't follow such barbaric tactics for the sake of personal gain (corporate gain is another matter), it just doesn't work for us.

Sorry to whizz on your humor, but welcome to the life and arguments of a consentual polyamorist.

[saratoga80.livejournal.com]

As a consensual monogamist (read: married), marriage isn't a religious item anymore. It's a social contract. That's why it's licensed ($), documented, and affirmed by courts. It's why there's a million domestic laws about the splitting of assts and what not, and whole courts to solve familial issues. Divorce is an industry in the US.

So, out of simple convenience, marriage is between one man and a woman, generally - and with more open policies over time, between a man and man, or woman and woman. But polygamy complicates those social isues, irrespective of religion. So,you can probably forget polygamy as a matter of the law.

Additionally, Most Marriage = One Man + One Woman types are anti-gay marriage, not anti-polygamy.

-- Rich

[dcnblus.livejournal.com]

*chuckle*

marriage has always been nothing more than a social contract. The local religious leader - the moral foundation for the community -- was often sought to "witness" the contract, hence the tie to religion. Typically, part of the contract was that the new couple would bear an heir to the family name and the estate, necessarily requiring that marriage be between one man and one woman. It's also interesting to see how dowry requirements change by time and culture..

It's rather interesting that Islam provides for polygamy -- a man can have as many wives as he can support, making polygamy self-limiting.

And then there is the whole polyamory vs polygamy issue...

social anthropology anybody :)

[fuego.livejournal.com]

i didn't say that. i got it from the person credited at the bottom of the post.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

it's actually supposed to be parody/satire

[fuego.livejournal.com]

ah, gotcha. i understand what you're saying.