polygamy

What would you do if?

Moderator: Moderators

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7954
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 42 times

polygamy

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

Hi all,

So I got married and here is our wedding vow

With this ring I wed you
With my body I serve you
All that I am and all that I have I give to you
In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Does that vow allow for polygamy and if you believe in polygamy do you think you can meet the standard of love that vow demands or do you think that standard is ridiculous and the vow is at best romantic fluff or is there a harder counter that people have?

What room really is there for polygamy within love?

User avatar
beforetherewas
Student
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:03 pm

Post #21

Post by beforetherewas »

Goat wrote: There are certain rights that are given to married couples that single folks don't get. They get breaks on taxes,
Which is rapidly changing with a government becoming increasingly hostile toward marriage.
they get shared medical benefits often,
Many companies offer the same to perverse couples.
they automatically get visitation rights in hospitals,
Anyone can visit patients in a hospital. Never do they check ID's, and my wife worked in one for many years.
and have the right to make medical decisions for their partner in emergencies.
This is yet another falsehood paraded about by the perverse crowd. Anyone can make medical decisions for another with POA (power of attorney).
All in all, the number is quoted that there are 1300 rights that a married couple has that have been denied to gay and lesbian couples.
Almost all of which can be obtained by perverse couples and groups through other legal avenues. Very few items remain in that list not obtainable, which greatly stifles the incessant whinings of the perverse about how mistreated they are for not having a handfull of so-called "rights".

All those people around here who have even a small measure of indian bloodline get benefits not available to the rest of us. They pay only a quarter of the vehicle and property taxes the rest of us pay. How is that right? They never had land taken from them when the buffalo roamed this land. They have the same opportunities to succeed as the rest of us, but because they have some relatives who had a higher percentage of indian blood in them, they get what they honestly are not entitled.

When are the perverse going to start rattling that cage?

If not, then why not?

Heck, why stop at attacks on marriage?

Why not go for the gold.....?

The pathetic handfulls of people out there who whine the loudest about what they don't have is a hollow ring in the ears. History proves that such people don't stop at the point of success. They just find some thing or some one else to whine about and attack, as pathetic as they are.

BTW

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #22

Post by McCulloch »

Goat wrote: There are certain rights that are given to married couples that single folks don't get. They get breaks on taxes,
beforetherewas wrote: Which is rapidly changing with a government becoming increasingly hostile toward marriage.
Is there any indication that any Western democratic government is becoming hostile towards marriage? Are there any politicians advocating the removal of the marriage exemptions on income tax?
they get shared medical benefits often,
beforetherewas wrote: Many companies offer the same to perverse couples.
Just because a benefit is extended to same sex couples, does not change the fact that it continues to be given to opposite sex couples. Your use of the word perverse in this context is offensive.
they automatically get visitation rights in hospitals,
beforetherewas wrote: Anyone can visit patients in a hospital. Never do they check ID's, and my wife worked in one for many years.
There are numerous documented cases when visits have been restricted to close family members, where a hospital has excluded a same-sex partner.
and have the right to make medical decisions for their partner in emergencies.
beforetherewas wrote: This is yet another falsehood paraded about by the perverse crowd. Anyone can make medical decisions for another with POA (power of attorney).
True, but a legal spouse is granted recognition and consultation with regard to his or her spouse, even without a POA. There is no reason why this should not be extended to same sex spouses.
All in all, the number is quoted that there are 1300 rights that a married couple has that have been denied to gay and lesbian couples.
I think that this number involves a fair bit of double counting and varies significantly between jurisdictions.
beforetherewas wrote: Almost all of which can be obtained by perverse couples and groups through other legal avenues. Very few items remain in that list not obtainable, which greatly stifles the incessant whinings of the perverse about how mistreated they are for not having a handfull of so-called "rights".
The point of legal equality is that a same sex spouse should not have to seek other legal avenues to gain access to the rights automatically granted to opposite sex spouses.
beforetherewas wrote: The pathetic handfulls of people out there who whine the loudest about what they don't have is a hollow ring in the ears. History proves that such people don't stop at the point of success. They just find some thing or some one else to whine about and attack, as pathetic as they are.
Yes, we ended slavery, but the whiners were not satisfied until blacks got the vote and racial segregation ended.
Women got the vote, shouldn't that be enough! No, now they want equal property rights and rights in the workplace.




Moderator Comment
I just noticed that the OP makes no reference to same-sex. This is intended to be a debate about polygamy.



Is the concept of "forsaking all others" used in many Christian traditions, one that can be found in the Bible? How is it that Christianity has become so strictly monogamous, when there is little biblical support for monogamy? Why do Christians often use the slippery slope argument against same sex marriage, saying that it might lead to polygamy, when the biblical opposition to polygamy is much weaker than the position against homosexuality?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24863
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Post #23

Post by Goat »

beforetherewas wrote:
Goat wrote: There are certain rights that are given to married couples that single folks don't get. They get breaks on taxes,
Which is rapidly changing with a government becoming increasingly hostile toward marriage.
Really???? Is that true, or is it just that you don't want gays to have equal rights? Other than the fact that a number of states expanded who can marry each other, how is that being 'hostile' to marriage??
they get shared medical benefits often,
Many companies offer the same to perverse couples.
Ah.. and here we have the good old 'poisoning of the well', by calling same gender couples 'perverse'. This is showing a great deal of bias. And, many companies do not.
they automatically get visitation rights in hospitals,
Anyone can visit patients in a hospital. Never do they check ID's, and my wife worked in one for many years.
Incorrect.. .. here is just one case There are hundreds of cases I could point to.
To say otherwise, is showing quite a bit of blinders.
and have the right to make medical decisions for their partner in emergencies.
This is yet another falsehood paraded about by the perverse crowd. Anyone can make medical decisions for another with POA (power of attorney).
I think you find that Powers of attorney are no substitute for marriage and have been and can be ignored. So, you are giving lots of misinformation there.

All in all, the number is quoted that there are 1300 rights that a married couple has that have been denied to gay and lesbian couples.
Almost all of which can be obtained by perverse couples and groups through other legal avenues. Very few items remain in that list not obtainable, which greatly stifles the incessant whinings of the perverse about how mistreated they are for not having a handfull of so-called "rights".
Ah. More poisoning of the well by using such terms as 'whining' and 'so called rights'. Not very civil there.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Angel

Re: polygamy

Post #24

Post by Angel »

Wootah wrote: Hi all,

So I got married and here is our wedding vow

With this ring I wed you
With my body I serve you
All that I am and all that I have I give to you
In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Does that vow allow for polygamy and if you believe in polygamy do you think you can meet the standard of love that vow demands or do you think that standard is ridiculous and the vow is at best romantic fluff or is there a harder counter that people have?
There is no set definition/standard for marriage vows, and it's entirely cultural. Your marriage vows outrule polygamy but I fail to see how that invalidates polygamy for everyone else when all they have to do is just define their own standards just as done to fit you.

Theologically-speaking, if marriage existed since Genesis, then why didn't Jacob worry about marriage vows with Leah and Rachel? I remember God worrying more about Jacob not loving BOTH wives.
Wootah wrote: What room really is there for polygamy within love?
I think there is room for romantic love but the issue tends to be the time and energy that it takes to split that love between two people. I've read from some psychologists that romantic love between partners tend decrease the long you stay married. What's more enduring is usually the "companionate" love and that's where I believe polygamy can do better. The companionate love is not only between the husband and wife but also between the wives.

I believe Quath brought up polyamory on page 2. The logic behind many polyamorists is that one partner can't meet all of your needs or stand for all that you'll want out of a person and a relationship. I think there's some truth to that if we look at this objectively. HOw can we really expect one person to perfectly meet all the qualities that we'd always be attracted to? Some polyamorists bring another person into the relationship to fill the gap. If I accept my girl as being everything I could dream of, it's probably just feelings and my choice that fills in the gaps where she has some qualities that I don't like. Either way, my rule has been to let consenting adults choose their own relationship style that fulfills them.

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7954
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: polygamy

Post #25

Post by Wootah »

Angel wrote:
There is no set definition/standard for marriage vows, and it's entirely cultural. Your marriage vows outrule polygamy but I fail to see how that invalidates polygamy for everyone else when all they have to do is just define their own standards just as done to fit you.
Of course. My question is if you believe in polygamy do you think you can meet the standard of love that vow demands or do you think that standard is ridiculous and the vow is at best romantic fluff or is there a harder counter that people have?
Theologically-speaking, if marriage existed since Genesis, then why didn't Jacob worry about marriage vows with Leah and Rachel? I remember God worrying more about Jacob not loving BOTH wives.
God works within a sinful world. When you follow God he works on your sins but for your sake not all at once.
I think there is room for romantic love but the issue tends to be the time and energy that it takes to split that love between two people. I've read from some psychologists that romantic love between partners tend decrease the long you stay married. What's more enduring is usually the "companionate" love and that's where I believe polygamy can do better. The companionate love is not only between the husband and wife but also between the wives.
I just don't think it is possible. In most situations you really observe people holding grievances quietly for the sake of the peace.
I believe Quath brought up polyamory on page 2. The logic behind many polyamorists is that one partner can't meet all of your needs or stand for all that you'll want out of a person and a relationship. I think there's some truth to that if we look at this objectively. HOw can we really expect one person to perfectly meet all the qualities that we'd always be attracted to? Some polyamorists bring another person into the relationship to fill the gap. If I accept my girl as being everything I could dream of, it's probably just feelings and my choice that fills in the gaps where she has some qualities that I don't like. Either way, my rule has been to let consenting adults choose their own relationship style that fulfills them.
I don't expect my wife to meet any of my needs. In fact since people can't fulfil our needs I think poyamorists use a truism to justify their selfishness.

The polyamorist is not filling a gap in the relationship but in themselves.

Mine is to not stir hornets' nests but to help people that get stung and want help.

User avatar
SailingCyclops
Site Supporter
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:02 pm
Location: New York City

Post #26

Post by SailingCyclops »

Goat wrote:All in all, the number is quoted that there are 1300 rights that a married couple has that have been denied to gay and lesbian couples.
I lived with my partner and soulmate for 25 years. We were not able to take any tax deductions, we had to have legal documents such as healthcare proxies, partnership agreements, and living wills drawn up to be able to take care of each other in case of emergencies. When she died suddenly, I had to fight with the hospital to get her taken off life support, even though I held a legal document witnessed, notarized and drawn up by an attorney. Of course, I never got the Social Security death benefit I would have received if we were married, nor an increase in my SS benefit based on her many years of input to SS. Getting access to her bank accounts took an inordinate amount of time as well.

I would advocate for the abolishment of all marriage-specific laws and government regulations. One should simply be able to name another person as "partner" and have all the present rights and privileges marriage affords, without the social, legal, and economic baggage. This would free gay and lesbian couples, and also heterosexual couples like my partner and I, but who were not married. Giving gay people the right to marry would still leave people like me out. That's not right.

Religion flies you into buildings, Science flies you to the moon.
If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities -- Voltaire
Bless us and save us, said Mrs. O'Davis

Angel

Re: polygamy

Post #27

Post by Angel »

Wootah wrote:
Angel wrote:
There is no set definition/standard for marriage vows, and it's entirely cultural. Your marriage vows outrule polygamy but I fail to see how that invalidates polygamy for everyone else when all they have to do is just define their own standards just as done to fit you.
Of course. My question is if you believe in polygamy do you think you can meet the standard of love that vow demands or do you think that standard is ridiculous and the vow is at best romantic fluff or is there a harder counter that people have?
Well in a sense, don't you have to give your all (mind and body) to God, as well? That leaves you with more than one person that you're giving your all to. Your vows may even be a form of idolatry by some standards if you put your spouse above God.

In reference to polygamy, it does not meet your standards of love and it doesn't have to which was partly the point of my previous post to you. I don't even believe that the primary function for marriage has to be romantic love since there are other functions like companionship which has it's own type of love, raising children, supporting/providing (food, income, etc). Romantic love does not pay the bills and in fact romantic love can sometimes be negatively affected when those other marital tasks are not good and vice-versa. According to historian Stephanie Koontz in her book Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage, love was not even a prevelant reason to get married until about the 17 to 1800s (about 300 year ago).
Wootah wrote:
Angel wrote: Theologically-speaking, if marriage existed since Genesis, then why didn't Jacob worry about marriage vows with Leah and Rachel? I remember God worrying more about Jacob not loving BOTH wives.
God works within a sinful world. When you follow God he works on your sins but for your sake not all at once.
Your point assumes that polygamy is a sin which you have not proven. Secondly, while God works in a world of sin but I doubt that He would actually by worrying about the welfare of a sinful lifestyle (worrying about a married man not loving TWO women) and taking action to help the sinful lifestyle, such as He did in Genesis 29:30-33. God is perfectly moral so His actions alone serve as a precedent for moral standards.
Wootah wrote:
Angel wrote: I think there is room for romantic love but the issue tends to be the time and energy that it takes to split that love between two people. I've read from some psychologists that romantic love between partners tend decrease the long you stay married. What's more enduring is usually the "companionate" love and that's where I believe polygamy can do better. The companionate love is not only between the husband and wife but also between the wives.
I just don't think it is possible. In most situations you really observe people holding grievances quietly for the sake of the peace.
To say that all or most polygamists resort to what you're saying or that it's the only thing they can do is an assumption. There are good and there are bad examples just as there are for monogamy.

As far as romantic love goes, assuming that there are only two wives and not forty, then I believe that it's possible to have romantic love in polygamy. I can see how it can't go as deep since you can't feel for any one wife as the most loved person if you also have someone else you're focusing on, but it's still possible to have some especially when it comes to the ACTION part - intimacy time, affection, etc. Some may say that a polygamists is sacrificing deep love but that assumes that the people involved want that type of love to begin with. For social reasons, some women don't mind sharing a marriage with another woman if they can get more companionship out of it, and of course I'm assuming that other woman would be compatible with the first wife just like close best friends. Here's one explanation from Christine, a wife in polygamy.. watch here. To her it seems monogamy (as opposed to a multi-person MARRIAGE) is boring among other reasons.
Wootah wrote:
Angel wrote: I believe Quath brought up polyamory on page 2. The logic behind many polyamorists is that one partner can't meet all of your needs or stand for all that you'll want out of a person and a relationship. I think there's some truth to that if we look at this objectively. HOw can we really expect one person to perfectly meet all the qualities that we'd always be attracted to? Some polyamorists bring another person into the relationship to fill the gap. If I accept my girl as being everything I could dream of, it's probably just feelings and my choice that fills in the gaps where she has some qualities that I don't like. Either way, my rule has been to let consenting adults choose their own relationship style that fulfills them.
I don't expect my wife to meet any of my needs. In fact since people can't fulfil our needs I think poyamorists use a truism to justify their selfishness.

The polyamorist is not filling a gap in the relationship but in themselves.

Mine is to not stir hornets' nests but to help people that get stung and want help.
It depends on what you mean by needs. Many people want to reproduce just like in the animal word. Many people want companionship, just like some in the animal world. These two key things take TWO or more people to accomplish. Even God has needs it seems, how can He be love when he has no one to give it to?

I'm not sure I understand how polyamory justifies selfishness but I will say my point still stands that getting married does not mean that the person you're married is all that you'll ever be attracted to. I don't see any problem with adding another person just as long as it's done with consent and just as long as it doesn't turn into musical chairs where too many people are in the relationship or changing to another partner too often. That's not the polyamory or polygamy I support and is far from some of the good examples I know of where a husband has been married to the SAMe women for over 18 years and counting.

As a future psychologist, I intend to study the psychology of polyamorists. One thing I will not do is assume that only monogamy is the moral relationship for everyone because that then leaves you looking for only negatives since you assume that non-monogamy relationships are a problem. Besides that there is ample evidence to suggest that many only talk monogamy but in secret they're really not and there's evidence that many will LIE about it to make themselves look more conservative and of course to avoid the consequences.

Public
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 2:41 pm

Re: polygamy

Post #28

Post by Public »

Wootah wrote: Hi all,

So I got married and here is our wedding vow

With this ring I wed you
With my body I serve you
All that I am and all that I have I give to you
In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Does that vow allow for polygamy and if you believe in polygamy do you think you can meet the standard of love that vow demands or do you think that standard is ridiculous and the vow is at best romantic fluff or is there a harder counter that people have?

What room really is there for polygamy within love?
I'm interested in the question about the vow - does it allow for polygamy. I think it depends on your understanding of property rights and ownership. Do you own yourself? If so, can you transfer ownership of that person? If you don't own yourself or can't transfer ownership, the clause "all that I am and that I have I give to you" is babble. So, it seems that the vow implicitly accepts that persons are transferable commodities. Then, once you've transferred that ownership, I'd say you have nothing left, except ownership of the other person's property and person. But you couldn't repeat the vow anyway, because you cannot validly re-transfer ownership of yourself, since you've already lost it, so you cannot in good-faith repeat the vow. Unless it was transferred back to you?

Anyway, it probably makes as much sense as 3 = 1

Post Reply