**Nothing wrong with Polygamy **from any point of view other than the fact that we as a society are addicted to monogamy for reasons we do not know about, and/or don’t understand.
There are two general kinds of ancient societies, dictatorships, and democracies. The dictatorships all prefer monogamy, and the relatively freer societies tend to prefer polygamy.
**Thus the Israelites preferred polygamy **while the less free empires, such as Rome, all hard-wired in monogamy. This had nothing to do with morality, but much to do with economics and power.
A Roman could have a hundred under-age girls as mistresses but if he had more than one wife it was a death sentence. The reason was, these empires, then and now, were built on primogeniture, where the eldest son of the one and only wife inherited everything. This worked to continually concentrate wealth that made it easier for the dictator to rule these vast empires.
**The Israelites, by contrast **were concerned about redistributing wealth as broadly as possible, and avoiding dictators, and polygamy accomplished this. A rich man married more and more young poor girls and all her children inherited equally, spreading the wealth around, as God intended.
**Then when the RC Church negotiated **with the Emperor to become the sole religion of Rome, monogamy was a non-negotiable point, and the Church caved in to get the status of official religion, and has been stuck with monogamy ever since. This is where we have to start before we get into the details of good and bad aspects to it.
Nothing wrong with polygamy per se, but virtually all extant forms of polygamy treat women as little better than property. That’s the bit that’s wrong.
Its a bunch of feminist propaganda that polygamy is bad for women. The main victims of polygamy are poor men. In a polygamist society, rich men marry many women resulting in poor men not being able to find wives.
Whats bad for the women who has 3 or so sister wives? Basically her work is split up among more people. The worst thing is she might have to have sex with an old guy.
Now, a polygamist society is probably a patriarchal society and patriarchal societies arent great for women but the people who get the worst deal in a polygamist society are poor men and thats why they should not be allowed.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with polygamy, as a private matter between people. I don’t like the idea of the state being involved in marriages other than as contractual referee. But in another thread this was discussed, and the matter of valid contracts was brought up. It is very difficult to establish a marriage contract between more than two people. This is I think part of the reason for the absurd sounding concept of a corporation being a person. By creating a corporation as a seperate entity it’s possible for each of many owners to have a contract with that one central entity. Otherwise the number of contracts necessary would rise geometrically as the number of owners increased in order to maintain the same set of contractual obligations between any two owners.
While I agree that many men get short-changed by polygamy, it’s no benefit for women either. When two people get married, it’s essentially a partnership by its nature - the man only has one wife and the woman only has one husband. Neither person can afford to alienate their spouse.
But it’s a different dynamic in a polygamous marriage. There’s one husband and several wives. That means the husband is free to play favorites while the wives can’t afford to risk alienating their sole husband. It’s an unequal relationship.
**There is a tendency is to dwell on the details **of how something might work in every imaginable situation instead of debating the larger issue.
Polygamy works differently in every marriage, every society, every religion, and every ethnicity and nation. So what might apply in one situation, might well not apply in the others. Women’s rights is one such application of Polygamy. In a country with women’s rights Polygamy would operate in light of those rights, whereas in a country with few rights for women it would work that way.
The central concept of Polygamy is economic, not sexual, or as a device to control women or whatever.
Then we need to understand that in societies that allow polygamy, most marriages are still monogamous. Only a few are Polygamous and those few are because they are practical. The man has extraordinary resources, and the energy to serve more than one woman and her children.
There are a lot of single men who do not want to be married at all for all kinds of reasons, whereas nearly all women want to be married, so that imbalance is not what it seems.
We need to debate this by studying some history, and looking at the positives, as well, as the alleged negatives. Just as in anything there are both. And the debate failure comes in not looking at both sides carefully, and looking at the history of the issue.
The Bible nowhere condemns Polygamy, and everywhere encourages it, and nowhere commands monogamy. This is just one example of the myths and falsehoods that surround this topic. On another level we are talking about the simple freedom to do that which harms not another.
**Polygamy is far less harmful to society than same sex marriage by far. **
Finally, bigotry is the total enemy of great debate, defined as “holding an opinion ignorantly.”
I use "democracy’ loosely. Compared to absolute autocracies ancient Israel with the LAW was much closer to what we know as a constitutional democracy than its neighbors.
Women gained rights under Islam they did not have previously. This is not well understood. For example, men under Islam were restricted in what way and how they related to women, and men could have only 4 wives and so forth. You can’t judge apples and oranges by the same standard.
The list of same sex marriage negatives is enormous. For one it will cost the economy at least a few hundred billion dollars a year. That is economic.
And it will help overburden our immigration by allowing men to bring male wives in, along with their relatives, so it opens another door to large numbers of immigrants.
**And there is the increase in expensive diseases **that are related to gay sex practices.
Don’t get me started on all the negatives involved in same sex marriage. It deserves a thread of its own.
BTW: There is NO contradiction. You read the sentence incorrectly.
No, it’s nonexistent. As demonstrated by the countries that have it and doom has failed to arrive.
Prove it. And prove that non-same sex marriage doesn’t, and prove that your precious polygamy won’t.
:rolleyes: There’s no such thing as a “male wife”, and I fail to see why I should care if a married couple of any gender mix wants to immigrate.
There are no such diseases; there really aren’t many sexual practices that are exclusive to homosexuals, and I know of no evidence that any are especially likely to cause disease. And no, anal sex is hardly a “homosexual practice”. And how would marriage increase the spread of any disease anyway? You don’t really believe that forbidding marriage stops people from having sex, do you?
It has had many; they turn out to be imaginary.
No, there’s a direct contradiction. I read it just fine; you just don’t want to acknowledge what you are doing.
Just a hint, FounderChurch - at no point, in the entire history of the human race, has a good idea been expressed in blue font with alternating bold-face. If you want to be treated like a grown-up, start presenting yourself as one.
