Polygamy

[Revolutionary]

A judge in Utah is in trouble because he is married top three women. You know, I see no reason but societal custom that polygamy is illegal. Strange, the Bible, which most people would say is the reason they are against polygamy, says nothing negative about it. Even Martin Luther said that he could not oppose polygamy since the scriptures say nothing against it.

Personally, I think one could make the same arguments for allowing polygamy as one can make for taking away laws that make it difficult to go nude -- even where there is a tradition of nudity allowed. I may not go as for as many Libertarians but I do believe there is way to many restrictions on people's personal behaviors.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/02/polygamous.judge.ap/

[Revolutionary]

A judge in Utah is in trouble because he is married top three women. You know, I see no reason but societal custom that polygamy is illegal. Strange, the Bible, which most people would say is the reason they are against polygamy, says nothing negative about it. Even Martin Luther said that he could not oppose polygamy since the scriptures say nothing against it.

Personally, I think one could make the same arguments for allowing polygamy as one can make for taking away laws that make it difficult to go nude -- even where there is a tradition of nudity allowed. I may not go as for as many Libertarians but I do believe there is way to many restrictions on people's personal behaviors.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/02/polygamous.judge.ap/

[Ben_m]

I think you're onto something. I'm not sure I favor making laws to try to control things that do not clearly damage others. The only way simple nudity can potentially damage anybody is if they participate by making it into something in their own minds.

[Naturist Mark]

quote:

Originally posted by Revolutionary:
A judge in Utah is in trouble because he is married top three women. You know, I see no reason but societal custom that polygamy is illegal. Strange, the Bible, which most people would say is the reason they are against polygamy, says nothing negative about it. Even Martin Luther said that he could not oppose polygamy since the scriptures say nothing against it.

Even those who claim to follow the Bible in all things and believe in its literal truth feel free to disregard those parts of it that clash with their preconceptions. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention which espouses a belief in Biblical inerancy now requires women to be subservient to their husbands, and now excludes women from positions of authority within the church based on their "literal" interpretation of scripture, yet they also espouse an unbiblical opposition to many things accepted or even ordained by the Bible - including polygamy and slavery. They really only accept as innerant those parts of the Bible that bolster their prejudices. Jimmy Carter has recently announced he no longer considers himself a member of the SBC - not that he has left them, rather they have left his traditional Baptist beliefs behind.

I have no problem opposing polygamy or slavery on general moral principles, but I don't pretend to base it on the Bible.



-Mark

[Nude in the North]

quote:

They really only accept as innerant those parts of the Bible that bolster their prejudices.

I believe this to be true of nearly (if not) every Religion, and Political View also.

The Lawmakers become more powerful by restricting the lives of their subjects.

It's been going on since the first time a group or tribe of people chose a leader.

Steve

[Ben_m]

quote:

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
I have no problem opposing polygamy or slavery on general moral principles, but I don't pretend to base it on the Bible.

Well, it's clear that there are Biblical cases of multiple wives. But, I guess I just can't resist asking something here, Mark. Why would you group polygamy and slavery together? What are the "general moral principles" to which you refer? Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for polygamy, I've got more than enough headaches with one wife, thanks. But, I'm failing to see the implication of slavery association or any clear "general moral principles" that apply.

[missouriboy]

quote:

I think you're onto something. I'm not sure I favor making laws to try to control things that do not clearly damage others.

Yes, those are referred to as "victimless crimes." Libertarians are opposed to laws which make criminals out of people who do nothing to harm others. I've never found any reason to disagree with that opposition, either.

I can't even say I see anything wrong with polygamy, from a moral sense. From a legal standpoint, I suppose it makes more complexity for estate purposes... but that complexity already exists for sequential multiple spouses and their offspring, right?

[Naturist Mark]

quote:

Originally posted by Ben_m:
I guess I just can't resist asking something here, Mark. Why would you group polygamy and slavery together?

LOL, no moral equivalence intended. I was looking for two things which the SBC prohibits even though that prohibition in not Biblically based - at odds with their stated position of Biblical authority and infallibility.

Today Slavery is universally anathema to Christians - it violates the moral principles underlying the faith even though the Bible never criticises it. Polygyny has no such religious principle against it - although modern moralists could object that it subjugates women (curiously the SBC specifically approves and requires the subjugation of women).

This new SBC dogma of Infallible Biblical supremacy contradicts the traditional Baptist position of Jesus Christ, through his words, deeds and personal inspiration, as the ultimate interpreter of the Holy Scriptures. Again, fundamentalism only adhers to its principles when they bolster their preconceived prejudices.

Of course the same accusation can be made of many liberal Christians. Polygyny may be rejected as a system of patriarchal subjugation, but true polygamy which puts women on equal footing is no more accepted.

Nomenclature note:

• Polygamy is marriage between multiple partners - although in common (incorrect) use it almost always means only polygyny and not polyandry.
  
• Polygyny is one male with two or more wives
  
• Polyandry is one female with two or more husbands[/list]
  
  -Mark

[Revolutionary]

I guess one way to stump a lot of people is to ask where the Bible says polygamy is a sin. I suppose you could do the same with nudity as well.

[hm0504]

quote:

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

quote:

Originally posted by Ben_m:
I guess I just can't resist asking something here, Mark. Why would you group polygamy and slavery together?

LOL, no moral equivalence intended. I was looking for two things which the SBC prohibits even though that prohibition in not Biblically based - at odds with their stated position of Biblical authority and infallibility.

Today Slavery is universally anathema to Christians - it violates the moral principles underlying the faith even though the Bible never criticises it. Polygyny has no such religious principle against it - although modern moralists could object that it subjugates women (curiously the SBC specifically approves and requires the subjugation of women).
...
-Mark

Didn't the SBC largely start because they opposed the abolition of slavery? And then largely opposed de-segregation up to the late 1960's? [1]

Of course, today the SBC strongly opposes racism but that is fairly recent history. Anyway, fascinating to see the SBC is still working hard even today to subjugate women through various SBC resolutions and political action.

[1] http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/mob/whynosig.htm

[Trailscout]

I am well-acquainted with SBC history and doctrine, but am no longer a member. There are several things I don't like about them, but HM has several misconceptions about SBC that need clarification.

The Southern Baptists and General (Northern) Baptists were created from what was once the Baptist Church, a venerable institution older than America. This split occurred around the time of the American Civil War, but as a movement, Anabaptists/Calvinism is centuries old with European roots.

Slavery was the original cause of the split, but the General Baptists as a whole grew more liberal in the early 20th century and reunification was not pursued because of a wide variety of doctrinal differences between the two denominations.

Today SBC admits that slavery was the permissive will of God, not his perfect will and not only that, was not practiced according to the Levitical parameters for slavery, which includes a year of jubilee (emancipation). Slavery in the Biblical model was a form of indentured servitude for the purpose of paying debt with a guaranteed expiration of the obligation, not life-long slavery of free individuals captured by force.

I know of no official SBC statements against desegregation, but many southerners had good reason to oppose the way it was imposed by the federal government and Southern Baptists were not unique in their opposition to many aspects of the federal goverment's method of achieving integration in the same way that Native Americans resented the Indian Bureau's attempts at assimilation of their people.

"Subjugating women" is a matter of opinion. Many people refer to it as affirming biblical precedent. The Baptists are not alone in this area either; the Roman Catholic church has similar positions on the role of women in the church.

As for polygamy or any other proclamation made from SBC conventions, SBC resolutions are non-binding. Each SBC congregation is fully autonomous.

[hm0504]

quote:

Originally posted by Trailscout:
I am well-acquainted with SBC history and doctrine, but am no longer a member. There are several things I don't like about them, but HM has several misconceptions about SBC that need clarification.

I'm not sure that my previous post contradicts what you have said (which is much more detailed and well written). So what exactly are my "several misconceptions".

[Naturist Mark]

quote:

Originally posted by Trailscout:
"Subjugating women" is a matter of opinion. Many people refer to it as affirming biblical precedent.

Subjugating Women in the SBC

[Tara]

Sins and the bible and all the "moral" stuff aside...

Doesn't anyone else see the apparent sexism involved in polygamy? I'm not pretending to know everything about it, I honestly don't really care... it just seems severely one-sided.

I don't need a lecture, I'm not trying to start an arguement by actually coming on here and posting agian, just pointing a little thing out. It seems like it's a LITTLE unfair that the man gets to have sex with several women and not vice versa.

Um, where are the mormon women with several husbands?

I'm just for equal opportunity

[Trailscout]

Tara, no offense taken on my part and I hope no one else.

In more primitive times, there may have been a greater mortality of young men due to war, hunting accidents, etc. That leaves a surplus of widows. In those simpler times, communities in sparsely populated rural or wilderness areas need a high birth rate to provide for ongoing labor and defense needs. So, I can see that a prosperous man would benefit his entire community if he he took on a second wife.

In our day, one could make a stronger case for a high quality upbringing of one or two children rather than producing large numbers of children. In my opinion, one man married to one woman seems to be better suited to the good of society as things currently are today.

And women were not necessarily dominated by sharing a husband. Don't you think the gals (and daughters perhaps) ganged up on the (outnumbered) boys and showed them a thing or two?