Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.

[quatona]

There really is no reason to deny Mormons and Muslims multiple wives other than it runs contrary to the orthodox, traditional Christian moral teachings on matrimony.

I´m not quite sure there isn´t another reason - this discussion has not (yet?) taken place exhaustively.
But let´s for a moment assume that there is no other reason than religious traditionalism - then there is indeed no solid reason against polygamy.

 

[dgiharris]

It may not be in moral terms but in judicial terms--at least with US Supreme Court--a legal precedent is set.

There really is no reason to deny Mormons and Muslims multiple wives other than it runs contrary to the orthodox, traditional Christian moral teachings on matrimony. So, I really don't see how the US Supreme Court Justice can deny a future challenge to matrimony being restricted to two people. Not they won't try and give some BS excuse. Namely they will use the cliche excuse of "protecting children" and "protecting women.".

To be fair, this is not a cliche excuse. There are religious cultures Mormon , Muslim, and some Christian sects that do barter in young brides. There are families that raise their daughters with the explicit purpose of being marriage chattle for the family-- a type of marriage currency the family can cash in. Whether they do it explicitly for money, or real estate or community/church status, it does happen.

So how do we guard against that? Is it possible to guard against that? And to what extent would this be a problem?

If there was data on this and if the data revealed that less than 10% of group marriages were of the above, then I'd be okay with group marriage. But if the data on the above revealed that more than 10% of group marriages were of the above, then I'd have a problem with that. I also have a problem with trying to determine what percentage of the above is acceptable. Why 10% vs 15% vs 25%??? I don't know. I just pulled that number out of my ass...

I guess my point is that protecting children and protecting women are legit arguments when talking about group marriage. In the case of consenting adults aged 21+ I think this is much less of a problem.

Duhhhh..... Maybe that is the solution.

Group marriages can only occur between adults over 21 yrs of age and a high school diploma or GED equivalent. Though, this requirement would probably be unconstitutional because we don't require that for normal marriage... However, if my above argument had statistical validity behind it, then this would be a legitimate fix to the problem that should make all parties happy while simultaneously protecting women and children...

 

[Hank]

It may not be in moral terms but in judicial terms--at least with US Supreme Court--a legal precedent is set.

There really is no reason to deny Mormons and Muslims multiple wives other than it runs contrary to the orthodox, traditional Christian moral teachings on matrimony. So, I really don't see how the US Supreme Court Justice can deny a future challenge to matrimony being restricted to two people. Not they won't try and give some BS excuse. Namely they will use the cliche excuse of "protecting children" and "protecting women."

I can handle your response about marriage better. You're saying, "Hey, lets open it to all." But I'm not going to buy people blowing smoke. The same people that like to yap on about how great Moorish Spain was. So, if polygamy didn't destroy Moorish Spain and Moorish Spain was less oppressive on women and children then there's no reason to keep it illegal in the USA.

Well, to begin with Islam allows only polygyny marriages not polygamy marriages. So far Mormons have also this one way street, where having multiple wifes seems to be OK; at least I am not aware that a woman has multiple men in that community. Thus it's a bit more than cliche issues when it comes to equal rights.

In the West monogamy marriages date all the way back to the Creek and Roman empires, well before Christ and His teachings. In my mind it's a secular issue. What is marriage? Two people closely living together or one man breeding?

 

[SuperCloud]

To be fair, this is not a cliche excuse. There are religious cultures Mormon , Muslim, and some Christian sects that do barter in young brides. There are families that raise their daughters with the explicit purpose of being marriage chattle for the family-- a type of marriage currency the family can cash in. Whether they do it explicitly for money, or real estate or community/church status, it does happen.

What does that have to do with the USA? Polygamy does not need to exist to sell your daughter.

Not that I actually believe most girls have no say in who they marry. Arraigned marriages are not necessarily forced marriages. They are basically blind dates parents set their kids up on. Admittedly, if they like a boy--or a girl--they will pressure their daughter or son to marry that young person.

You don't need marriage to sell your daughter to men either. There have already been women in the US arrested and sent to prison for prostituting their underage daughters to men.

Making it legal for a man in his 40's to marry 3 or 8 women in between the ages of 21 and 72 is not going to make more Americans sell their 10 year old daughters into marriage. LOL.

 

[TheBarrd]

Why not just get the SCOTUS to redefine marriage to not require each participant in the marriage to be a person. They seem to be quite good at redefining things.

Sure...let's redefine marriage to include machines...I love it!
My dishwasher and I are back on!

 

[SuperCloud]

Well, to begin with Islam allows only polygyny marriages not polygamy marriages. So far Mormons have also this one way street, where having multiple wifes seems to be OK; at least I am not aware that a woman has multiple men in that community. Thus it's a bit more than cliche issues when it comes to equal rights.

So what? Let women marry however many men they want in the USA and the Mormons and Muslims can keep doing their polygyny as they wish.

In the West monogamy marriages date all the way back to the Creek and Roman empires, well before Christ and His teachings. In my mind it's a secular issue. What is marriage? Two people closely living together or one man breeding?

Of boy... here we go back to all ancient whites were Greeks and Romans. Like all ancient black Africans were Egyptians.

My white ancestors were Germans. Not Greeks or Romans. And the Romans regarded them as barbarians. The Greeks and Romans were all bisexuals anyways. But that's all beside the point. Monogamy in the West is based upon Christian moral teaching period. And any secular pontificating against polygamy is merely polyphopbic. Marriage is two or more people. As evidenced across the world.

Not that I care if polygamy remains outlawed in the West. If Christ says a heterosexual man can only have one wife and not two or more then so be it. I personally, even if I would desire polygamy, I would fight against my own interest. Therefore, I'd argue that Christian teaching is that a man is only to have one wife.

But just because I would fight against my own interest... don't try and run this "pimp" "game" on me about how polygamy would hurt families, kids, and society as a whole.

I argued against my own interest for years with regards to homosexuality. I'd argue against my own interest with respects to polgyny or polygamy. And polygamy more than likely will come about in the USA. Not because it is in my interest but because it is in the interest of alpha males and beta and omega females. Alpha males often attract multiple women. Happens right here in the USA. And greed is like a holy virtue in the USA. And alpha males are greedy women. Omega females prefer sharing alpha males with 2, 3, 10, or 20 women rather than be in a monogamous relationship with an omega male. So, feminism and alpha males will eventually push for and get made legal polygamy--as both see it in their interest.

 

[Hank]

So what? Let women marry however many men they want in the USA and the Mormons and Muslims can keep doing their polygyny as they wish.



Of boy... here we go back to all ancient whites were Greeks and Romans. Like all ancient black Africans were Egyptians.

My white ancestors were Germans. Not Greeks or Romans. And the Romans regarded them as barbarians. The Greeks and Romans were all bisexuals anyways. But that's all beside the point. Monogamy in the West is based upon Christian moral teaching period. And any secular pontificating against polygamy is merely polyphopbic. Marriage is two or more people. As evidenced across the world.

Not that I care if polygamy remains outlawed in the West. If Christ says a heterosexual man can only have one wife and not two or more then so be it. I personally, even if I would desire polygamy, I would fight against my own interest. Therefore, I'd argue that Christian teaching is that a man is only to have one wife.

But just because I would fight against my own interest... don't try and run this "pimp" "game" on me about how polygamy would hurt families, kids, and society as a whole.

I argued against my own interest for years with regards to homosexuality. I'd argue against my own interest with respects to polgyny or polygamy. And polygamy more than likely will come about in the USA. Not because it is in my interest but because it is in the interest of alpha males and beta and omega females. Alpha males often attract multiple women. Happens right here in the USA. And greed is like a holy virtue in the USA. And alpha males are greedy women. Omega females prefer sharing alpha males with 2, 3, 10, or 20 women rather than be in a monogamous relationship with an omega male. So, feminism and alpha males will eventually push for and get made legal polygamy--as both see it in their interest.

What I am saying is, monogamy marriages work and worked for a very long time.
That Christian values coincide with long standing laws is a bonus.
We are not talking sexual practices here but legal marriages.
I am German too, what has this got to do with anything?
A good functioning society is in my interest, I am part of it.
Polygamy can and does hurt portions of a family and consequently society; there is no would here.

 

[SuperCloud]

What I am saying is, monogamy marriages work and worked for a very long time.
That Christian values coincide with long standing laws is a bonus.
We are not talking sexual practices here but legal marriages.
I am German too, what has this got to do with anything?
A good functioning society is in my interest, I am part of it.
Polygamy can and does hurt portions of a family and consequently society; there is no would here.

From what I read once, in some book, some of the pagan German tribes used trade each others wives off. I don't know... if you really liked a nice looking bear pelt, and your wife had nice, thick legs, barter her to the bearded dude that hasn't bathed in days that has been eying your lady over the Flintstones steak he's eating. The one wearing the black bear pelt admire.

Anyways... fast forward to the 21st century. I'm thinking if Bill Clinton and Hilary ever broke up she'd get back at Bill by becoming a big time "cougar." Walking around the streets with 2 or 3 young "kept" males that look like models.

The type of young girls that would be Spice Girl fans would go crazy off of it. When they saw her on stage accompanied by her "boys."

What was that line that I loved in that movie No Country for Old Men?

"You can't stop what's coming. That's vanity." LOL. Awesome.

 

[TheBarrd]

Not good....
Not good at all...

 

[bhsmte]

From what I read once, in some book, some of the pagan German tribes used trade each others wives off. I don't know... if you really liked a nice looking bear pelt, and your wife had nice, thick legs, barter her to the bearded dude that hasn't bathed in days that has been eying your lady over the Flintstones steak he's eating. The one wearing the black bear pelt admire.

Anyways... fast forward to the 21st century. I'm thinking if Bill Clinton and Hilary ever broke up she'd get back at Bill by becoming a big time "cougar." Walking around the streets with 2 or 3 young "kept" males that look like models.

The type of young girls that would be Spice Girl fans would go crazy off of it. When they saw her on stage accompanied by her "boys."

What was that line that I loved in that movie No Country for Old Men?

"You can't stop what's coming. That's vanity." LOL. Awesome.

Those young models would have to be paid well.

 

[Hank]

From what I read once, in some book, some of the pagan German tribes used trade each others wives off. I don't know... if you really liked a nice looking bear pelt, and your wife had nice, thick legs, barter her to the bearded dude that hasn't bathed in days that has been eying your lady over the Flintstones steak he's eating. The one wearing the black bear pelt admire.

Anyways... fast forward to the 21st century. I'm thinking if Bill Clinton and Hilary ever broke up she'd get back at Bill by becoming a big time "cougar." Walking around the streets with 2 or 3 young "kept" males that look like models.

The type of young girls that would be Spice Girl fans would go crazy off of it. When they saw her on stage accompanied by her "boys."

What was that line that I loved in that movie No Country for Old Men?

"You can't stop what's coming. That's vanity." LOL. Awesome.

Ha, ha, ha, sorry no can do, my girl is from Ethiopia (monogamy society too), no trade, most gorgeous face on the planet, wanna keep all for me, or you ain't could never not afford it.

Hillary? Money does a lot of things, but there too should be a law, if you are ugly, only one kept male.

 

[quatona]

Sure...let's redefine marriage to include machines...I love it!

Last time I checked homosexuals were humans. So there has been no "redefinition" in regards to the participants.

 

[outsidethecamp]

Do you like your religion? You can keep it (in prison).

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you like your religion? You can keep it (in prison).

Isn't that what we say to polygamists and others who may have religious practices that conflict with the law?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[outsidethecamp]

Isn't that what we say to polygamists and others who may have religious practices that conflict with the law?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think according to the "new" law (thanks to the Supremes), the polygamists will be going to court, soon.

 

[TheBarrd]

I think according to the "new" law (thanks to the Supremes), the polygamists will be going to court, soon.

I think it is very possible.
And I think all of this does not bode well for Christianity.

 

[Armoured]

I think it is very possible.
And I think all of this does not bode well for Christianity.

Why not?

Homosexuals being able to civilly marry doesn't threaten Christianity, why would civil recognition of polygamy?

 

[Dave-W]

I think according to the "new" law (thanks to the Supremes), the polygamists will be going to court, soon.

I think it is very possible.
And I think all of this does not bode well for Christianity.

The reason it does not bode well for christianity is the fact that christianity placed their moniker on an unbiblical stance that God only allowed one man and one woman. Paul does say that for congregational leadership roles, but that does not necessarily apply for congregants in general.

Since that is not biblical to begin with, why are we trying to defend it?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Since that is not biblical to begin with, why are we trying to defend it?

Because you live in a pluralistic and secular society, instead of a Biblical-theocratic monocultural one.

Just because you may use the Bible to justify your values, that doesn't mean that you can't find something worth defending in a free society.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave-W]

Because you live in a pluralistic and secular society, instead of a Biblical-theocratic monocultural one.

Just because you may use the Bible to justify your values, that doesn't mean that you can't find something worth defending in a free society.

I find lots of things worth defending in our society that are not necessarily biblical. (but they are not anti-biblical)

The arguments aganst polygny are theological, not secular; and I find those arguments to fall flat when compared with what scripture ACTUALLY SAYS. Since that is true - why try to defend against it?