Why is polygamy, bigamy, polyamory, etc. immoral?

[citizenthom]

I could be way off here but doesnt the bible pretty much label woman as objects that please their man and should be silent?

Not even close: the sexual obligations go both ways. The idea that "sex is for the man" is nowhere to be found in the Bible, and the people who used to preach it (and still do) are far afoul of Scripture.

In other spheres the obligations are phrased differently but are ultimately mutual. The mantle of male leadership, for instance, is no lighter than the woman's duty to submit to her husband when they cannot agree. But the most important thing is, the obligations are to a single person, and indeed it would be impossible for anyone to meet such heavy obligations to two people.

 

[Skaloop]

How many people here want multiple wives or husbands?

Not me. And nobody I know has specifically stated that they would want multiple spouses. But I know several people who are polyamourous and are devoted to multiple partners with their spouse being their primary partner. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them would consider polygamy if it were a real option.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

How many people here want multiple wives or husbands?

Just saw this. I'm not personally currently at the point where I could handle or even want more than one partner. If my relationship goes how I want it to I never will. However that is not to say that if things don't work out with my current relationship that I won't be able to someday be in a poly relationship, but I highly doubt it. It just not my cup of tea. However I'm sure others out there feel exactly opposite to the way I do, and thats great for them.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

It seems to me an issue is being made out of something simply for the sake of argument. I don't know anyone that has advocated multiple marriage partners or protested the limitations of marriage between two individuals.

Arguments like this distract from genuine political issues.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

It seems to me an issue is being made out of something simply for the sake of argument. I don't know anyone that has advocated multiple marriage partners or protested the limitations of marriage between two individuals.

Arguments like this distract from genuine political issues.

No one said there was an issue and no one is arguing, we are simply discussing. Additionally, this is not the political forum, this is ethics and morality. There is a forum for American politics and if you're interested I will be glad to link you to it.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

No one said there was an issue and no one is arguing, we are simply discussing. Additionally, this is not the political forum, this is ethics and morality. There is a forum for American politics and if you're interested I will be glad to link you to it.

I'm aware. But considering marriage is a political arrangement, it's impossible to discuss the subject without discussing politics.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I'm aware. But considering marriage is a political arrangement, it's impossible to discuss the subject without discussing politics.

It is possible..you're the first person to actively mention politics, unless I missed a post. We're not talking legality, we're talking personal feelings and opinions.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Uhhh..the more the merrier? I think if one got really creative he could do exactly that.

Would you be willing to share your man with one or two other women?

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Would you be willing to share your man with one or two other women?

Personally? No, not at this time. Might I change in the future? Possibly, but at this time I doubt it. However that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. If all parties agree to it a man can absolutely "fulfill" two women at the same time.

 

[The Penitent Man]

How many people here want multiple wives or husbands?

One woman is all I need. I can't commit fully to more than one person at a time.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Personally? No, not at this time. Might I change in the future? Possibly, but at this time I doubt it. However that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. If all parties agree to it a man can absolutely "fulfill" two women at the same time.

I don't understand why that would be preferable to monogamy.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I don't understand why that would be preferable to monogamy.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Penumbra]

Why are these things considered immoral, unethical, sinful, etc.? How do you feel about them?

Well, I can't really lump them together and give one opinion about all of them.

I find marrying multiple people to be a negative thing. I'm not completely decided as to whether it's a strictly "bad" thing, or simply something that is just definitely not for me and hence I have a biased view. My largest complaint against marrying multiple people is that it seems to imply that one sex is inferior to the other (and usually it's one man marrying multiple women). It seems to suggest that the one man is not completely satisfied to love one woman, and so he can have several, but the woman should be completely content to love that one man.

I do, however, find it difficult to form a reason as to why it should be illegal. Making something illegal because one doesn't like it is not a justifiable reason. My concern is that polygamy seems to be practiced in some specific communities, so children growing up may be coerced into remaining in that culture.

As for polyamory, I am more forgiving towards it, as it is not necessarily imbalanced. It's just not for me, at all. The concept of having an extremely strong, loving relationship between two people is very important to me.

Well, I would have to ask, what would be the point in legalizing these things? At least in Western culture, for the most part, relationships have remained between one individual and another individual (of course there are exceptions, but it is a rarity). Since multiple partners is not really something that citizens have requested or care about, I would question why bring it into a political debate when there are so many more important issues to focus on?

I think it's the other way around. We shouldn't have to have a point to legalize something, but instead should have a point in order to make something illegal. The state of something for which there is no good reason to make illegal, should be legal, as otherwise it needlessly restricts freedom. Arguments based on tradition or on, "because I don't like it" have caused enough problems.

While I don't like polygamy, I would not strive to keep it illegal unless presented with very compelling reasons for doing so.

-Lyn

 

[The Penitent Man]

Different strokes for different folks.

It takes different strokes to move the world.

Or so I've been told.

 

[nolongerhome]

I don't think they are immoral, as long as everyone involved is in the relationship through their own free will.

I think they are difficult to make work in the long run - some people can, but I think that the majority of people wouldn't be able to do it.

 

[Shemjaza]

I've had open relationships before (that's basically a monogamous romantic relationship, with the freedom to have sexual relationships on the side). They turned out fine... obviously there's a lot of communication required, but all relationships require that. Personally I don't find sexual fidelity necessary to love and trust someone.

Some very good friends of mine are in long term polyamourous relationships (I know examples of both multiple men and multiple women).

I think the important thing about any of these relationships is that they require more communication and the informed consent of all parties.

(Being a cheating jerk and calling yourself 'polyamourous' is particulay offensive to me).

 

[SithDoughnut]

It seems to me an issue is being made out of something simply for the sake of argument. I don't know anyone that has advocated multiple marriage partners or protested the limitations of marriage between two individuals.

I know a few. Nonetheless, I think you're missing the point of discussion for the sake of discussion. This is the Christian Forums website, not the Revolutionaries and Political Activists Forums website. We're not changing the world, just talking about it.

Arguments like this distract from genuine political issues.

Well go and make a thread for them, then. We can talk about those issues too.

 

[Belk]

Married people are "one flesh." Their bodies no longer belong to themselves alone, but also to each other. That relationship alone is inconsistent with multiple marital obligations.

In what way? Could they not all three belong to each other equally?

A specific example: married people are called to please each other sexually whenever their partner is in need. What happens when, say, the husband is busy satisfying his second wife, and his first wife needs sex? He cannot fulfill both of them at the same time.

Speak for yourself.

If you've ever watched the show "Big Love" (the early episodes, anyway), you see these sorts of problems crop up all the time.

Don't really watch TV anymore except for travel programs (and bones, because David Boreanez is hot). So I can't comment on that. Perhaps you could list some of these problems?

 

[Skaloop]

If you've ever watched the show "Big Love" (the early episodes, anyway), you see these sorts of problems crop up all the time.

Yes, because fictonal television programs designed to bring dramatic entertainment to the masses are accurate reflections of the reality of the situations they portray.

Also, all doctors fall in love with one of their fellow residents (much to the chagrin of one of their other fellows), police officers have access to state-of-the-art motion-detecting interactive computers that can decipher DNA samples in minutes, and female lawyers working for the Assistant District Attorney are all stupendously attractive.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Why is it considered immoral? Evolution.

How do I feel? If everyone involved wants to, then go for it.