is bigomy wrong? why?

[beginingandend]

i just want to know why most americans think bigomy is wrong? if it is true that most americans are christians, than they must realise that thier religious roots are grounded in polygomy. now by no means does that make it "rite" but there is no real basis for it to be considered wrong. this really confounds me, and i would like to know some thoughts on the topic weather negative or positive. i'm neither mormon nor muslim, but do see the benifits and problems with this.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by beginingandend

i just want to know why most americans think bigomy is wrong? if it is true that most americans are christians, than they must realise that thier religious roots are grounded in polygomy. now by no means does that make it "rite" but there is no real basis for it to be considered wrong. this really confounds me, and i would like to know some thoughts on the topic weather negative or positive. i'm neither mormon nor muslim, but do see the benifits and problems with this.

Welcome to CR Beginingandend,

I think the problem lies in the "splitting" of loyalties. And I'm not certain how you come to the conclusion that Christianity (in this case) or the religious part of it more specifically, is grounded in Polygomy. Clearly the "roots" of Christianity also start with the Book of Genesis, which describes one man and one wife.

Also, The seventh commandmant states "Thou shalt not commit adultery", which in today's vernacular means not having intimate relations with anyone but one's spouse (I'm aware it did not always apply to both parties).

There could also be the problem with "favorites" and jealousy (not to mention the shear fatigue factor that could occur)

If you could expound a bit more on how you conclude that Christianity (as you stated) is involved with Polygomy in its beginnings, perhaps I'd have a better understanding.

v/r

Q

[beginingandend]

o.k. first lets say hey, and thanks for replying! now on to your post...



I think the problem lies in the "splitting" of loyalties. And I'm not certain how you come to the conclusion that Christianity (in this case) or the religious part of it more specifically, is grounded in Polygomy. Clearly the "roots" of Christianity also start with the Book of Genesis, which describes one man and one wife.

>>>>>there were only one man and one wife at the begining, if fact the first bigamist was "Lamech, the first recorded polygamist, he had two wives...


Also, The seventh commandmant states "Thou shalt not commit adultery", which in today's vernacular means not having intimate relations with anyone but one's spouse (I'm aware it did not always apply to both parties).

>>>> it's not adultry if your married to them in fact "god" blessed abraham's polygomist relationship, - who in turn had many concubines and many sons



There could also be the problem with "favorites" and jealousy (not to mention the shear fatigue factor that could occur)


>>>>>>i'm not muslim, but the rule was or is that every wive gets equal treatment, you buy one a car, you have to buy them all a car. the usa, did away with polygomy under the guies of a man not being able to take care of all of his wives. wich i believe, that if you can't take care of your wives, than you shouldn't have them. the same is to be said about houses, you shouldn't buy a house you can't afford! i think the government saw the potential of have a massive and strong family presence. an alter- government. think about it, if everyone in a town was related, you'd have next to no crime, no drugs, no need for government assistance, because everyone would be there for everyone!



If you could expound a bit more on how you conclude that Christianity (as you stated) is involved with Polygomy in its beginnings, perhaps I'd have a better understanding.

>>>>>>>>most christian patriarchs are polygomous, in fact thats how they grew soo fast. they were a threat to the roman sociaty at that time, because of thier sheer numbers and thier seperate laws. thus leading to the "roman-catholic-church" which saw the opertunity of uniting all religions under the "universal church". for a christisn to deny this is insane. even "jesus" had a parable about brides maids going in to the marriage!! surely if it was wrong he wouldn't have made the women who "kept thier lamps full" the wiser, thus pointing out when the groome came he married the ones who were prepared! how is this lost? my only thought is the government. without family we're just numbers.

thanx...

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by beginingandend

>>>>>>>>most christian patriarchs are polygomous, in fact thats how they grew soo fast. they were a threat to the roman sociaty at that time, because of thier sheer numbers and thier seperate laws.

It's worth noting that polygamy possibly had a social root, and that as our socities are very different today than Bronze Age Sinai, then perhaps such issues should be viewed under different circumstances.

As for Christian patriarchs being polygamous - not sure where you perceive that, as sexual abstinence seems to have been a particular theme in early Christianity.

Also, Roman society didn't feel threatened by the numbers of Christians in the first couple centuries - how could they, when Christianity was still very small in number?

Roman society actually perceived a threat because of some Christians' refusal to observe certain Roman civil functions - check this very short article: http://www.comparative-religion.com/ancient/roman.php

[beginingandend]

hey,

thanx for your thoughts. i didn't mean "christians"(oops) i meant the jews. since christianity comes from judaism. sorry about that. but that furthers my questions and your right that socities are very different today than Bronze Age Sinai, but we still have no basis for it being virtually outlawed. it's far from murder and under certin instances i think it can be very positive.

thanx

[I, Brian]

I'm not sure what the modern Jewish take is on polygamy - but a quick look suggests that mainstream Judaism isn't particularly interested in polygamy any more, either.

And feel free to ask questions.

[BluejayWay]

Sorry, folks, but I just can't resist this:

<H1>Mark Twain

Once when Mark Twain was lecturing in Utah, a Mormon acquaintance argued with him on the subject of polygamy. After a long and rather heated debate, the Mormon finally said, “Can you find for me a single passage of Scripture which forbids polygamy?” “Certainly,” replied Twain. “‘No man can serve two masters.’”

Louis Utermeyer, A Treasury of Laughter (Simon & Schuster)

</H1>

[dauer]

Sefardic Jews are not prohibited from practicing polygamy and I'm pretty sure that those living in polygamous countries still can and do practice it. There's an Ashkenazic ban on polygamy and there's some debate as to whether or not it has expired. But in Israel I'm pretty sure it's not allowed, except for polygamous immigrants.

[littlemissattitude]

I'd hate to characterize what we so charmingly call "alternative lifestyles" wrong, exactly. I figure that if a group of people can make oh, shall we call it nontraditional marriage (traditional being one male and one female in the modern American and European style) work, more power to them. Personally, I don't share, but that's just me.

Where I start having a problem with plural marriage (bigamy, polygamy, etc.) is when it becomes prescribed and enforced by a particular group and forced on some of the participants (usually the women). Unfortunately, there are currently certain groups in the United States today who are doing this in what comes down to a cult-like (using the term "cult" in it's popularly understood rather than technical form) environment, forcing girls as young as their early teens to marry whoever is picked out for them, sometimes men as old as in their sixties and seventies. In some of these groups, it is also common for men who displease the leadership to have their wives taken from them and given to another, more "faithful" man without the women's consent. I would suggest reading the book "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith", by Jon Krakauer, for a discussion of one category of modern-day polygamists, some of the repercussions of their various beliefs and practices, and the roots from which their beliefs stem. I've written a review of Krakauers book, which you can find in my writing journal by clicking on the link in my signature; just scroll down to the entry "Under the Banner of Heaven: A review and a few Thoughts."

[truthseeker]

I don't see anything wrong with bi/polygamy on a cultural level. Here in America, to have more than one spouse is just plain greedy. In less civilized countries, bi/polygamy is beneficial. When you are nomadic you need all the help you can get. On a religious level, to have more than one spouse can be a spiritual distraction.

[madina]

Islams position on polygamy

Muslims are often accused of being promiscuous because polygamy is legal in Islam.

1. Islam did not introduce polygamy. Unrestricted polygamy was practiced in most human societies throughout the world in every age. Islam regulated polygamy by limiting the number of wives and establishing responsibility in its practice.
2. Monogamy of the West inherited from Greece and Rome where men were restricted by law to one wife but were free to have as many mistresses among the majority slave population as they wished. In the West today, most married men have extramarital relations with mistresses, girlfriends and prostitutes. Consequently the Western claim to monogamy is false.
3. Monogamy illogical. If a man wishes to have a second wife whom he takes care of and whose children carry his name and he provides for he is considered a criminal, bigamist, who may be sentenced to years in jail. However, if he has numerous mistresses and illegitimate children his relation is considered legal.
4. Men created polygamous because of a need in human society. There is normally a surplus of women in most human societies. The surplus is a result of men dying in wars, violent crimes and women outliving men. The upsurge in homosexuality further increases the problem. If systems do not cater to the need of surplus women it will result in corruption in society. Example, Germany after World War II, when suggestions to legalize polygamy were rejected by the Church. Resulting in the legalization of prostitution. German prostitutes are considered as workers like any other profession. They receive health benefits and pay taxes like any other citizen. Furthermore, the rate of marriage has been steadily declining as each succeeding generation finds the institution of marriage more and more irrelevant.
5. Western anthropologists argue that polygamy is a genetic trait by which the strongest genes of the generation are passed on. Example, the lion king, the strongest of the pack, monopolizes the females thereby insuring that the next generation of lion cubs will be his offspring.
6. Institutional polygamy prevents the spread of diseases like Herpes and AIDS. Such venereal diseases spread in promiscuous societies where extra-marital affairs abound.
7. Polygamy protects the interests of women and children in society. Men, in Western society make the laws. They prefer to keep polygamy illegal because it absolves them of responsibility. Legalized polygamy would require them to spend on their additional wives and their offspring. Monogamy allows them to enjoy extra-marital affairs without economic consequence.
8. Only a minority will practice polygamy in Muslim society. In spite of polygamy being legal in Muslim countries, only 10-15% of Muslims in these countries practice polygamy. Although the majority of men would like to have more than one wife, they cannot afford the expense of maintaining more than one family. Even those who are financially capable of looking after additional families are often reluctant due to the psychological burdens of handling more than one wife. The family problems and marital disputes are multiplied in plural marriages.
9. Conditions have been added for polygamy in many Muslim countries. For example, in Egypt, the permission of the first wife must first be obtained. This and similar conditions are a result of colonial domination. No woman in her right mind will give her husband permission to take a second wife. Such a condition, in fact, negates the permission given by God in the Qur'an.
10. Others have accepted polygamy on condition that it not be for “lust”. That is, if the wife is ill, or unable to bear children, or unable to fulfill the husband’s sexual needs, etc., taking a second wife is acceptable. Otherwise it becomes “lust” on the husband’s part and is consequently not acceptable. The reality is that “lust” was involved in the marriage of the first wife. Why is it acceptable in the case of the first and not the second? As has already been pointed out, men are polygamous by nature. To try to curb it by such conditions will only lead to corruption in society.
11. Feminists may object to this male right by insisting that women should also be able to practice polygamy. However, a woman marrying four husbands would only increase the problem of surplus women. Furthermore, no child would accept his or her mother identifying the father by the “eeny meeny miney mo” method. The question which remains is, “If God is good and wishes good for His creatures, why did he legislate something which would be harmful to most women?” Divine legislation looks at the society as a whole seeking to maximize benefit. If a certain legislation benefits the majority of the society and causes some emotional harm to a minority, the general welfare of society is given precedence.

written by: Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips

[truthseeker]

Whoa, Madina. That's hot!

[littlemissattitude]

madina...With all due respect, just because I am not attached to a man by marriage does not mean that I am a "surplus woman", in need of being put under the jurisdiction and control of a man. I have to say that I find that characterization to be quite disrespectful. By saying this, I am not being disrespectful to the Islamic faith; there are numerous groups in the Christian traditions who take exactly the same attitude toward unmarried women, and I find it just as deplorable when they express that view.

Monogamy illogical. If a man wishes to have a second wife whom he takes care of and whose children carry his name and he provides for he is considered a criminal, bigamist, who may be sentenced to years in jail. However, if he has numerous mistresses and illegitimate children his relation is considered legal.

I would like to point out that the above assertion is not true. According to a 1998 article in the Washington Post Magazine, adultery is a crime in many jurisdictions in the United States:

Because -- just for the record -- adultery is, in fact, a crime. Berra's student's instincts were inarguably right: An "extramarital affair" is illegal in the District of Columbia, where adultery is a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of $500 or 180 days in jail. It's a misdemeanor as well in Virginia, Maryland and more than 20 other states, and a felony in Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma and Wisconsin.

And though the law is rarely enforced, it's not never enforced: As recently as 1980, a Massachusetts couple were spotted having sex in a van and, when they admitted they were married but not to each other, arrested for adultery. The man admitted his guilt and paid a fine of $50, but the woman appealed, invoking the same right of privacy defined in landmark contraception and abortion cases. The court rejected the argument and upheld the conviction.

You can read the entire article here.

Polygamy protects the interests of women and children in society. Men, in Western society make the laws. They prefer to keep polygamy illegal because it absolves them of responsibility. Legalized polygamy would require them to spend on their additional wives and their offspring. Monogamy allows them to enjoy extra-marital affairs without economic consequence.

Not in the United States. There is a well-developed body of "palimony" and child-support laws that make men very much liable to economic consequence for the results of their relationships, whether or not these relationships are within the legal bounds of marriage.

Like I have said before, I don't really have a problem with "nontraditional" (as we in the West would consider them) marriage relationships so long as all of the parties to the relationship are of legal age and have given informed consent. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

[lunamoth]

I don't know, I can't imagine being married to a man with additional wives. It seems like it would be so hard to treat all wives equally and not have hard feelings. Also, in the USA it costs so much to provide children with a college education, which has become almost a prerequisite to getting a good job, that having more wives and more children would make it difficult to educate them all. Should only the wealthy have multiple wives? Should poor men be encouraged to have multiple wives and more children they can't support? Wouldn't fly in Western society, I don't think.

With respect to Madina's list, well, it looks good on paper but I do not think that allowing men to marry multiple wives will solve the problems of infidelity and sexually transmitted disease. What would keep a man from being adulterous when married to two or three wives if he's inclined to be adulterous with just one? And as for polygamy motivating a man to actually support all the children he fathers, well, polygamy will not help that man earn more money or change his spending priorities when it comes to providing for his family.

Having said all of that, I do not think Islam or other religions must defend the fact that they allow men to marry multiple wives. If it has been part of the culture and religion for a long time people who practice it certainly have worked it out. It depends on what each individual marriage looks like, just as it does in any kind of marriage. Do the partners love and respect each other? Are they committed to raising their children in a loving and supportive family environment? Are the women all treated with equality and repsect compared to each other and also compared to the men? Do women (and men) have full consent with respect to whom they are married? Is everyone truly happy with this arrangement?

With this and with pretty much all religious practice, build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.

peace,
lunamoth

[truthseeker]

This is a conversation among educated women who live in a country where they have the choice to be with a man or not, have the resources to choose a man, can make a living for themselves should they choose not to be with man, and are resourceful enough to turn down a man's invitation for marriage whether they feel the man is suitable or not. Every nation is not this way.

A man having more than one wife? It can be done in western society if the man is responsible enough, each woman understands her role in the household, and everybody's priorities are straight. There are some women that would rather be alone than share a man. There are some women who have their own lives of productivity to deal with rather than be overly concerned with a monogamous relationship with a man. There are some women who want the children and will hold their family together regardless of the other stuff. And there are some women who would rather be with another woman.

There are alot of responsible men out there that don't have to be hunted down to care for their children. Nonetheless, there are irresponsible men and women out there that act like chimpanzees in heat and don't care to protect themselves against pregnancy, miscalculated expectations, lies, disease, economics, or neurotic impulses.