Polygamy

[Bee Eff]

I disagree.

That they are aside or that polygamy itself is being examined?

Regardless, polygamous marriage does not necessitate the three items you state in your post.

[Scottie]

Actually it does. While the popular (and late) meaning of the word has come to entail "Abstaining from sexual relationships," the proper and original meaning of celibacy meant being unmarried, not never having sex.

While when a person chooses to become celibate, they are likewise removing themselves from the pool of available marriage partners.

I don't know why you are quibbling about this point, Scottie.

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm not.

Both of these are addressed above.

[erichard]

Polygamy does not equate to underage marriage. ... a sexual deviation. ... forced marriage.

Now, the practices of the FLDS appear equate to all of the above, but the practice of polygamy is merely incidental.

...

Is there a rational position for being against the practice of polygamy?

My attempt at answering your question:

It could lead to a situation where a good man could not find a wife.

As long as polygamy (polygyny) is only practiced when authorized by true prophets, then I am convinced there is no rational postion for being against it.

I still recommend the 1842 Nauvoo Illinois "Peace Maker" pamphlet for insights into the Bible foundation of polygamy.

["Peace Maker pamphlet:" Pdf version. Web version. ]

Richard

[Mudcat]

(Posted By Bee Eff) Polygamy, Is there an honest rational position against the practice?

I am assuming, by your question, that you would exclude any answer from the Bible as being 'honest' or 'rational'.

So let me posit this.

Roughly 1/2 the world is male, the other half female.

That is an approximate 1 to 1 ration of men per women.

If polygamy were necessary wouldn't we see something more like a one male to two female ratio. Or even perhaps a one male to thirty-three(or so) female ratio.

[SolarPowered]

If polygamy were necessary wouldn't we see something more like a one male to two female ratio.

As I have already stated in this thread, that is in fact the case among the unmarried members of the LDS Church. (Worse than 1:2, actually.)

[Ron Beron]

Why is it illegal?

While many polygamous families in Utah during the 19th century did well many others did rather poorly. Women were ignored and neglected and forced to live a meager subsistence. Secondly, the use of polygamy in the Bible was accompanied by the concept of marriage as a form women as chattel, a slave mentality at worst. I cannot conceive of equality and polygamy being rationally consistent with each other.

Further, it is against American custom and that equates to common law. If we as a society are settled on the concept that marriage is between one man and woman then we must accept the fact that polygamy is as against the law as homosexual or incestuous marriage is. Finally, it would prove to be disastrous in adjudicating family law in the case of divorce or estate settlement in the case of death.

[Scottie]

As I have already stated in this thread, that is in fact the case among the unmarried members of the LDS Church. (Worse than 1:2, actually.)

The premises for this thread is NOT the LDS church though. It is a generic society of men and women.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to go back to that.

[Bee Eff]

Ok, the gist, if I am understanding you correctly, is that there are reasons why a man or a woman may choose not to get married. A vow of celibacy is one of many reasons. Correct?

Obviously these situations are happening now. Yet we all still seem to be able to find a partner. I don't see a massive shortage of women or men.

Then why would the 50/50 ratio somehow be impacted more strongly by polygamy than by celibacy resulting in abstaining from marriage?

You brought up the ratio as a factor possibly effecting the inherent morality of polygamy, not I.

Do you think that in a polygamist society the lifestyle choice to not get married would somehow drastically favor one gender over the other? If so, why?

I'd rather not digress further from the topic at hand.

[Bee Eff]

I am assuming, by your question, that you would exclude any answer from the Bible as being 'honest' or 'rational'.

So let me posit this.

Roughly 1/2 the world is male, the other half female.

That is an approximate 1 to 1 ration of men per women.

If polygamy were necessary wouldn't we see something more like a one male to two female ratio. Or even perhaps a one male to thirty-three(or so) female ratio.

So, if two women desire to be married to the same man, their desire should be married to him is secondary to the demand implied by the ratio of men to women, and thus polygamy is rationalized as immoral?

[Scottie]

Then why would the 50/50 ratio somehow be impacted more strongly by polygamy than by celibacy resulting in abstaining from marriage?

You brought up the ratio as a factor possibly effecting the inherent morality of polygamy, not I.

First of all, you keep insisting on celibacy as the ONLY reason someone might not get married. I maintain that there are a million reasons why an individual might not want to get married. Celibacy is but one of those million reasons. Do you agree with this?

If so, then we can use our current society as a benchmark. There is no shortage of available men or women. Roughly 50/50 men/women have chosen to remain single. For every man that has made the choice, whether celibacy or another reason, there is a woman who has made the choice for a different reason.

This is not the case in a polygamist society.

Given our polygamist society, we still have the equal amount of men and women who choose not to get married for whatever reason (celibacy being one of them), correct? Thus we are still at a 50/50 men/women ratio.

So, since we are back to our 50/50 ratio, once a woman is taken off the market, there is no counter that is taking a man off the market. The men still remain, wanting to be married, but unable to because of a shortage of women.

I don't believe I am off topic here, as I am attempting to answer the question you asked.

I believe this is a very legitimate problem in a polygamist society.

[Scottie]

So, if two women desire to be married to the same man, their desire should be married to him is secondary to the demand implied by the ratio of men to women, and thus polygamy is rationalized as immoral?

You're changing the question now.

Your OP stated Is there a rational position against the practice of polygamy?.

This is a rational position against it. Whether it is a moral position or not is a different story.

[SolarPowered]

The premises for this thread is NOT the LDS church though. It is a generic society of men and women.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to go back to that.

Because you stated in post #70,

Yet we all still seem to be able to find a partner. I don't see a massive shortage of women or men.

My comment was that that most certainly is not the case within the Church, where there is a massive shortage of men.

I'm not suggesting that we should bring back polygamy in the Church; I'm only pointing out that the sort of gender imbalance that you contend doesn't happen in practice, is in fact a major problem right here within the Church.

[Mudcat]

So, if two women desire to be married to the same man, their desire should be married to him is secondary to the demand implied by the ratio of men to women, and thus polygamy is rationalized as immoral?

That logic is circular and tu quoque ....

by the same token 373 men could feel the same way about 1 woman, does that rationale equally moralize polyandry.

God started the world with one man and one woman....a husband and a wife.

He has maintained that ratio even until now.

[SolarPowered]

God started the world with one man and one woman....a husband and a wife.

He has maintained that ratio even until now.

Except within the LDS Church...

Except in China and India...

[Ihearya]

That they are aside or that polygamy itself is being examined?

Regardless, polygamous marriage does not necessitate the three items you state in your post.

That they are aside. The items I suggested seem to validate polygamy in an LDS context, if polygamy were to be acceptable again. Personaly, I see nothing wrong with polygamy. It was GOd's order. It changed over 100 years ago. We no longer have anything to do with it. Fine. But I doubt it needs to be demoralized as something evil. I also think that polygamy can be corrupted resulting in abuse such as the case when minors are abused under the name of religion. I disagree with any form of exploitation under the name of polygamy. However, correct me if I am wrong, I think that we still believe in polygamy for the eternities. If we do, we have no business condemning or demonizing it. Obviuosly, polygamy has been abolished for whatever reasons and so now we have to deal with the issue of "one time it was ok" and now it's a bad thing. You could say the same thing about blacks receiving the Priesthood. At one time it was not acceptable and after 1978 it is. Interracial marriage...at one time it was not encouraged and now it's not even the subject of discussion. Sustaining the laws of the land. At one time we were adamant about it, now it's not our problem. So on and so forth.

[Scottie]

Because you stated in post #70,

Umm...I didn't say anything about LDS in post #70...I'm using a strictly hypothetical society.

My comment was that that most certainly is not the case within the Church, where there is a massive shortage of men.

I'm not suggesting that we should bring back polygamy in the Church; I'm only pointing out that the sort of gender imbalance that you contend doesn't happen in practice, is in fact a major problem right here within the Church.

You data says that there are more LDS women than men. Not that there are more women than men. I'm quite certain that an LDS woman COULD find a non-LDS man to marry, do you agree?

In our hypothetical society, we're talking strictly gender counts. x number of men and y number of women. (or should women be x and men y?)

[Ron Beron]

That they are aside. The items I suggested seem to validate polygamy in an LDS context, if polygamy were to be acceptable again. Personaly, I see nothing wrong with polygamy. It was GOd's order. It changed over 100 years ago. We no longer have anything to do with it. Fine. But I doubt it needs to be demoralized as something evil. I also think that polygamy can be corrupted resulting in abuse such as the case when minors are abused under the name of religion. I disagree with any form of exploitation under the name of polygamy. However, correct me if I am wrong, I think that we still believe in polygamy for the eternities. If we do, we no business condemning it today. It's sort of like saying: "I believe in polygamy as long as it's practiced correctly..." and as long as God commanded it. Obviuosly, polygamy has been abolished for whatever reasons and so now we have to deal with the issue of "one time it was ok" and now it's a bad thing. You could say the same thing about black receiving the priesthood. One time it was not acceptable and after 1978 it is. Interracial marriage...at one time it was not encouraged and now it's not even the subject of discussion. Sustaining the laws of the land. At one time we were adamant about it, now it's not our problem. So on and so forth.

It is not by nature "evil", only through practice. Men or women have a tendency to rule unjustly in a situation where their is unequal power sharing. This is particularly true in marriage. In a 1:1 relationship then men and women have a willingness to share and are equal partners. In an unequal relationship then women become less powerful and therefore less important while the men become more important and the center of attention. Why would we want that? Polygamy is not only illegal, but immoral.

[SolarPowered]

You data says that there are more LDS women than men. Not that there are more women than men. I'm quite certain that an LDS woman COULD find a non-LDS man to marry, do you agree?

Many LDS women would consider that to be unacceptable.

Anyway, unless someone wants to discuss this further, I will drop the discussion of the LDS gender imbalance, as I don't really have much of a point. (As I previously said, I absolutely am not suggesting that we should bring back polygamy in the Church.)

[Bee Eff]

While many polygamous families in Utah during the 19th century did well many others did rather poorly. Women were ignored and neglected and forced to live a meager subsistence.

Is this not true of monogamy?

Secondly, the use of polygamy in the Bible was accompanied by the concept of marriage as a form women as chattel, a slave mentality at worst.

An unsubstantiated claim. If this were true, then a Biblical religion could consider themselves justified in continuing with such a belief. You take too much liberty with the character of the prophets of the OT here.

I cannot conceive of equality and polygamy being rationally consistent with each other.

Then you are a sad individual.

Having more than one child causes one to love more than one child. Is it possible that love can be distributed equally? Perhaps we should condemn plural child birth as well.

Further, it is against American custom and that equates to common law. If we as a society are settled on the concept that marriage is between one man and woman then we must accept the fact that polygamy is as against the law as homosexual or incestuous marriage is.

I am questioning such societal position with this thread. If I as a member of said society questions such, then society as a whole is not unanimous in its position on said subject.

I believe that the issues that occurred with FLDS children are a result of a society that denied the FLDS the right to practice polygamous marriage openly. I believe that had the marriages occurred in the view of the public there would not have been the underage marriages that occurred nor would there have been the forced marriages.

Finally, it would prove to be disastrous in adjudicating family law in the case of divorce or estate settlement in the case of death.

So, the need for a law that may prove difficult in creating is sufficient to deny someone the right to decide how they will practice marriage? Monogamous marriage and divorce have shown to be disastrous in adjudicating family law in the case of divorce. Perhaps we should make all marriage illegal.

[Bee Eff]

You're changing the question now.

Your OP stated Is there a rational position against the practice of polygamy?.

This is a rational position against it. Whether it is a moral position or not is a different story.

So, the numbers appear to be a rational argument against, but other factors must also be considered. Do the numbers outweigh the right to personal decision by those choosing a polygamous lifestyle? If they do, then, indeed, the numbers argument is rational, if they do not, then the numbers argument is not as rational as it appears on the surface.

Edit: Corrected grammar

[Bee Eff]

That logic is circular and tu quoque ....

by the same token 373 men could feel the same way about 1 woman, does that rationale equally moralize polyandry.

I have no argument with someone that chooses to live this way.

I believe that homosexual marriages are fine if the individual does not have religious obligations that contradict such. I do not condone the lifestyle, but I cannot with a clear conscience deny another's right to live and believe as they will if it does not cause harm to anyone other than those consenting to such.

God started the world with one man and one woman....a husband and a wife.

He has maintained that ratio even until now.

What of those that do not believe in God? Should we force a monogamous lifestyle on them?

[Ihearya]

It is not by nature "evil", only through practice. Men or women have a tendency to rule unjustly in a situation where their is unequal power sharing. This is particularly true in marriage. In a 1:1 relationship then men and women have a willingness to share and are equal partners. In an unequal relationship then women become less powerful and therefore less important while the men become more important and the center of attention. Why would we want that? Polygamy is not only illegal, but immoral.

But that assumes that all those practicing it are unhappy or being taken advantage of. It's a known fact that many polygamists are happy with their situation and don't feel abused or experience any uneven share of power. When we practiced polygamy, we seemed happy with it. Why would that be different now besides the fact that some modern wives would have a fit sharing one husband? When it's ordained of God, such feelings shouldn't exist. Now, don't take me wrong, I am NOT a polygamist myself. I'm simply making an observation.

There is another issue: polygamy was only ruled illegal by the Government. Few citizens voting on it had the opportunity to know the benefits of the practice. Otherwise, it might have been legalized. Something to think about. Had we insisted on practicing polygamy, our Church would be persecuted and we wouldn't be able to grow. So, it was better to abolish the practice than find ourselves fighting against the Supreme Court.

[Bee Eff]

That they are aside. The items I suggested seem to validate polygamy in an LDS context, if polygamy were to be acceptable again. Personaly, I see nothing wrong with polygamy. It was GOd's order. It changed over 100 years ago. We no longer have anything to do with it. Fine. But I doubt it needs to be demoralized as something evil. I also think that polygamy can be corrupted resulting in abuse such as the case when minors are abused under the name of religion. I disagree with any form of exploitation under the name of polygamy. However, correct me if I am wrong, I think that we still believe in polygamy for the eternities. If we do, we have no business condemning or demonizing it. Obviuosly, polygamy has been abolished for whatever reasons and so now we have to deal with the issue of "one time it was ok" and now it's a bad thing. You could say the same thing about blacks receiving the Priesthood. At one time it was not acceptable and after 1978 it is. Interracial marriage...at one time it was not encouraged and now it's not even the subject of discussion. Sustaining the laws of the land. At one time we were adamant about it, now it's not our problem. So on and so forth.

Agreed. The Church merely stopped the practice of polygamy. It also stated that a member of the Church that practiced it was doing so at a time when the Church had stated that such was not condoned. The Manifesto does not speak to condemning plural marriage, it merely states a cessation of current practice.

[CMZ]

The fact that some polygamists get polygamy wrong doesn't mean nobody can get it right.

[Scottie]

So, the numbers appear to be a rational argument against, but other factors must also be considered. Do the numbers outweigh the right to personal decision by those choosing a polygamous lifestyle? If they do, then it is indeed the numbers argument is rational, if they do not, then the numbers argument is not as rational as it appears on the surface.

I suppose so.

If a society existed where a woman could choose to be a polygamist wife of a man with power, or a monogamous wife of an unimportant, but loving man, I see no problem letting the society gain that balance. My guess is that the majority of women would choose to be in a monogamous relationship.