Customer Discussions > Religion forum

What's the deal with polygamy?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 86 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 1:33:07 PM PST
CY says:
Hmm. i'm not convinced on the issue of econmic consolidation - a guy would have to be pretty wealthy to have several wives. On the other hand if they all work - or a few work then ok, more income. But three alimonies? Several child support bills? Is it worth it?

Otherwise, those scriptures are fairly clear to me in as far as understanding there is no contradiction. He says divorce is uncool ('God hates divorce') and it is! It is never a good thing - there are no winners. I think the implication is 'make it work, be faithful, love each other'. Now it doesn't always work - reality. And like I said, i do think there are other grounds for divorce apart from adultery.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 1:33:46 PM PST
CY says:
Hmmm. Good point.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 1:35:35 PM PST
RA says:
What Ku?!! You are for gay marriage but against plural marriage? Or are you just trying to cause trouble?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 1:35:48 PM PST
Joe W says:
Ku: I'm sorry you see the two as so closely related, Joe W.

I think the marrying goats argument is flippant. And my questions.....weren't.

Joe: Ok. I am sorry for misjudging your question. Implying that polygamy would result in everybody being married to everybody seems, if not flippant, then hyperbolic. There would seem to be some limiting practical considerations that are being ignored, such as emotional attachments and dislikes, financial resources, child care, inheritance, laziness, and the general propensity of humans to divide in to groups of us and them.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 1:40:39 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 3, 2009 1:42:04 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 1:43:14 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 3, 2009 1:41:04 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 1:45:09 PM PST
RA says:
Hmmm, Ku. That seems a little odd to me. I'm sorry for accusing you of having a religious mind. Maybe that was uncalled for.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 1:47:52 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 18, 2010 10:00:13 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 1:52:28 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 18, 2010 10:00:13 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 1:53:58 PM PST
RA says:
True enough, Sam. I just would expect someone who was against plural marriage to be against same-sex even more so. First time I've heard that one.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 1:56:55 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 18, 2010 10:00:13 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 3:28:06 PM PST
Mark Wallis says:
A few thoughts on why polygamy is not embraced in the US.

1. Definition of Marriage - California's Prop 8 ballot in November defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Although the ballot only passed by a slim margin and was aimed at gay marriage (not polygamy), it did so in a fairly liberal states and suggests that Americans in general still think of marriage as a one-to-one male/female institution (although I suspect this will change in the next few years for the male/female part).

2. Legal Complications - A one-to-many (or many-to-many?) marriage complicates a number of legal issues. Who makes the decisions to take the spouse off of life-support? What does an equitable divorce look like? Who gets the children? How are taxes paid? How are social security benefits handled?

3. Conflict Resolution - Marriages tend to work best when couples are focused on win-win conflict resolution. The chances of one spouse reaching a win-win with two or more is less likely (unless the group thinks very much alike). For one-to-many marriages, it also gives the one less incentive to resolve conflict altogether (i.e "needs" could be met by others).

4. Isolation or Partiality - As anyone who has been to high school knows, when you move from a group of two to three or more, the likelihood of being isolated or preferred increases. Perhaps this is an acceptable risk for consenting adults, but how does it play out with their children (who may never understand why their mom or dad is not the favorite)?

5. Commitment (Exclusive vs Shared) - There is security (and therefore a sense of well-being) in knowing someone is committed to you. If that commitment is shared with one or more other people then that commitment is by necessity diluted (which may impact the sense of well-being).

Cheers.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 3:39:23 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 18, 2010 10:00:00 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 3:41:55 PM PST
CY says:
Is this Mark Wallis the pastor from Australia whose in the US?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 4:15:24 PM PST
Joe W says:
Which is where laziness comes into the equation. The amount of energy, money and time that people are willing to expend is a significant limiting factor. Overly complicated arrangements will implode under their own weight.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 4:32:29 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2008 4:35:13 PM PST
Mark Wallis says:
Sam,

The problem is that polygamy is already banned and making it legal would be an expensive and time-consuming process. Such a process would require significant support, but it is unclear where such support would come from.

In my experience, people tend to like the idea of giving others choice unless it goes against their personal biases (and we all have them) or it costs them too much. I think both of these work against legalizing polygamy.

It would be interesting to know if there have been any studies comparing monogamous marriages to polygamous ones as it relates to the well-being of the spouses, the children, the community etc. Perhaps they don't look much different.

Maybe we should find something else for the lawyers to do.

Cheers.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 4:36:37 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2008 4:37:09 PM PST
Mark Wallis says:
Indeed it is. Hi Craig. Are you still in England?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2008 5:00:15 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2008 5:04:28 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2008 9:06:55 AM PST
RA says:
Surprisingly enough, no one has really made a case against polygamy. So far as I can tell, we did not get even one religious poster to make a case. Ku was the only one really against it and he is an atheist. I'm a bit surprised.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2008 3:11:58 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 24, 2008 3:30:35 PM PST
Mark Wallis says:
Russell,

To be honest, I am not sure sure what sort of case you are looking for. I understood that you and Sam had implied that the faith/religious arguments weren't really acceptable (i.e. "this is what my religious text says"), so why would anyone offer one?

An irreligious case against polygamy would probably have to focus on the increased likelihood of certain undesired results (undemocratic decision-making, jealousy and competition, neglect of children, complicated family dynamics, economic hardship etc) rather than on moral absolutes (after all, they are all adults right?).

Perhaps if you were to define the parameters of an acceptable case, it would encourage more conversation.

Cheers.

Posted on May 25, 2012 11:19:04 AM PDT
'probabilist says:
...

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 7:07:11 AM PDT
RA:

Well, polygamy would be a divorce lawyer's dream come true, so the divorce lawyers should be for polygamy.

Many Americans just like serial monogamy or cheating on each other. Both practices are a little like polygamy.

Posted on May 28, 2012 7:09:44 AM PDT
So whom did Amazon whack on [Deleted by Amazon on Jan 18, 2010 10:00:13 AM PST]?

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 8:59:59 AM PDT
Lawrence :

Someone called Ku, (which I have discovered by going through this thread).

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:10:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 9:29:41 AM PDT
nameinuse says:
It's a money issue. The leveling aspect of the federal tax code would encourage people to pool into marriage to avoid paying tax altogether like an S Corporation or LLC which would bankrupt the federal government.

They could concievably change the tax code to disallow marriage benefits but it was designed in the first place to encourage productive tax paying citizens to marry and produce more future productive taxpaying citizens for the future financial security of the government and the survival of the nation.

Tax code is the single best, most effective tool the government has in influencing human/societal behavior in our form of government.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  17
Total posts:  86
Initial post:  Dec 23, 2008
Latest post:  Jan 18, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions