16 Apr 16
Originally posted by SuzianneSo polygamy is not good for women.
I'm not convinced. Polygamy strikes me as being about "control" and "status". How can marriage possibly be considered equal, if there is one man, yet several women? Do all the women "equal" one man?
Besides, every marriage ceremony I've ever seen talks about "cleaving only unto each other". Polygamy simply gives one side (and usually one side only, a ...[text shortened]... eating it too", so to speak. This is just the Western version of "harems". Not good for women.
Is gay sex good for men considering that they comprise of most AIDS cases in the US even though they are a small minority?
16 Apr 16
Originally posted by SuzianneI'd say that, as long as there is informed consent, and there are legal protections, that the psychological aspects of polygamous relationships are none of our business.
I'm not convinced. Polygamy strikes me as being about "control" and "status". How can marriage possibly be considered equal, if there is one man, yet several women? Do all the women "equal" one man?
16 Apr 16
Originally posted by SuzianneWhy is polygamy seen as immoral? I could understand how bigamy involving deception or fraud could be said to be immoral, but not - in and of itself - polygamy. And I certainly don't understand why you lump it in with bestiality and pedophilia. Surely the moral issues surrounding engaging in bestiality and pedophilia are completely different?
Polygamy, along with bestiality and pedophilia, is seen as part of that "big three" of moral failings in America. It's a common attitude.
Originally posted by SuzianneBut you didn't say 'its the law', you said 'its a common attitude'. The truth is that I only ever hear bestiality and polygamy come up in relation to homosexuality when the speaker uses the argument 'gay marriage? what next? polygamy? bestiality?'.
Or, perhaps because they are not illegal.
I must also point out that interracial marriage has been illegal in parts of the US in the past.
16 Apr 16
Originally posted by sh76It's not so simple as either of the options. People, especially when they get older, tend to cling on to beliefs that they obtained in their youth and young adulthood. So we have people, like for instance whodey in this thread, who were raised with the idea that homosexuality is icky. It doesn't matter so much whether there was once a religious basis for this idea, perhaps for one of whodey's ancestors or people who lived in American society long before him - although the fact that Christian holy scripture does condemn homosexuality probably does help maintain superstitions against homosexuals in the view of certain Christians.
Homophobia based on what, though? Is it based on religious doctrine or is the religious doctrine merely an excuse. I strongly suspect the former.
Originally posted by SuzianneWho are you to determine for other, consenting adults what is "good" for them? It seems very much to me that your attitude towards polygamy is analogous to the attitudes towards homosexuality that you condemn.
I'm not convinced. Polygamy strikes me as being about "control" and "status". How can marriage possibly be considered equal, if there is one man, yet several women? Do all the women "equal" one man?
Besides, every marriage ceremony I've ever seen talks about "cleaving only unto each other". Polygamy simply gives one side (and usually one side only, a ...[text shortened]... eating it too", so to speak. This is just the Western version of "harems". Not good for women.
16 Apr 16
Originally posted by FMFThere is nothing in the Bible that says a man should only have one wife. There is a suggestion that leaders and elders in the church to have only one. The implication is that the general congregation could have more than one if they so choose.
I'd say that, as long as there is informed consent, and there are legal protections, that the psychological aspects of polygamous relationships are none of our business.
16 Apr 16
Originally posted by Rajk999'You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife' (singular).
There is nothing in the Bible that says a man should only have one wife. There is a suggestion that leaders and elders in the church to have only one. The implication is that the general congregation could have more than one if they so choose.
Or how about:
'Nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.' 1 Corinthians 7:2
16 Apr 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeInclude in your interpretation of those passages a little of the culture at that time. It was normal for a man to have more than one. Kings had them by the hundreds and this was sanctioned by God. If it was a sin then it would have been dealt with by the Apostle. Instead only bishops and deacons were required to have one.
'You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife' (singular).
Or how about:
'Nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.' 1 Corinthians 7:2
16 Apr 16
Originally posted by KellyJayThat depends on what you regard as a call for persecution, there are ambiguous passages; for example, the following does not clearly call for persecution but could easily be interpreted as doing so by someone who wanted to do a little persecuting:
I cannot think of any scripture that tells us to persecute anyone.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Romans 1:26-32
AKJV
16 Apr 16
Originally posted by Rajk999I think it is rather telling though that the only survivors of the flood were four monogamous couples.
Include in your interpretation of those passages a little of the culture at that time. It was normal for a man to have more than one. Kings had them by the hundreds and this was sanctioned by God. If it was a sin then it would have been dealt with by the Apostle. Instead only bishops and deacons were required to have one.
🙂
16 Apr 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAgain nothing suggests persecution even what you highlighted does not say kill them, only that they are worthy of death.
That depends on what you regard as a call for persecution, there are ambiguous passages; for example, the following does not clearly call for persecution but could easily be interpreted as doing so by someone who wanted to do a little persecuting:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural u ...[text shortened]... only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Romans 1:26-32
AKJV