The Debate

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why?

I gave my reasons for opposing polygyny or polygamy in general on the first page.

 

[Curious George]

Its a myth book. Old bad science is it not?

My point is that the text of the bible does not matter. I will be for or against a proposition regardless of whether the bible supports or opposes that proposition. So logic does not dictate that atheists will oppose polygamy.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ok mr hermit a response with no words.can ypu mime it?

Blank ok mime it mr hermit!!!View attachment 25929

*knocks on mic* Is this thing on?

You might want to flip back a page and read our exchange. You asked me a question that had already been answered in the text that you quoted, so I quoted your post any my original post that addressed the question. You missed the statement not once, but twice.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I gave my reasons for opposing polgyny or polygamy in general on the first page.

Sorry. We're apparently just replying to posts today without reading them.

 

[Rival]

Introducing polygyny would probably be either a boon or a benefit on the economy. Polygynous marriages will produce lots of children, generally speaking. If a man has 3 wives with 2 kids each, he already has six kids. How will the financial situation work? Will they have a bank account accessible to 4 people? How many houses will be needed? How would we deal with the potential population boom? How will public transport, catering facilities and so on have to change to accommodate families of 12?

 

[Rival]

What about them? What legal problems do you see arising from in-laws?

They'd need to be included in wills, custody cases and so on.

 

[David T]

*knocks on mic* Is this thing on?

You might want to flip back a page and read our exchange. You asked me a question that had already been answered in the text that you quoted, so I quoted your post any my original post that addressed the question. You missed the statement not once, but twice.

Oh so there it was my fault. Isnt that a rules violation!!! I think i read that somewhere "never admit to making a mistake" i am just channeling our current leader btw.

 

[Curious George]

Laws dealing with past spouses aren't the same as laws dealing with current spouses.

For child support? For inheritance? What specific problem are you foreseeing? I do not think such a problem exists.

If you are dealing with custody and parenting time, then you are talking about former spouses.

The laws are capable of handling the majority of issues. Sure there would need to be minimal tweaking, but nothing like the overhaul you seem to imagine.

 

[Curious George]

They'd need to be included in wills, custody cases and so on.

In-laws do not need to be included in wills. And if someone is writing a will then there is really not much of a problem after all.

In-laws do not need to ne included in custody issues. However, anyone with a relationship to the child has standing to challenge custody. That wouldn't need to change at all.

 

[David T]

My point is that the text of the bible does not matter. I will be for or against a proposition regardless of whether the bible supports or opposes that proposition. So logic does not dictate that atheists will oppose polygamy.

Actually logic does dictate that any atheist opposed to polygamy is infact not being logical at all which thus means being atheist has zero to do with actual logic!!!! About one second in nature might reveal that. Try it sometime very liberating actually.

 

[Rival]

However, anyone with a relationship to the child has standing to challenge custody. That wouldn't need to change at all.

It would make for much more long, drawn-out cases. It would lead to an even bigger backlog of court cases, which in turn would harm families. I was part of a pretty standard court case that lasted 3 years, and there was me, my step-father and my mom, mostly. Think of how messy it would be with numbers of people in the 10s.

 

[BSM1]

It should not be legal, because having to endure one wife is bad enough; no man should be forced into the cruel and unusual punishment of having more than one.

Not to mention multiple mothers-in-law...

 

[Deeje]

So, we have two topics that have been debated to death: abortion and same-sex marriage. As these are beaten horses at this point, I've decided to start a thread on a debate that crops up somewhat, but not particularly often.

Welcome to the polygyny debate. Polygyny is defined as a man having more than one wife.

Do you agree that polygyny should be legal? Why? Why not?

Biblically, we see that in Israel's history men were permitted to have more than one wife. Those mentioned in scripture reveal that it was a difficult arrangement for many. Women competing for their husband's affections would have caused conflict and grief in many homes.

One thing it did accomplish, was that it assisted Israel to increase in numbers, fulfilling God's promise to increase Abraham's offspring to become as numerous as the sands of the sea. (Exodus 1:7)

Polygyny was not the original arrangement for marriage that God instituted in Eden however, (Genesis 2:24) as Jesus alluded to when he reintroduced a return to monogamy for his disciples. (Matthew 19:4-6) Those who held positions of responsibility in the Christian congregation were to have only one wife. (1 Timothy 3:2)

It is a very human trait to be jealous of someone you see as a rival (wondering who yours is?) The women mentioned in scripture who had to share a husband displayed this trait and it caused problems In the household. It is interesting to note that whilst God did not originate polygyny, he regulated it and set standards for it.

Another reason why it may have been tolerated is that the Bible reveals the problem of widowhood in Israel, which indicates that perhaps there were more females than males at those times. Concubinage also gave women a home, a husband and children, all very important to life in Israel.

For today, when the institution of marriage is under assault, I see no reason to legalise it when so many people see no need for marriage anymore. They prefer a "walk in, walk out" arrangement with no strings attached. Children of one mother can have multiple fathers. The only people who see marriage as important these days are those who adhere to God's standards as outlined in the Bible.....and those to whom marriage has been denied in the past....SSM.

It's an odd situation we have found ourselves in today with the fallout affecting children in particular who now have a warped sense of family because of the strange relationships of their parents. It is unravelling the fabric of society IMO.

Just my opinion.....

 

[Curious George]

It would make for much more long, drawn-out cases. It would lead to an even bigger backlog of court cases, which in turn would harm families. I was part of a pretty standard court case that lasted 3 years, and there was me, my step-father and my mom, mostly. Think of how messy it would be with numbers of people in the 10s.

3 years is not standard for probate.

I agree that more people increases the likelihood that someone will contest, but you cannot throw that at the feet of polygamy. You might as well try to legally limit family size based on the same argument. That is not a legal problem, it is a social problem that impacts the judicial system.

 

[Curious George]

Actually logic does dictate that any atheist opposed to polygamy is infact not being logical at all which thus means being atheist has zero to do with actual logic!!!! About one second in nature might reveal that. Try it sometime very liberating actually.

Here is what was said:

I would imagine most atheists will be against polygyny, just on the grounds that it was condoned (2 Samuel 12:8) and in some cases commanded (Deuteronomy 25:5) by God

Logic would dictAte that. But my guess most are closeted southern baptists loving to cherry pick. Just a guess. Sort of like being hetrosexual in denial. Lol.

No, logic does not dictate that atheists oppose polygyny because the bible says it is ok.

 

[Rival]

3 years is not standard for probate.

I agree that more people increases the likelihood that someone will contest, but you cannot throw that at the feet of polygamy. You might as well try to legally limit family size based on the same argument. That is not a legal problem, it is a social problem that impacts the judicial system.

It wasn't probate. It was child abuse. I'm talking in a general context; any family dispute can become messy. A child may accuse a parent of abuse, the other parent may not believe the claim; everyone will be involved, the child will have to be rehomed, the mother may contest...

 

[Curious George]

It wasn't probate. It was child abuse. I'm talking in a general context; any family dispute can become messy. A child may accuse a parent of abuse, the other parent may not believe the claim; everyone will be involved, the child will have to be rehomed, the mother may contest...

I am failing to see how polygamy will increase the court time in a child custody case. Again, anyone with a relationship to the child has standing to contest custody. Polygamy would not lead to legal problems that our courts are not already set up to adjudicate. You can already jave multiple parties in cases dealing with custody. There is no legal problem here.

 

[Rival]

I am failing to see how polygamy will increase the court time in a child custody case. Again, anyone with a relationship to the child has standing to contest custody. Polygamy would not lead to legal problems that our courts are not already set up to adjudicate. You can already jave multiple parties in cases dealing with custody. There is no legal problem here.

I'll break this down.

Imagine 5 mothers-in-law, 2 aunts and 1 uncle battling for custody of a child.

On top of this, add abuse allegations.

On top of this, add financial settlements if a divorce ensues. This will probably be contested by the other wives.

And on top of this, add what will happen to the other children.

 

[Curious George]

I'll break this down.

Imagine 5 mothers-in-law, 2 aunts and 1 uncle battling for custody of a child.

On top of this, add abuse allegations.

On top of this, add financial settlements if a divorce ensues. This will probably be contested by the other wives.

And on top of this, add what will happen to the other children.

It really doesn't matter how many people you add to the pot, we are already capable of addressing custody in such a case. Abuse and harm charges are also capable of being addressed.

Divorce is certainly a little more complex especially considering various states spousal support laws. I agree that spousal support would need to be reconfigured, perhaps giving more favor to temporary/ rehabiltative support. Child support however could be handled but would have to be tweaked a little as not to over-favor the single guardian.

 

[Ellen Brown]

So, we have two topics that have been debated to death: abortion and same-sex marriage. As these are beaten horses at this point, I've decided to start a thread on a debate that crops up somewhat, but not particularly often.

Welcome to the polygyny debate. Polygyny is defined as a man having more than one wife.

Do you agree that polygyny should be legal? Why? Why not?

@Saint Frankenstein @Shiranui117 @Deeje @RabbiO @SalixIncendium @Sunstone @icehorse @Ellen Brown

I'm not able to participate in this practice, so do not feel entitled to criticise. What people do is between them and their Creator.