Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
How Many Wives Is Too Many?
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


"Texas authorities on Tuesday indicted the leader of a polygamous sect ... on charges of felony sexual assault on a minor, the first criminal charges to stem from a massive raid on the group's West Texas compound," The Los Angeles Times reported last week.

The Associated Press and other media used similar words: "indicted polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs ... charges of felony sexual assault of a child."

Straightforward reporting? In my "20/20" special "Sex in America", polygamy activist Mark Henkel said no, it's an ignorant distortion.

"The media kept saying, 'Polygamist leader, polygamist leader,'" Henkel told me. "But the case actually involved incest and arranged marriage of a girl with her 19-year-old cousin. There wasn't anything [that] had to do with polygamy. [Jeffs] wasn't called an incest leader. He wasn't called an underage-marriage leader. He was called a polygamist leader."

Henkel and his website, TruthBearer, (www.truthbearer.org), campaign against the media and others who lump criminals like Jeffs with all polygamy.

Henkel won't reveal his own family situation. In Maine, where he lives, even purporting to have more than one wife is against the law. Henkel complains that American laws are hypocritical.

"Someone like a Hugh Hefner will have a successful television show with three live-in girlfriends! And that's all OK, and he's making great money, and that's all fine and great entertainment. But suddenly, if that man was to marry them, then suddenly he's a criminal. That's insane!"

Many people, when they hear the word "polygamy," think of fundamentalist Mormons living in cults, but the truth is that there's lots of polygamy in America that has nothing to do with that. First of all, polygamy was banned by the mainstream Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1890 and is grounds for excommunication. For my "20/20" special, we interviewed Jewish and evangelical Christian polygamists. Henkel's website is subtitled "Organization for Christian Polygamy." He estimates that there are 100,000 polygamists in America.

Ten years ago, University of Georgia Professor Patricia Dixon thought polygamy exploited women. Then she embarked on a study of it.

"I was transformed by the experience."

She spent years living with different polygamous communities. She was surprised to find that polygamy was not about men exploiting women.

"It's female-centered. The women are the ones who are benefiting. ..."

Wouldn't most people say it's about the men getting more sex with more women?

"It's not about another notch on your belt or anything like that. It really is the women who really promote this idea."

Plural marriage is common around the world. In the United States most get married in religious ceremonies but keep quiet about it because what they do is illegal.

The families we met wonder why what they do is illegal. Clearly it's wrong if an older man arranges marriages of young kids, but when adults choose to live this kind of life, why is that evil?

"Because we need marriage for the good of society. I think if we were to see this across the range of society the effect would be negative," Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council (www.frc.org) told me. He added, "Slavery and polygamy were the twin relics of barbarism. Those are barbaric societies that we've tried to move beyond."

Plenty of religious leaders agree with Sprigg, but Mark Henkel isn't buying it. "If they're saying that's immoral, they're calling the greatest heroes in the Bible ... immoral! ... Saying that Abraham, with his three wives, was immoral. Jacob had four wives. David had seven known named wives before Bathsheba."

Prince Ben-Israel, who has four wives, calls plural marriage a civil-rights issue. "Who is this government that's in somebody's bedroom? ... It was illegal for me to marry a white woman at one time. ... It was illegal for me to vote at one time. And if I had accepted somebody else's definition of what was right and wrong, I would still be riding in the back of the bus.

"We're not saying this is for everybody. Everybody don't like football and basketball or tennis. But those who do oughta be free to do this."

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
thanks Alex
He said unequivocally, "the two shall become one." It was a pleasure, and thank you too for your thoughtful correspondence.

Yttrium
"Next, Jesus was perfectly clear: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

Thats right. Jesus was perfectly clear about the command to marry (to cleave unto your wife). I believe this with all my heart. In the following verse it says, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. " (Matt. 19:6) That is the accompanying commandment of the Lord not to divorce or engage in activities that move us in that direction.

That we are to leave our parents, marry, not divorce, and stay faithful to our spouse is abundantly clear from the scriptures and from the Lord himself. We all agree. However, there still is neither a proscription or prescription of plural marriage.

Look, I respect your view that monogomous marriage is the preferred arrangement. Heck, I'm a happy monogamist. I have only been with my one wife for all my life and am happy to do so. I just don't see the undeviating mandate for monogamy in the Bible.

We will just have to agree to disagree. Nothing personal. Thanks for the discussion.

and Alex 1
You say,

"Isn't it funny that deacons and bishops in the New Testament were to be chosen from among the monogamous Christians in good standing, as opposed to the polygamous Christians in good standing?"

Isn't it funny that Paul sent a former slave back to his master, asking him to release him for service to the gospel? The point being that Paul was not a social reformer on polygamy in Roman times, nor Roman slavery. He pleaded, but did not order any changes. So your case for Roman polygamy is really exactly as it stands: a regression to pagan culture.

Next, Jesus was perfectly clear: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." Anything outside of this is either fornication or adultery. Feelings and burnings are not going to change God's word. It is plain.

Alex 1
Solomon had hundreds of wives and hundreds of concubines, and male and female singers, and male and female slaves. You are saying that somehow he gets "a pass from the prophet" for his many wives, until he marries foreign women. (Solomon, being a king, was making political alliances through marriages.) What prophet are you speaking of? There are no prophetic books written during Solomon's reign in the Bible.

Yttrium
"Look at the life of Jacob. I am not seeing "prophetic, blessed" polygamy here! "

Perhaps not. I think Jacob was a bit of a stinker younger in his life too, but somehow he was favored of the Lord. That’s the Lord's call. Perhaps there is more going on in the story of Jacob than we have available to us in the text we have received. At any rate, it doesn't change anything. The covenant of Abraham was continued through his loins.

"Your comments are totally unfocused and subjective, with nothing specific. "

Maybe so, but I'm afraid that we have no choice but to be subjective. Now as a Mormon, I believe that there are some answers to this, but I sense I am speaking to someone who is set on sola scriptura and so I will speak within the limitations of what you will accept.

In the end, we need to work this issue out individually before God and make a decision based upon the direction we feel God would lead us. How do you think scripture was received anyway but by revelation? It sounds vague, but I see no other option. Sure, we have tradition, but tradition has been wrong before too.

Yttrium
"Thank you and how lovely. But very very vague. "

Sorry, but I am not justified in being anything more than vague about what the Bible says about polygamy. One of the mistakes made by many who hold sola scriptura is to try to force a biblical mandate where there is none. Knowing what you don't know is an important part of understanding scripture.

Now, don't get me wrong. There is plenty that is rock solid in the Bible that you and I can take to the bank.

The fact is that there are polygamist footprints throughout the Bible (Old and New Testaments) with the prophets condemning only plural marriage outside the covenant. The prophets are tough on adultery and divorce, but polygamists get a pass, and regularly. We have Solomon taking many wives and the prophet is absolutely silent until Solomon takes to wife the daughters of the heathen nations. Doesn't that seem a little strange? Don't you think that if a people are accountable enough to have the Lord ripping them apart for their adultery, that they would not even get a lecture once on the evils of polygamy, if polygamy were adultery?

Isn't it funny that deacons and bishops in the New Testament were to be chosen from among the monogamous Christians in good standing, as opposed to the polygamous Christians in good standing? In other words, there were both in the early Christian church? Interesting.

Now I don't take all of this alone in itself to be a divine mandate in favor either. In the end, we have to make our best judgment.

Alex 1
Thank you and how lovely. But very very vague. Look at the life of Jacob. I am not seeing "prophetic, blessed" polygamy here!

Dave used a specific argument, so I specifically refuted him on those passages. Your comments are totally unfocused and subjective, with nothing specific. Get down here, if you want to talk to me.

Yttrium
No Yttrium. You are not going to get away with that either.

The bottom line is that all of the scriptures and context related to the subject in the Bible taken together do not give us a clear understanding of God's opinion on the matter. We are therefore unjustified in deriving God's word on the subject from what we have there.

Now, I don't mind if anybody argues for or against polygamy, but we have to do so with an understanding that neither side can rightly claim, "See, the Bible says so.". It clearly doesn't.

Instead, we should approach the subject prayerfully and with an eye on finding the Lord's will using scriptures to give us an understanding of the principles involved.

I'm afraid not, sir
No Dave. You are not going to get away with that.

Abraham had only one wife, Sarah. As was the law in the Levant at the time, a barren woman could give her maidservant to her husband, and legally take any children as her own. You will notice that Abraham told Sarah, "She is your maidservant; do whatever seems best to you." He never called her his wife. As a widower, he married Keturah.

Isaac--you have listed him in your deceptive, condescending false teaching. Isaac married Rebekah. He had only one wife.

Jacob wanted to marry Rachel, and was given Leah stealthily on his wedding night; he then had to work for 7 more years to marry Rachel! The unhappy fighting between unloved Leah and barren Rachel fulfills the rest of the story, and it is not a picture of polygamy as a norm, nor as a choice that Jacob had in mind. It was a deception by his father-in-law. Is that your proof text for polygamy, Dave? Jacob? Too bad the rest of us Americans are so dumb that we don't get it.


AMERICANS HAVE BECOME SO STUPID!!!!
And yet, it is all hilarious to me. I'm an active, lifetime Latter-day Saint (Mormon). We have long been consider anti-Christian for a number of doctrinal differences. Polygamy did not start with Joseph Smith! Ever heard of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob? Polygamy is ancient and a prophetic, divinely sanctioned practice.

HOWEVER, that's not the funniest part. The hillarious part is that while 99.9% of Americans are focused on Mormon fundamentalist polygamy, there is a polygamist invasion occuring right under their liberal, diversity-hugging noses. The MUSLIMS! The Muslims are importing their wives quietly, but have been doing so steadily. They probably outnumber the Mormon fundamentalists already in the U.S. and Canada. And this is the point. WHEN THE MUSLIMS ARE READY TO COME OUT OF THE CLOSET, THEY WILL DO SO IN FULL FORCE AND CRAM POLYGAMY DOWN AMERICA'S THROAT! THEY WON'T GO TO JAIL QUIETLY. THEY WILL POUR OIL MONEY INTO THE COURTS AND LAWYERS AND TERRORIZE THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE WITH ISLAMIC DOCTRINE AND THE PRINCIPLES OF "DIVERSITY" AND "TOLERANCE." My God, people, can you be any more naive? You think Mormon fundi's are a problem . . .

MrD
Sorry I misconstrued your "it was the women that arranged the whole thing. I was just the willing participant" to be an abrogation of your own part in a moral decision. I did not put those words in your mouth. You did.
I judged not you but your action. People have every right to do that.

SunThe1
I blamed no-one. Neither do I judge anyone else's behavior. My life is the Lord's to judge and I hide nothing from him.

I share an anecdote with you that illustrates a point raised by Mr.Stossel's column and even sign with my name.

You do not have the right to judge me or to put words in my mouth. And then hide behind an assumed "handle" that means nothing to me.

KCDillon

MrD
It's too bad they don't make a drug that can redirect firmness from parts of the body whre there is a surplus to parts where it's needed. In your case, they could call it SPINE-AGRA.

Don't blame your wife for your lack of a moral compass.

johnnyp & david
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that. I assumed a will superceded everything.
Apologies then for my acerbic retort to david.

reply to talent scout
Complete bs? Look, the freakin' column said some good things about polygamy, as did some of the TH readers. So what, exactly, did I get wrong in saying that there are conservatives in favor of polygamy? C'mon, you must have some idea.

Libertarians please, please please
stress this issue throughout the campaign! Let this become a defining issue for the Libertine party. This will give the voters a true warning of a Libertine presidency's consequences.

Personally, I'll stick with McCain.

Somehow I doubt Barry Goldwater, an iconic conservative, would consider legalizing this depraved institution.

Wrong again, John!
Polygamy should be banned, not because of immorality, but because of the inherent stupidity, and financial burden on society.

How many of these polygamists are supporting all the women and children they have? Pretty close to zero. They all suck off the government welfare teat, and do so proudly. These men are nothing more than lazy, womanizers, and many of them are child molesters, to boot!

Arranged marriages, are forced marriages, and these girls are raised to never know they have a choice, so they submit. How could they not? They have no idea that what goes on in their community is not the norm.

Aside from the welfare benefits, these folks would quickly become a burden to society in other ways, too, if polygamy became accepted, and widespread. Children are born in a pretty much 1 to 1 ratio. One girl born for every boy. (The slight excess of women to men ratio in adulthood is accounted for by wars, and other risky behaviors getting men killed in greater numbers.)

What will the men without power do, once all the women are taken up by the Hugh Hefners and polygamists of the world? When you see these cults, you see 10 to 1 ratios, of women to men. Where did all their men go? Did they kill them, or just force them out of the community? How widespread do you think this could go, before there was some killing going on? Hell, young men have killed for a pair of sneakers. What do you think they'll do when all the women go away? Do you think they will be content to just sit on the sidelines, and watch? I don't think so.

Stossel, you are wrong on this one. Aside from the abuse of the women involved, this is a SOCIETAL problem, which would be compounded exponentially by any perceived acceptance. How many railed against Homosexual Marriage, because it would be just the first step down the slippery slope. I guess they were right. Here we go!

We were doing just fine up to here
"Where Christian values are the norm, and I come from another culture, the cultural values that rule would be the Christian values"

Bull pucky. That's majoritarianism pure and simple and it's unacceptable.

Though Shalt Not Kill!
Though Shalt Not Kill!

MellorSJ2
Location: AL

Reply # 2
Date: Jul 31, 2008 - 3:18 AM EST

You wrote:
"Of course, I'll trot out the prohibition on mushrooms until the denizens understand that (a) it's as nonsensical as their god's prohibition on shellfish or certain kinds of sex, and (b) if they want to desist from eating shellfish, they're welcome, but they can't pass laws preventing me from doing so."
---
The constitution left the moral and spiritual instruction to the churches and to the people. Not just to the churches alone. We are free to choose, but we cannot alter the natural consequence of our choice. We can even abuse our body, though it is not a good thing to do. Moral and ethical laws are about, things to be and things that aught not be, of things to be sought and thins to avoid for the good or benefit of all humanity.

An abuse should not be tolerated at any level or within any culture or a nation would be divided by erroneous actions which abuse the freedom of others My freedom ends where someone else’s nose begins. So if what I like discomforts another then I should not to it in public, as long as others are not abused and its intent is not to be harmful.

Where Christian values are the norm, and I come from another culture, the cultural values that rule would be the Christian values, unless the churches and the people of a sound mind were to vote against this or for that moral value to be changerd, however no drunkard, corrupt or vile person should be allowed to vote; no murderer, or thief or perverse person if any sort should be allowed to vote. Nor should any unqualified or immature person be allowed to vote. We live in a world where principle and law govern, is I not governed by preference.

Holy Chicken au Grand Marnier, Batman!
"fowl in spirit"?

Way to go, spiceman!

What God Permits is Wrong?
It is wrong to be lustful and fowl in spirit and to covet, fornicate or commit adultery. Was Jacob who is call Israel guilty of these offenses, having two wives, and conceiving children by their maids whom they gave Jacob to wife.

(Genesis 30:4 - 10)
4 And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.
5 And Bilhah conceived, and bare Jacob a son.
6 And Rachel said, God hath judged me, and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son: therefore called she his name Dan.
7 And Bilhah Rachel's maid conceived again, and bare Jacob a second son.
8 And Rachel said, With great wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali.
9 When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife.
10 And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son.

I do not claim to understand all of this, and if God never condemned Jacob, but continued to bless Jacob, then it is beyond me to differ.

It tells me that we fail to acknowledge one of his first commandments to Adam and Eve:
(Genesis 1:28)
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, BE FRUITFUL, AND MULTIPLY, AND REPLENISH THE EARTH, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

(Genesis 9:1 - 2)
1 AND God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, BE FRUITFUL, AND MULTIPLY, AND REPLENISH THE EARTH.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

Unca Alba
" "you have trotted out your great elf story dozens of times on Townhall columns."

That's OK, it's the first time *I* saw it."

A man visits a monastery at which all the monks but one are not allowed to speak except to utter numbers that correspond to jokes.

The visitor asks if he can try and says "37" and the monks titter without enthusiasm. He gets an explanation for the joke and agrees that it's not that funny.

"Can I try again?"

"Sure."

"292," he says. And the monks double over with laughter.

"What are they finding so funny?" the man asks.

"Oh, they've never heard that one before."

Ba boom.

Of course, I'll trot out the prohibition on mushrooms until the denizens understand that (a) it's as nonsensical as their god's prohibition on shellfish or certain kinds of sex, and (b) if they want to desist from eating shellfish, they're welcome, but they can't pass laws preventing me from doing so.

Questions, questions.
How many, and what gender? What age? These are questions Dear John would like us to ponder, despite the fact that voters and citizens have made themselves clear.

Well, let's just see how enlightened Johns will cause all of the rest of us to just stop governing ourselves. Somehow he has managed to make a living at peddling his liberal gibberish and ushering in a worthless society no one else wants.

Almost a poligamist w/o spelling errors
Mr.Stossel quoting Patricia Dixon, "It's female-centered. The women are the ones who are benefiting. ..."

My wife of six years (at the time) once brought home a girlfriend that she had met several weeks before. A very pretty woman that I had never met. The second time we got together they began talking about sex. My wife was bragging about me while she (the other woman) bragged about herself. I of course was titillated. My wife was then pregnant with my son and was very horny and we were having sex almost every day. She (my wife) was the one that suggested that our new girlfriend and I sleep together. She was the one that suggested that we should add this new woman to our family. A few weeks later there were two other women added to the mix. None of these women were into lesbian sex. At no time were any two woman in my bed. Each of them professed their love to me and the others. At no time did I coerce or cajole any of them to sleep with me. Each of them wanted to join our family.

The main reason that this arrangement broke up after almost a year was mostly because of the legal issues. I loved them all. I would have worked my @ss off to provide for them and protect them. The first left because her estranged husband begged her to leave with him. The others left soon after to begin lives of their own.

The whole story is much more complicated but, it was the women that arranged the whole thing. I was just the willing participant.

KCDillon

Almost a poligamist
Mr.Stossel quoting Patricia Dixon, "It's female-centered. The women are the ones who are benefiting. ..."

My wife of six years (at the time) once brought home a girlfriend that she had met several weeks before. A very pretty woman that I had never met. The second time we got together they began talking about sex. My wife was braging about me while she (the other woman) braged about herself. I of course was tittlated. My wife was then pregnent with my son and was very horney and we were having sex almost every day. She (my wife) was the one that suggested that our new girlfriend and I sleep together. She was the one that suggested that we should add this new woman to our family. A few weeks later there were two other women added to the mix. None of these women were into lesbian sex. At no time were any two woman in my bed. Each of them professed thier love to me and the others. At no time did I coerce or cojole any of them to sleep with me. Each of them wanted to join our family.

The main reason that this arrangement broke up after almost a year was mostly because of the legal issues. I loved them all. I would have worked my @ss off to provide for them and protect them. The first left because her estrainged husband begged her to leave with him. The others left soon after to begin lives of thier own.

The whole story is much more complicated but, it was the women that arranged the whole thing. I was just the willing participant.

KCDillon

Husker2 -- irt MellorSJ2's Great Elf
"you have trotted out your great elf story dozens of times on Townhall columns."

That's OK, it's the first time *I* saw it.

It's not an old joke if you've never heard it before!

Dear John
How many wives is too many?

How many chickens can one man have, or how many cows would be fine? How many wives can one sheikh du jour get? It's only 4 in an enlightened Muslim country dear. And where are the rest of the heifers in the little picture which accompanies this article?

Please, go find some gainful employment, for your own sake as well as ours. Honestly, you need to work for a living.

Slithertarians are getting pretty old
I would say extremist libertarians are totally over-represented here at Townhall.

When has either President Bush been
a proponent of "limited government"?

I originally missed it when he talked about "compassionate conservatism" in 1999 and 2000 (as if real conservatism is not compassionate).

But by the time he signed McCain-Feingold and pushed the Prescription Drug benefit for seniors, it was obvious Bush was not interested in limited government. His signature on this latest monstrosity comes as no surprise.

I voted for Bush to keep Kerry out of office - it was worth it to get Alito and Roberts on the SCOTUS - but I've not been a supporter of Bush since 2002.

I believe ...

The Flying Spaghetti Monster hath decreed, "Let all who are without meatballs enjoy several at once."

So let it be written, so let it be done.


http://www.venganza.org/




1st amendment
Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF......

and then there's that pesky 10th amendment.


A Libertarian View--
The issue of voluntary polygamy among consenting adults is just one of many issues that give the lie to the "conservative" claim that they support the concept of "less intrusive government."

You can argue all day and all night about whether or not polygamy is a workable family structure. But that is all beside the point. The ONLY point to consider, for those who advocate a free society, is whether adults have the right to choose the lifestyle they want to live, so long as they meet their other obligations (nurturing and supporting their children, for example--something for which monogamous couples have little to brag about, statistically speaking).

Would I choose to have more than one wife? Not ever, not no how! But again, that is my choice. In a free society, men and women are free to choose either monogamy or polygamy.

Why are Muslims taking over the world ?
Because they practice polygamy and have more children. Look at what has happened to the Christians in Lebanon. Look at the demographic picture in Europe. Wake up people.

To answer your post Gestell.............
Gestell
Location: MA
Reply # 138
Date: Jul 30, 2008 - 3:02 PM EST Conservatives for polygamy
The answer to your question about Christians and Polygomy, it is women, in general strong willed and possessive women. Along with Roman and Greek laws of old. Not Christian laws.
If you asked a christian male when would you like to stop having children, he would probably say when he could no longer support them or if he is like me, 40 weeks after I have died with a smile on my face.
Most women would say around 40 yrs old. And in the past, the highest rate of Divorce in the world was when a women reached her non child baring years.
Sp as a conservative living in the 21st century I try to obey the laws before me, I also obey the Christian laws of my faith. If It said poligamy was okay, I'd be a poligamist and so would my wives.

Wow! Tough one!
Good discussion for the most part. On an ethical/secular level, I would have to come down on the polygamist side. On the theological side, Bible context is often misused to make any point just like "statisitcs" can be fashioned to say what you want if you are so predisposed: the same numbers (or words) mean different things to different people. What we often forget is that "God's Law" isn't some random commands from an ethereal being who wants to find reasons to zap us as much as the laws' intentions were (are) to protect us from ourselves. Without trying to be pretentious using the "wisdom of a Solomon," which is the greater sin: A man and some women who choose to honorably raise families in polygamous relationships or monogamists whose Holy Matrimonial vows are about 40-50% accurate in effect and commitment. There are many more adulterers in these United States than there are polygamists. Here's a rock but whose gonna throw it?

How many wifes is too many..............
Great story John, and the answer is one. If she is a bane in your life or a saint. But two would be better and I could get away from both for a time.
Romans and Greeks, with their laws brought monogamous marriage into the Christian Belief. I for one am happy with the one I have had for 34 years now. And underage is also a law which we allowed to be enacted because us fathers do not want our daughters to marry guys like us but if its some one else girl and well you all know what I mean. Less than 60 years ago you could marry and have sex with a child of 13 in some states if it was consentual. Marriages of those just over that age were very common in the late `50s, in alot of places. It became repulsive and we, yes WE, did not like it and we passed the laws to ban it.
So why was the Jeff case not persued as a child broker and as a underage incest pervert. No it was because of polygamy, and our new hatred of Mormons, which sounds like Muslim and there for must be against the Bible and evil.

Gestell
There is no such thing as proof you will accept.

Its in the eye of the beholder, and your eyes are so full of self righteousness, that the only truth that exists in the world is what you say it is.

But if you go on any thread you post on, you consistently use the thread to attack conservatives.
Regardless what the subject of the thread is.
Just like this one.

All complete bs


Chris
I appreciate your response. I had already thought about the dog not being able to consent, but I am certain there would be a way around that. People appear capable of thinking up all kinds of crazy (perverted) things.

As far as the other, I feel there is a solid basis for society and government to involve itself in marriage. One, for the good of our nation as with the tearing down of families we see an increase of all sorts of troubles that run rampant in todays modern world.

Second, since this was made an issue by those seeking to further devalue marriage, there seems no choice but to take a stand on one side or the other which includes passing laws to protect this ancient covenant between a man and a woman. The problem is striking the right balance without government growing so large as to takeover facet of our lives (which it is already doing and not because of those who want marriage protected).

I do feel polygamy is not healthy or Biblically sound and would go so far as to be extremely doubtful having a father who is engaging in such behavior as being better than none at all. Both are troubling occurrences. I agree that the state is most assuredly not an ideal resolution. It would be nice if the churches could take on more of an active role in these areas, although I am sure there would be plenty to object.

I will certainly take a look at the article you included.

polygamy
I'd be interested to know how many of the people against polygamy are also against divorce? Excluding the criminal Jeffers and others like him, I think polygamy would be more moral than serial divorce. At least the husband would be supporting his family instead of abandoning them as so many do.

When the Texas situation was brought to light, someone did an article on a polygamist group that was not abusive and pretty much lived like everyone else. The advantages were definitely on the women's side. They had someone to share in the workload and took turns homeschooling the kids and taking care of the household chores. The husband and father worked a lot of hours supporting his family and doing all of the traditional "man" chores around the house.

Some of the women had moved on to live elsewhere but frequently visited the community. As I remember, one was a doctor. And other people had single marriages.

I've often joked that it would be nice to have a wife to help keep up with work, taking care of the house, and driving the kids around. I'm not sure I'd be OK sharing my husband to get that, but I can see how the arrangement could work.

Morally, a polygamist marriage could be just as supportive as a single marriage, as long as the family could support itself and not abuse charity. As with every family, if you can't afford more kids, don't have them. And the legal issue and religious issue are separate.

And please don't say that humans were meant to be monogamous. The divorce and adultery rates disprove that easily.

The FRC needs to get a life
I swear every time I hear a quote from Peter Sprigg or anybody else in the Family Research Council I want to gouge my eyes out and cut my ears off. Everything they say is disgusting. They might as well up and say they want every law ever written to be replaced by the bible because that's what they're working for. They want to upend all the parts of our society they don't like and that's not American. That's tyranny.

As for ploygamy, so long as it isn't forced on anybody I don't see why it should be illegal. I personally can't imagine having multiple wives, but that's me. If someone else wants it that's just fine so long as it's not forced. That's how it works in a free society. You can't ban it just because you don't like it. It's as simple as that.

reply to Sugary Sweet and talent scout
Once more, I'm awestruck by your argumentative abilities; you offer neither evidence nor arguments to show me the error of my ways. Of course, my expectations of most conservatives in that department are very, very low, so I guess I'm not all that surprised.

Sarah is not God
Did God permit plural marriage? Obviously he did, under the law of Sarai. With the consent to Sarai as follows

(Genesis 16:1 - 4)
1 NOW Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
4 ¶ And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.

=====
ts:
Nor was this a law from Sarah or God.
Sarah just done it and no law was made for or against.
Except the Law of Nature as God Created it in Genesis 1st chapter.

One man, one women

As an atheist and former libertarian ...
I'm appalled that what could be the most potentially disastrous policy enactment in Western history is being attacked on religious rather than sociological grounds. We know from DNA evidence, and anthropological inference, that the human species is naturally polyGYNous (that's mating, not marriage, ratios). The natural rate is probably between 4 or 5 to one, women mating with alpha males.

I'd like to figure out what you proponents of "liberty" intend to do with the other 75 to 80 percent of men who are left with no vested interest in the well-being of society. If this were a fully libertarian society where every person was their own island then I suppose it might be less destructive. However, there is massive shared social infrastructure that is currently contributed by men who would otherwise be shut out of society through widespread polygyny.

Polygyny is not perverted, and, in fact, it is more biologically natural than monogamy. All of you religious people have blundered onto the beneficial social policy, but your ham-handed defense of monogamy is actually hurting your cause.

Frankly, I cannot see even one person here making the correctly-based, rational case for monogamy. Instead, what we see is a shouting match between advocates of "Liberty" and advocates of "God's Law".

I think I see the spark that is going to end Western Civilization. I think I'm gonna be sick.

D of I recognizes Foundations of Law
Are from God



IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth,

"the separate and equal station to which the LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURES GOD ENTITLE THEM"


, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

"THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR"

with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

THAT TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS,

GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED...

among Men,
deriving their just powers

from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED,

====
God created man
man created the State

"Man, fearfully and wonderfully made, is the workmanship of his all perfect CREATOR: A State, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance."


James Wilson, a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and later a Supreme Court Justice

Accountability and Responsibility?
(Isaiah 4:1 - 2)
1 AND in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
2 In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.

Is it lawful that a man have more than one wife? The answer is, "No it is not lawful."
The law of the land prohibits plural marriage.

Did God permit plural marriage? Obviously he did, under the law of Sarai. With the consent to Sarai as follows

(Genesis 16:1 - 4)
1 NOW Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
4 ¶ And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.

However US Law Prohibits Plural Marriage and we are all required to keep the law or we are causing disorder.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught to keep the law of the land, and the faithful members do.
Articles of Faith 1:12)
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

In one sense,
...enforced monogamy with welfare for the unwed mothers and fathers with children is like socialized marriage.

Can't stop what I am not doing
InsightingTruth writes:- 5:58 PM EST
Subject: talent scout:
How 'bout a deal, I'll stop cracking wise if you will stop blustering.

I'm serious. Don't you think it would be more fun if we just talked?
====
ts:
I am having fun anyway, even if you do not.
How about you stopping with trying to define me and my knowledge or attitude and stick to a topic?

Are you able to rise above your desire to brand me with some name tag?
A desire to define me is what needs to be stopped.

If you do not know what my attitude is, and you do not, ask me if you are wondering, just stop with the accusations like this one.

I will not stop with blustery cause I have not used, felt, thought blustery thoughts.

Capiche?

What
ever happened to the thought that society controls what is moral or not? In the middle east, society deemed that multiple marriages were acceptable. We deemed in our society that multiple marriages were not acceptable. In some societies divorce only calls for the man to say "I divorce you". In ours, we deem that it needs to be o.k.'d by a court.

Positive proof of your ignorance
InsightingTruth writes: - 5:49 PM EST
Subject: talent scout says,
=====
NO. this was said by Sir William Blackstone.
You ever hear of him?
He just wrote the Law for America is all.
=====
"Law flowed from the superior to the inferior, be it God, monarch or nation, and the inferior was compelled to obey."
Sir William Blackstone
========


InsightingTruth writes:
The concept of law from on high is completely contrary to the concept of law upon which this nation was founded. The idea contained in your statement is contrary to common law which was said to be "discovered" not imposed.
====
ts:
I have not seen a more ignorant statement than this one.
If you have ever read the Declaration of Independence, no one would ever know.
You are in complete unlearned state of mind in what the Birth Certificate of America says itself about this subject.

=====
InsightingTruth writes:
Is CO still part of the U.S? Has there been a plebiscite in CO that required your state to switch allegiances?
====
ts:
You figure it out, not sure if you can, but if not its something I cannot tell you,

A mature Universe, not a baby
InsightingTruth writes:- 5:36 PM EST
talent scout:
Okay. For the sake of clarity, [I stole that from Dennis Prager.] you believe the earth is about 5,000 years old. And, you believe that there is no evidence of human existence before say, 3,000 BC. Is that what you are saying?
---
No I give it 4000 years BC.
But not me, I just been here for 65 years.

There is no history, no recorded history, no known history older than 4000 years BC.
Its does not exist.

All we have is speculation for anything past 4000 years ago.

Most of it from using dating methods that can never prove the time it claims to make.

Before any dating method was ever discovered by scientific methods, the bible addressed this very question 2000 years ago before the dating methods.
That makes assumptions all things exist by what is seen with the eyeball.

2 Peter 3:5 -
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old,..

Its what I see, willful ignorance.

God created an adult Universe, not a baby universe and watched it grow up.

Hebrews 11:3 -
Through faith(His Faith, not mine) we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

People talk about the age of a rock like they have its birth certificate, ha ha

talent scout:
Actually, my better 3/4 just called and wants me to meet her for dinner. I must run. I look forward to our next meeting. Good night.

talent scout:
How 'bout a deal, I'll stop cracking wise if you will stop blustering.

I'm serious. Don't you think it would be more fun if we just talked?

See ya, Vic.
Have a nice evening.

Amy asks"Whats next, consensual incest?"
Stossel got there 2 years ago:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/07/19/t hink_your_cousins_cute_relax


The idea here is not that polygamy is a good thing. It is that if people are not harming anyone else, the government should not stop them from doing what they want, including harming themselves. It's a question of ownership - do we own ourselves or does our government own us?

Of course, we Christians believe God owns us and has given a conscience and His Spirit to guide us - to know right from wrong.

Arguing that government should stop people from harming themselves leads to the logical conclusions that we should be forced not only to be in monogamous marriages, but that our choice of spouse be approved for compatibility, divorce be outlawed, that we eat right, exercize, and take our vitamins.

And as others have argued on this thread, a husband and wife living together is by far the best environment for children to grown up in - but a polygamous household is better than no father or being wards of the state.

Amy asks "...Marrying your dog?"
The dog is incapable of consent.

talent scout says,
"Law flowed from the superior to the inferior, be it God, monarch or nation, and the inferior was compelled to obey."

The concept of law from on high is completely contrary to the concept of law upon which this nation was founded. The idea contained in your statement is contrary to common law which was said to be "discovered" not imposed.

Is CO still part of the U.S? Has there been a plebiscite in CO that required your state to switch allegiances?

Dismissed as ranting
InsightingTruth writes:8 - 5:27 PM EST
Subject: talent scout:
You are in luck, I can answer some of your questions.

No, I'm sorry, the court has a role to play in fact finding and to mete out justice.

Oh if only that were so. What a wonderful world it would be.

(dismissed as nonsense)

Just the "Officer of the Court" ones, okay?

No Congress has a role to play under the Constitution. It is not the one they think it is, but it is still important.

ts: "Law of Moses is intuit by either reading it or vibrations. You probably just use vibrations." (dismissed as ranting)

talent scout, some of your reactionary comments are truly amazing. Do you ever see them that way?
====
ts:
Geez
Some of your rantings is so reactionary to my comments, its truly amazing.
Do you ever look in the mirror?


Guys; I would love to stick around
and argue law and religion here but there is another one of those afternoon thunderstorms rolling in.

I especially don't want to be arguing religion during lightning strikes.

Back tommorow.

talent scout:
Okay. For the sake of clarity, [I stole that from Dennis Prager.] you believe the earth is about 5,000 years old. And, you believe that there is no evidence of human existence before say, 3,000 BC. Is that what you are saying?

200 years of Blackstone in America
And some among us have just now figured out that Law and Religion are incompatible.
Amazing how slow and dumb Americans have been before this day and time.
With so many brilliant people shining lights of "intellect" today.
he haw haha, lol.
We have a nation of idiots Is what I fear.





"Human laws, Blackstone believed, were like scientific laws.

They were creations of God waiting to be discovered just as Issac Newton had discovered the laws of gravity a century before.

"Thus we say, the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations."

Law flowed from the superior to the inferior, be it God, monarch or nation, and the inferior was compelled to obey.

He acknowledged humans as

"the nobelest of all sublunary beings, a creature endowed with both reason and freewill"

but decreed that there were

"certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained"

and that God gave

"the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws."

talent scout:
You are in luck, I can answer some of your questions.

ts says:
"Now we can get rid of the Court System." No, I'm sorry, the court has a role to play in fact finding and to mete out justice.

ts: "Everyone just intuit the law." Oh if only that were so. What a wonderful world it would be.

ts: "Good bye Judges" (dismissed as nonsense)

ts: "Good by Lawyers" Just the "Officer of the Court" ones, okay?

ts: "Good bye Congress." No Congress has a role to play under the Constitution. It is not the one they think it is, but it is still important.

ts: "Law of Moses is intuit by either reading it or vibrations. You probably just use vibrations." (dismissed as ranting)

talent scout, some of your reactionary comments are truly amazing. Do you ever see them that way?

How sad then for me to watch you fail
InsightingTruth writes: - 5:10 PM EST
Subject: Vic:
I try dreadfully hard to stay within sight of logic. I find if I stray too far from rational thinking I get a headache.

Do you think talent scout is beyond intellectual redemption?
===
ts:

This is why you are failing.
You do not have enough information for an intellectual understanding of Law, or Religion.

You are very good at showing how to stay unlearned,preferring ignorance, for that you win the blue star, for today.



Wow
I have to say I was a bit surprised about this article. Stossel appeared to present polygamy in a more positive light than I would expect. As far as being "female-centered..." Hogwash.
Polygamy is hardly glorified in the Bible. On the contrary, every example I can think of regarding polygamy was rife with controversy, strife and troubles. Man is to leave mother and father and cleave to his wife (singular) not wives, so the two are one flesh, not three, four, five, etc....For a time the Lord may have tolerated it, but it is not a good practice and certainly not a Biblically and morally sound one. And it sure is not a "female-centered" one. Absurd.
Here lies yet another way to tear down traditional marriage, a cornerstone that has been around for centuries. Whats next, consensual incest? Marrying your dog?

catscratchfever, honor killing is more
a cultural practice than a religious one - it is common in Pakistan and India, for both muslim and hindu families.

Saudi Arabia has comparatively few honor killings. Everything else you said about the sorry state of women in SA is exactly right, though.

This is the best way to find out
InsightingTruth writes - 5:06 PM EST
Subject: talent scout:
Good answer. For me 56 years. But I've heard rumors that the earth is older. My grandmother claimed to be 102 years old not long before she died. So, assuming my grandmother to be an honest woman, her statement belies our personal experience.

There may be more to explore here. What do you think?
====
ts:
I think you are onto something.
Your grandmother was 102
Her grandmother was ?
Her grandmother was?

This is IT!
How could we all have over looked how simple it all it?

Just trace it back to the first couple.
Low and behold, now we are right back to Asama and Eve.
About 6000 years ago.

This explains why the known history of mankind is only about 4-5000 years old.

Beyond that?
A big black nothing of nothing.
No information older than 4-5000 years ago.

I think you discovered the formula for figuring it out.

Vic:
I try dreadfully hard to stay within sight of logic. I find if I stray too far from rational thinking I get a headache.

Do you think talent scout is beyond intellectual redemption?

No separation
Vic writes: 4:54 PM EST

TS is arguing religion, not logic. I don't argue religion.
=====
Between the two, not when one speaks of Natural Law, Law of Moses and the history of Law in the west.

OK John
I agree with you on most things. But having one professor saying polygamy is female centered is an absolute crock. Let' see plural marriage is predominatly practiced in male dominated societies like Saudi Arabia and other predominatly Muslim countries. Where women can't vote, drive, or forced to wear black burkas in the desert heat. They have to walk behind their husbands. You know John where they practice honor killing of women routinely like on a daily basis. Perhaps you and the professor can point out how female dominated that is. Or let's take the recent events in TX. Now I tell you what those women looked real free, like they were the ones in charge, right John?

Most males can't even handle one wife. Two is 2 too many.

talent scout:
Good answer. For me 56 years. But I've heard rumors that the earth is older. My grandmother claimed to be 102 years old not long before she died. So, assuming my grandmother to be an honest woman, her statement belies our personal experience.

There may be more to explore here. What do you think?

at 1:14 Parker writes: "This has no
application whatsoever to whether it is permissable to have more than one wife. In fact, it implies the opposite, polygamy was/is acceptable EXCEPT for those desiring to be an elder."

Parker, that's exactly what I've been saying since my second post in this thread at 1:12 AM, including my two responses to you.

Why are you arguing with me?




at 1:42 OlGrumpy asked "why all the talk of religion and the Bible, when church and state are supposed to be kept separate?"

Because it's interesting to talk about, and that's what these threads are for...


OlGrumpy continues "... we are slowly but surely giving this country away to folks whose ideas could not possibly be further from those of the Founding Fathers."

I think we're already there. This country abandoned the constitutional limits on the power of the federal government long ago. 60 years ago Congressmen used to come up with lame excuses for why their bill matched an enumerated power. They don't even bother any more.



InsightingTruth, 6000+-200 years old.
Fire away!

OH GOODY
InsightingTruth writes:- 4:43 PM EST

What you are speaking of is legislation, not law. True law can be intuited.
====
ts:
Now we can get rid of the Court System.
Everyone just intuit the law.
Good bye Judges
Good by Lawyers
Good bye Congress.
Law of Moses is intuit by either reading it or vibrations.
You probably just use vibrations.
===


InsightingTruth writes:
Law predates language. I can't tell you how glad I am that someone gets that.

======
ts:
Thanks to you we all get it, now.

I am a very sensitive person, and feel your vibrations, Spock talk.
I now feel part of the age of Aquarius, thanks to you and the good vibrations you send out.



IT
TS is arguing religion, not logic. I don't argue religion.

The problem with intuitive law is that only the "legislated law" is enforced.

For me its
InsightingTruth - 4:37 PM EST
talent scout:
How old is the earth?
=====
A couple months shy of 65 years.
How about you?

Vic:
I love it when someone experiences a true epiphany.

What you are speaking of is legislation, not law. True law can be intuited. Law predates language. I can't tell you how glad I am that someone gets that.

Can you help me teach talent scout to understand this simple concept?

I don't see a Problem...

Bin Laden turned out pretty good with all those extra mothers to nurture him.

talent scout:
How old is the earth?

The sorry state of males
I'm a libertarian and a believer in the God of the Bible. The two go hand in hand.

If you look at the creepy males floating around college campuses and high schools covered with pimples, greasy hair, goofy hats and generally looking under-dressed, then compare them to the women, who are nicely kept, in good shape, clean and presentable, one must wonder if the practice of plural marriage might not catch on.

talent scout
"Both speak for thousands of years, one man, one women. "

Obviously there have been one man and one woman marriages for thousands of years, but polygamy is just as old and actually coincided with events in the Bible. All I am doing is indicating that there is no clear mandate. I can respect the person who says that he believes that it is wrong anyway because he doesn't feel right about it. Thats fine. However, to assert that the Bible plainly condemns polygamy is unjustified.

InsightfulTruth
Law, as a concept of principles and rules necessary for an orderly society.

Yes, I was speaking of only the laws against polygamy. I used to believe that law was necessary for an orderly society but then I grew up. Law, as written now is nothing more than the whim of whoever has the best gerrymandered districts and the slickest message to the suckers.

clark kent
Do you know if the LDS church holds any position on the legalization of polygamy, as opposed to the obvious practice and promotion of it which is obviously forbidden?

Does being for the legalization of polygamy qualify ss promoting or teaching the practice? Frankly, I don't know. I haven't heard anything one way or another.

SunThe1 - dower interest
Many states have a "dower interest" law. These laws ensure a man's wife get some minimum share of his estate.

So a man does not have complete freedom in the disposition of his estate regardless of what a will states.

However, I would not be surprised if a woman has no restrictions on her estate decisions. Many of the laws and practices in our society are very sexist and non-reciprocal between the sexes.

lol
Alex 1 writes- 3:13 PM EST
Subject: Kepha
"Does the Bible really condone it? "

The Bible is conspicuously silent on the matter actually.
=====
ts:
Never heard the anyone else ever say the Book of Genesis is silent, or the New Testament.

Both speak for thousands of years, one man, one women.

(2, 1 man, 1 woman)
Ephesians 5:31 -
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh

Required for any man of God of the Ministry
1 Timothy 3:2 -
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..


1 Timothy 3:12 -
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ...

1 Timothy 5:9 -
Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,..


Titus 1:6 -
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

Still taught today, loud enough to hear if one opens his ears

Western Civilization Law is
InsightingTruth writes - 2:40 PM EST

Law is not based on religion
====
Moses the Law Giver
All the way from Moses to the HRE.
From the HRE to England
England to America

This man is the man who is responsible for our Judicial System of Law, before "positive law" came along.
Blackstone divided the law into four volumes and themes.
"Rights of Persons"
"Rights of Things"
"Private Wrongs" today known as torts
"Public Wrongs" crimes and punishment, including offenses against God and religion.
Human laws, Blackstone believed, were like scientific laws. They were creations of God waiting to be discovered just as Issac Newton had discovered the laws of gravity a century before. "Thus we say, the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations."

Why do we call it the west today?

What separated western thought from eastern?

Judeo- Christian Faith and Law.
Greek and Roman Statesmanship.
Philosophical thinking from the latter


From around 750BC.
Homer: The Iliad and The Odyssey
The idea of ordered cosmos - vital in Western ideas about science and God.

Invention of writing - for everyone not just the clergy.

Thales of Miletus - asked for the first time what the world was made of - water - SCIENCE

Athens - The People, Democracy, natural art,

Socrates: People as morally autonomous,

Plato - Asked most of the Philosophical Questions
-how do we know what we know.

Aristotle - Introduces observation into science.

Law is from religion, more proper, God.
In the west

newsflash for david
You wrote about "idiot draconian state laws that say an estate must go to one's heirs. The individual should be able to decide who gets what of his estate when he dies, not the government."

Newsflash: Individuals can decide exactly whre their estates go. It's called a WILL.
In the absence of one, the law kicks in.
Surely you knew that...

Aurora's post # 108
I am amazed that in this day of constant information overload anyone can still believe the LDS Church headquartered in Salt Lake City winks at its members practicing polygamy. Anyone caught in the relationship is excommunicated as fast as the paper work can be arranged. Every 2 years, faithful adults in the Church are asked if they have any sympathy for polygamous sects. They can lose their membership in the Church if they say 'Yes'. I do not expect to educate Aurora - her mind is made up and will not be confused with facts. Anyone else reading this thread needs to know that the Church presided over by Thomas S. Monson does not tolerate polygamy by its members and urges the civil authorities to take appropriate action against polygamists.

As can be gathered from this thread, the Latter-day Saints have experience with polygamy and our concern today is that as it is practiced it is:
1) illegal
2) leads to child abuse, sexual, physical and mental
3) leads to spousal rape
4) creates unstable families.

It is not the idyllic family setting its proponents and 'Big Love' claim it to be.

Too Many Wives?
It’s interesting that we get so concerned about the women and children that are involved in these incidents. Every time the word polygamy is used, we rush in to arrest the offending man, take the children away from the mothers and stable home environment and leave the mothers wondering if the foster homes the children are put in are taking care of them.

I would like to see the same child services rush in and take children away from the mother that has children from who knows how many men and challenge her to even name them; also, arrest the men that have fathered who knows how many children by the same number of women without providing the necessary child support.

I would argue the only difference between the first and second paragraph is that we haven’t had the courage to use the word polygamy in the latter.

Hi talent scout:
When I saw your buddy Vic on this thread I knew you would not be far away. How's life treatin' ya today?

This man has gone to seed
Gestell

Just as will sees sodomy in every article, this man uses every article to spew his hate dressed up as "intelligent" thoughts and are stupid, sees a chance to attack conservatives.

What a moron

Kepha
"Does the Bible really condone it? "

The Bible is conspicuously silent on the matter actually.

Does the Bible really condone it?
In Scripture, polygamy is invariably associated with great wealth. The model given at creation has only one man and one woman. Polygamous patriarchs and kings come later.

But are the polygamous households of the patriarchs, judges, and kings truly desirable? Perhaps teaching by example is one reason why Genesis shows us the mutual jealousies of Sarah and Hagar; Leah and Rachel. Who else comes from a happy polygamous household? Jephtha is despised by his half-brothers as the son of a harlot in Judges. The books of Samuel and Kings show the scheming of the sons of different wives of David against each other. The book of Kings also says that a multitude of foreign wives (early Iron Age diplomacy) turned Solomon away from God in his old age.

In Deuteronomy 17, where Moses gives instructions for kings, the king is warned not to multiply wives for himself, and to be guided by Torah. The books of Samuel and Kings go on to show the failures of the kings--including David, who is otherwise a hero. Many of their failures have to do with their polygamous households.


Conservatives for polygamy
One of the things the Texas commune incident brought out, both on TH and elsewhere in Right-wing land, is that there are apparently lots of conservatives who have no problem with polygamy. I'm amazed at all the cultural relativism oozing from conservatives on this one--you'd think they'd all taken sociology courses from Known Liberals. My goodness, there's reference to other religions and cultures where polygamy is practiced, and you guys are cool with that. Then the Christians get into the act and invoke the Bible--I mean, how can we say anything bad about all those Men God Inspired who had lots of wives?

How come most of the Western Christian tradition condemn polygamy? Remember where about 2/3 of you conservatives come from--so what's up with criticizing your own traditions? Conservatives? I think not. Although I will say that Christian conservatives are just more comfortable with polygamy as long as it has some sort of biblical religious basis, so I guess that makes it okay.

Conservatives who say good things about polygamy plainly don't think polygamy is inherently exploitative of women, but then that's hardly a surprise, is it?

Who is the TROLL Sugary Sweet?
Why are you f'n up this thread?

Vic:
Perhaps I misunderstood you. You were speaking of this one law in particular. I was talking about law in general. Law, as a concept of principles and rules necessary for an orderly society.

InsightingTruth
Sorry, but this one is. It was based on English common law which came from long standing Catholic prohibitions. Those prohibitions were based on Roman law at the time the early Catholic Church was being formed. This is why religions of European descent prohibit polygamy while others do not.

ALL
Forgive me, I just violated cardinal rule number 1. I responded to a troll over a comment that had NOTHING to do with the column.

Sugary Sweet
That bailout was the product of the Lamocrat congress. Should Bush veto it? I would have, but you probably would not have.

Sorry Vic:
Law is not based on religion any more than a V8 is based on a steam engine. Similarities in purpose or components do not denote lineage.

Other than that, not a bad post!

Lestat
"Prohibiting murder fits that definition."

Murder deprives one of their life. How does polygamy deprive anyone of anything as long as it is between consenting adults? I will say though that the Chinese character for peace is one woman under a roof--if you have more than one, you are bound to have trouble.

Alex 1
Yes, and that is the first step for overturning a law.

Vic
I think you understand the issues involved in this topic. Polygamy has become a crime in name only.

The law, the arguments and the courts
All of these antidotal stories involving the fringe elements of the LDS and other hateful happenings involving child abuse, kidnapping, and mind control are not limited to polygamous sects. They all also happen under monogamous marriages and couples simply living together. Whether or not polygamy is practiced by couples is not the determinant as to whether the children will be supported, the wife or wives will be treated fairly and with respect, or whether the marriage will be a long and happy one.

The only arguments that I have seen so far in this discussion are based on the current law, as written, and on religion, which formed the current law, which brings me to my next point; SCOTUS.

The court case that upheld polygamy laws (Reynolds v. United States, 1887) the SCOTUS at the time quoted foreign law. They held that religion may not be used as a basis for overturning law. The problem was that the defendant argued that they were being denied their ability to practice their religion. They could just have easily argued that the law itself was based in religion and was therefore null. It could be that since this was before “incorporation” that they were not able to argue on that basis.

It would be interesting to see how the court would respond to the same type of case now. I suspect that it would overturn the polygamy laws which is why states have been reluctant to charge anyone under those laws.

Biblical Non-mention of Slavery?

Subject: chris
Also note that there is no explicit statement in the Bible that slavery is immoral. Yet no Christian today, other than some leftover racists, believes that it is anything but immoral. Just as our Constitution contained everything that was necessary to abolish slavery without actually doing it at the time of ratification, so the Bible has everything that was necessary to judge it to be immoral.
----------------------------------------------

The Bible did not forbid slavery because slavery is a legal status. It did forbid oppressing the helpless.
If all that is required is to not enslave then one can treat people exactly the same way and just not call them slaves. And probably everyone can think of examples of such.
The assumption that slavery is immoral is simply an extention of the assumption that oppressing the helpless is immoral. And saying the Bible doesn't forbid it is like saying the Bible didn't forbid hireing hit men only murder and technically the employer of a hit man isn't killing anyone with his own hands.

aurorawatcher
Iwould say that "arranged" marriages and polygamy as practiced by the fringe element of the LDS may go hand in hand, but not for polygamy in general.

Not all polygamous people are frindge elements of LDS.

Let's not require..
immoral people to follow moral laws. It makes them feel as if they are "okay" because they are a "good" person. Really, I know so many people whom after they have died folks say they know they are in heaven because they were a "good" person. That isn't how you get to heaven.
Trying to force people to make the right moral decision by rule of the government puts us on a slippery slope because most of our "leaders" are immoral. That is how we got same sex marriage - immoral behavior trying to be couched as moral behavior so people can feel "good".
Let's leave the government out of our lives as much as we can. Also, banning polygamy doesn't protect women and children. Lets stop pretending that this law being on the books is somehow protecting would be victims. That is about as stupid as "gun free" zones.

Let's not require..
immoral people to follow moral laws. It makes them feel as if they are "okay" because they are a "good" person. Really, I know so many people whom after they have died folks say they know they are in heaven because they were a "good" person. That isn't how you get to heaven.
Trying to force people to make the right moral decision by rule of the government puts us on a slippery slope because most of our "leaders" are immoral. That is how we got same sex marriage - immoral behavior trying to be couched as moral behavior so people can feel "good".
Let's leave the government out of our lives as much as we can. Also, banning polygamy doesn't protect women and children. Lets stop pretending that this law being on the books is somehow protecting would be victims. That is about as stupid as "gun free" zones.

Less Bellicose?
Subject: Marriage begets maturity for males
Structurally, polygamous societies leave the majority of men with little impetus or opportunity to mature the way marriage provides.

The fact is that monogamous societies are more productive and less bellicose.The motivation to keep a household is powerful. Married men focus on work and family instead of fighting, whoring, and stealing.

Of course, that is the main problem with societies where marriage is postponed or rejected, such as many Western societies in the 21st century.

--------------------------------
The virtue of being a less bellicose society is mixed and among the societies I admire most are
English, Scots, Nepali, Sikhs, Kentuckians, and Israelis.
But presumably you mean, "less predatory", or "less quarrelsome" rather then simply,"less martialy inclined". Though of course English might qualify as predatory as well as martially inclined.
In any case, none of these societies have a deep tradition of polygamy. Several are quite blatantly monogamous. And all are quite warlike.
Kuwait, by contrast is not particularly warlike. And of course it is polygamous.

aurorawatcher
Your friends problem with losing a house has less to do with sexual morality than is does with idiot draconian state laws that say an estate must go to one's heirs. The individual should be able to decide who gets what of his estate when he dies, not the government.

Church and State
One, why all the talk of religion and the Bible, when church and state are supposed to be kept separate?

Second, although I personally agree with whomever said one wife or spouse is too many, why is it any more immoral to have, and presumably have some obligation to support, more than one wife than it is to have one wife and several mistresses or concubines and to have children with all of them and support none of them? When are we going to make it illegal, and not just frowned upon, to have children outside a marriage? When are we going to stop supporting the multiple offspring of mothers who can't even keep the names of the fathers straight, let alone make it illegal?

I remember hearing that one of the concerns about the Mormons' practice of polygamy was that they would outstrip the rest of the population and take over the country. It had nothing to do with religion; it was practical. Hello! Wake up and smell the coffee. Luckily, I am old enough I probably will not have to live to see it, but we are slowly but surely giving this country away to folks whose ideas could not possibly be further from those of the Founding Fathers.

This debate about polygamy is almost pointless, unless folks wake up to the reality of what is happening with or without a relatively small number of polygamous marriages.

leroy:
I see no disagreement. Fact: not all children get proper guidance from their parents. What's to disagree with? But also, so what? It is not properly a component of the topic at hand.

I do not suggest throwing out laws. I suggest rescinding legislation that improperly poses as law. Legislation does not equal law.

Bad legislation should not be revered even if you agree with the purported legislative intention. For example, I personally dislike smoking, and smokers (with extremely rare exceptions), but I do not support any law that restricts smokers from enjoying their disgusting addiction, so long as I am free to quit their society.

Sexual immorality is NEVER okay?
Someone asked further up why it is okay for a guy to have multiple children with multiple women he's not married to but polygamy is illegal.

Biblically speaking, sexual immorality of all stripes is not okay. I think I don't need to recount the consequences to society from the above scenario. We paid through the nose with the war on poverty because of that form of sexual immorality. Should it be against the law? It used to be. Cohabitation was against the law in my state in 1974 when my brother started living with his girlfriend, because he was renting from our mom and she found the clause in the landlord-rental laws. They both thought it was funny because "everybody's doing it." It was no longer against the law a few years later when my mom tried to use it to get an unsavory couple out of her rental unit.

You see, at some point, people decided that "everybody was doing it" so why should it be against the law. Of course, a friend of mine just moved out of the house she built with her boyfriend. He died. Turns out, because he was a veteran and it was a VA loan, and becuase they weren't married, she wasn't on any paperwork. His will left the house to her, but a judge ruled that according to the laws of the state they live in, his kids from a former marriage are owed the house and the live-in girlfriend is owed nothing. Her portion of the mortgage payment over the years was considered to be rent. Had she had a marriage license, it would all have been hers. So, maybe those laws were there to protect people from the foolishness of their sexual immorality, but at the moment, only some of us could see that, so we did away with laws that might have made my friend think twice about living with this guy and buying a house without benefit of marriage. Maybe we're at the same position in the discussion of polygamy, but only a few of us can see what the real harm is a long way down the road.

aurorawatcher
"According to him, polygamy is practiced more or less openly with quiet consent from the LDS hierarchy. "

If you are referring to widowed members of the church marrying again for eternity, I can agree with you, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about having multiple living spouses.

Would you mind getting specific about your allegations of approved polygamy within the LDS church? The fact is that polygamy is grounds for excommunication and has been for a long time. Would you mind giving me the names of two people in the LDS church in good standing that are polygamists?

Chris...
This has no application whatsoever to whether it is permissable to have more than one wife. In fact, it implies the opposite, polygamy was/is acceptable EXCEPT for those desiring to be an elder.

JamesB writes
"Wendy says
"..Polygamy is sick and unnatural."
Thats what most said about homosexuality a few years ago. " They said that about interracial couples 50 years ago.

Wendy says
"..Polygamy is sick and unnatural."
Thats what most said about homosexuality a few years ago.

The Libertine Party
John you really went off the deep end on this one. Now that California has Gay marriage you're promoting multiple marriage.
Next it will be children having sex with their parents. Why not? After all they love each other don't they?
A good journalist would know that Hugh Hefner has a wife and teenage sons living next door to him although you never see that on his show promoting his ongoing multiple shack ups.
Some day, John my dear, your Libertine lifestyle will come back to haunt you if you've taught it to your children. This is what is happening to all my friends. When your daughter tells you she wants to be the 10th wife of Mr. Polygamist I hope you are wildly enthusiastic. Or perhaps she will become Mrs. Polyandrist and have several husbands of her own.
Decadence just promotes more decadence. Where will it end? Hell I suspect.

Alex 1
This is according to someone, my friend Bill, who was an LDS member, not -- according to him -- a member of some other side sect. According to him, polygamy is practiced more or less openly with quiet consent from the LDS hierarchy. They SAY you'll be excommunicated, but he never knew of a single case of that actually happening. Bill is not the only person I've heard this from. The LDS likes to say it's just disgruntled ex-Mormons, but when you hear it from multiple sources ... well, it would seem where there's smoke, there's probably fire.

Vic - arranged marriages and polygamy go hand-in-hand, generally speaking. Again, Bill is my primary source because he lived it. Very few women would choose to be in a polygamous relationship. The most favored wives get all the goodies and the others just get pregnant. The husbands rarely have incomes that will support that many children, so the lesser-favored wives' children get a whole lot less of just about everything. Because the men take so many wives, it is impossible for other men to marry, so situations like Bill's are not uncommon. Bill's cousin married with her parents' complete consent, but a richer more powerful man decided he wanted her and had Bill's cousin shot (he lived) in order to take his wife. The judge in Utah ruled it an accidental shooting, even though everyone in town knew what had happened. Polygamy causes an imbalance of nature and that leads to societal destruction.

Becky
You go girl. I agree 100 percent. The majority of these comments shine the light on the hypocrisy of of these so-called conservatives. They preach small government unless you decide your not in lockstep with them.

Folks, live and let live. Remember? If two adults consent to their arrangement and it has no direct impact on your life, then mind your own business and be happy you can live the way you want to.

Government intrustion is the problem
Since most of the argument about polygamy revolves around the Bible and other religious documents, the problem is not whether or not it should be illegal to be a polygamist but rather should government be in the marriage business at all. The federal and state governments should not be involved in supporting religious dogma. Folks who wish to get married should go to their respective religious institution and go through those procedures and be done with it. Government shouldn’t care and more importantly shouldn’t be involved.

As for the illegitimate children argument, let’s just deem that each woman may have a set number of children. The do this in China and it works quite well.

Chris
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, but it should be understood that the brother's own legimate children received the inheritance that was his to give, while this other child (the heir for the deceased brother) received the inheritance of the deceased brother. The Book of Ruth shows that the kinsman-redeemer only exercised this rule when he could financially manage it. Women were not able to work in money-making professions back then. Nowadays, they are. Polygamy for protection of widows made sense back then. Polygamy as practiced by Mormon sects in the US does not. It is essentially a slave system in which women have no rights. And, yes, it leads to women who flee these horrible conditions with their children and then are forced, usually because they've never been allowed to gain any employment skills, to ask for government aid to support those children. Assuming the husband is even listed on a government document somewhere, he usually has so many wives and so many children that he can't afford to pay child support. This is another reason for keeping polygamy illegal.

Insighting Truth
Must disagree with you to an extent.

There are instances where children are not afforded guidance and we are being told that children should be taught tolerance instead of any sense of values.

It is precisely the legislators and burecrats who are providing moral guidance to the young today by ensuring that they be exposed to alternate lifestyles as equal. As an example, this openly polygamist community. No one is being prosicuted for polygamy, rather they are trying to find evidence of sexual assault of a minor the implication here is that should that evidence not be found nothing else will be done.

Politicians are, for the most part, no beacons of morality, on that you get no arguement from me. However that in and of itself is no justification for throwing out laws or making new laws to suit the whim of any group seeking to feel better about themselves.

aurorawatcher
Your story make a compelling argument against ARRANGED MARRIAGES but not polygamy.

In my way of thinking an arranged marriage should be considered primafacea evidence of chatel slavery.

Parker,
We're in agreement about the lack of Biblical prohibition of polygamy (see my posts starting at 1:12).

The only thing I disputed at 9:50 about your original post was that overseers could be polygamous.

So - what's there to re-read?

I think its important to remember
That the bible was written and put together by men, years after the fact. Trying to break up and interperet every single line in the bible is just downright silly.

The bible is a spiritual document, not a word for word literal translation of how you should live your life. If you do that, you're just missing the point.

The numbers do not support the claims.
A famous polygamist named Young had 27 wives and 56 children. It amounts to a ratio of 2 children per parent. That ratio is neither uncommon nor unsupportable.

Like others have said, the failure of parents, married, single, or otherwise associated, to support their children is not an issues of polygamy, it is a responsibility issue. It only becomes a welfare issue when those who abuse state power make it one.

In My Opinion
As a child of a nonmarital relationship (dad married at the time, mother not) I would have rather been born into a polygamous marriage. I would rather be able to say "hey, there is my dad" than be the secret no one reallly talks about.
Most people talk about polygamy from a religious standpoint (Mormon none the less). I am a Christian and don't really like the concept of polygamy for me or my husband and kids. However, to say that adultry and absent fathers is better than a father being in the home makes no sense to me.
My mother wasn't forced into her affair. Also, as a now older woman looking at more days behind her than in front of her - I think she would rather have a husband than not.
So, I guess my point is to say that while I don't condone polygamy, I don't think it should be illegal. I also think a child being able to boldly say who their father is and have a relationship with the father is a lot better than the secret so many kids are keeping and are being kept away from them. In my innercity, many kids had no father in the home and had no clue who their "real" dad was. I don't think that is a better situation then a person having more than one spouse. I don't think that shows a progressive society.
I also don't think many women would prefer being the "other woman" rather than being wife number 2, 3, or 5. At least they could have "some" dignity. I know a lot of women settling for being that "one night stand" every other Tuesday for years. I would have more respect for them as polygamist than their chronic state of having no other connection to the man than the local Motel 6.

aurorawatcher
Would you mind enlightening us on the tacit approval that you say the LDS church gives renegade polygamist groups? In case you didn't know, in the LDS Church that you can be excommunicated for practicing or teaching it.

Chris...
Methinks you had better re-read my original post. I wrote that the passages regarding being the husband of one wife apply to, "those who desire the office of elder." Elder, overseer, bishop, deacon, pastor, priest whatever you want to call them. This is a rule regarding overseers.

As for those not desiring the office, there is no such stipulation. Therefore, there is no biblical prohibition. Paul also gives other matters regarding the church leaders wherein he says, "...it is better not to marry." However, to avoid sexual immorality, (lust, adultery, self-gratification, etc) there should be marriage. Then the rule of one wife would be applicable. But to argue the bible forbids polygamy is simply not true.

Perhaps the legal eagles of society can forbid it. After all, they are "just like God, knowing good and evil." I am not so sure, since there is a separation of the church and the state; isn't there?
After all, how many times a week do we hear, "there can be no legislation of morality?"

If a church, as loosely defined as it is today, allows for polygamy and refuses to accept the notion of marriage licenses and all the trappings of the state sanctioning, by what authority does the state intervene? Do they just exercise force? Do they just arrest people? Is this just? Is this a violation of the free exercise clause? What is the definition of marriage? Is it only a lawful marriage if there is a public celebration? Was the English King right in declaring "prima-nocta" against Scottish peasants? Since marriages were secret as a result, are those marriages invalid without licenses and public ceremonies? Did they have licenses? If not, why? Is it a cultural issue? Or is the church free to sanction marriage according to its particular doctrine and dogma?


Summers
"You are trying to excuse one by justifying the other. "

You didn't read my first paragraph. I am doing no such thing. I am just going a step further than you are by asserting that the government is already subsidizing serial polygamy (different name, same principle).

"In drive-by fathers, their names are usually known and the mothers and/or the state can go after them for child support, and, often, do.

In the polygamy situations, the names of the fathers are known and usually withheld in the application for benefits. "

Good. Lets change the law to require the name of the father (for child support purposes) in order to get benefits. (There again, this is a government welfare issue, not a polygamy issue.) What do you think?

"Is it your argument that polygamy, in terms of who gets stuck with the bill supporting the children, is acceptable? Do you consider it a right to produce as many off-spring as you want regardless of whether you can support them? "

I believe that if you cannot or will not support them, you should not have them, whether that is by 3 wives or none (unmarried). The freedom on who should decide whether you can or not should go to whoever is paying the bills.

If you are on the government dole, you don't have a right to have unlimited children and get benefits in my view. However, if a person can support themselves, spouses, and children of those unions, I don't think the government has any business limiting the number of children they have. As long as they are self reliant, the government should mind its own business.

My friend Bill
Grew up in a polygamous Mormon sect in Southern Utah. According to him, they were members of the mainstream LDS group. He and his high school sweetheart married at 18 against the wishes of her parents; her father had arranged a marriage with a prominent older man who had at least two wives at the time. By moving to another town, Bill and his wife were able to have two children and live fairly peaceful lives. Neither of them wanted more than one spouse. She had no desire to share him. Then he came home one day to find her and children missing. Someone in that other Mormon town had connections with the town they were from and the spurned old man had come and gotten his prize. Bill tried to follow her, but was arrested and told that if he continued to pursue the matter he would find himself on a rape conviction (he knew the girl, but says he had never had sex with her). Several years later, after Bill moved to Alaska, became a Christian, remarried and had another family, his children by his first wife ran away from their step father and reunited with Bill. The daughter had been slated to marry an older man who also had several wives. Bill's first wife woke the kids in the middle of the night, gave them clothes, food and money and told them to find Bill and NEVER LOOK BACK!

Yeah, I don't believe women want polygamy. I think they're so abused and afraid that they say whatever they're told to say. It is an evil system and, according to Bill, it is not some offshoot sect of Mormonism, but the mainstream organization that gives tacit permission for it to continue.

leroy:
I feel your pain. The answer to your question is obvious, it is the responsibility of the parents of children to provide parameters of behavior. Sometimes grandparents, other relatives, or even close friends can influence children when parents fail.

It is never the responsibility of legislators of bureaucrats to provide moral guidance to children, or adults. Politicians are to morality what alcoholics are to temperance.

to Younger, Deut 25:5-6 says
"When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel."

So the living brother (even if he was already married) was commanded to take his dead brother's widow "to himself as wife". Their firstborn gets the brothers name and inheritance - the implication being that there may be more sons from the marriage that would legally be the living brother's heir.


This is an interesting, but moot point - I agree with those that think the government has no business telling consenting adults how to live. It also has no business taking my money to support anyone else's children...

Collin
I don't necessarily disagree with Mr. Stossel, but he does seem to be rather preachy. I just want to ignore him; but I read it because I have enjoyed many of his past articles. This one is just too much for me though.

bporter, I believe 1Tim3 teaches that a
man disqualifies himself from being a pastor, elder or deacon if he has divorced (failed to rule his house well) - and especially if he has divorced for reasons other than his wife's unfaithfulness and then remarried (not the husband of one wife).

I was specifically thinking of Charles Stanley, whose church I attended in the early 1990s. Now, "leaving a string" is hyperbole in his case - he has only been married once - but I thought it was unbiblical for him to continue in his ministry after his wife left him. When he announced his marriage trouble from the pulpit in the summer of 1994, he should have stepped down and focused on saving his marriage.

In the past I've attended other small churches that allowed divorced and remarried men to become deacons.

Nationally known people who continue in the ministry after divorcing and remarrying include Randy & Paula White (who had both been married to others and are now divorcing each other), Jim Bakker, John Hagee (2nd marriage from 1975 not doing so well), Robert Schuller (2nd marriage in mid 1980s).

By the way, I'm pleased to be in a Protestant church (PCA) that enforces the 1Tim 3 rules. The words "most" and "many" in the post to which you took offense indicate I knew I was generalizing, and that I'm fully aware there are some of Protestant churches that get this right.

The issue...
...is the futility of making unlawful that which cannot be controlled. Stossel's argument is in favor of common sense, not polygamy.

The lessons of human history teach us that use the threat of force to control the personal, private behavior of others has unintended consequences that work to the detriment of peace and prosperity.

It is the nearly universal desire of one human to control the thoughts and actions of another that is the root of all conflict. The best advice Stossel can offer to all you petit authoritarians is get over yourself, and get on with your life.

So...
...where do we go from here?

Do we argue that the "law" has no business telling two 12 or 13 year olds they are too young to marry? We can say that the "law" is in no position to judge whether these children can make this decision.

A 24 year old teacher is arrested for having a consintual relationship with her 17 year old student, why is the "law" involved in this? Why should we judge their feelings?

We could go a step further and ask why not let an 11 year old girl decide she wants to marry a 50 year old man? Why should we allow the "law" to decide she is to young to have good judgement?

This constant shifting of the lines of decency is getting more than a bit tiresome. We seem to be flirting with the notion our society should be based on no rules or guiding morals and anarchy is something no civilization has survived.

Alex1
You are trying to excuse one by justifying the other.

In drive-by fathers, their names are usually known and the mothers and/or the state can go after them for child support, and, often, do.

In the polygamy situations, the names of the fathers are known and usually withheld in the application for benefits.

Is it your argument that polygamy, in terms of who gets stuck with the bill supporting the children, is acceptable? Do you consider it a right to produce as many off-spring as you want regardless of whether you can support them?

Summers
You missed my point entirely. Previous entries stated that polygamy should not be allowed because deadbeat polygamists would father multiple children who would then wind up on the welfare roles being supported by the State. My point was that that was a BOGUS argument. I made no attempt to justify one bad behavior by stating that some did a bad behavior. What I said was that that was going on already and it was legal. The problem is NOT with a polygamist fathering multiple children, which happens in normal marriages as well. The problem is with welfare and socialism in general.

Your argument also holds no water because it stands to reason that the State would be more likely to be able to get money out of the wayward father if he had been married to the mother than if he were truly a one night stand father.

Raising up a son to a dead brother
Chris, you have mentioned the command to raise a son up to a brother who died without issue. This is not a command to the living brother to marry the widow and thus become a polygamist; it is a command to provide a son and keep the brother's name and line alive.

On the whole, I appreciate your points.

Welfare fraud
I don't condone or approve of welfare fraud of any kind. I don't like my tax dollar supporting those that don't work for it. If I want to support anybody, I should do it with my own money, not the money of the American taxpayer.

That said, how is the fraud perpetrated by some polygamists any different than the fraud perpetrated by deadbeat dads who leave their families or marry serially and have children through more than one woman? We have more statistics and sad tales about that type of abuse of the system than you can shake a stick at. The fact is that polygamy is already legal, as long as you ditch your first wife and children.

If polygamists don't register their plural marriages with the state (and they don't) and all of the children through those unions are legally considered children of unwed mothers, then how can we call it welfare fraud for them to collect welfare? If it is not fraud for an unwed mother who does not consider herself married to collect welfare, then why is it considered fraud when an unwed mother who does consider herself married to obtain benefits?

About a 40 regular straightjacket, John?
I’m afraid Stossel’s really gone mental this time. Eh, what the hell, let’s just throw out about 10,000 years of experimentation in human civilization. So what if we’ve discovered, by painful trial and error and error and error, that the ideal environment in which to transmit the culture to children is the nuclear (or nucular, if you’re President Bush) family. That’s the union of one man and one woman, friends. It’s taken on all comers and beaten them soundly. It’s the law because, unlike all the other combinations and permutations of family structures, it works.

Stossel used to make sense most of the time, but now it looks as if he’s a little too full of himself – full of something, anyway.

The obvious Missing Common Denominator
The obvious Missing common denominator with all these wives and many children is Welfare gone wild in Stossel's story .
These men work the system like Tiger Woods works a Golf course over looking nothing .
Utah said that 72 % of those ""Families "" receive some forms or welfare or all are on welfare .
THAT IS THE BIGGER STORY HERE ........ FELONY FRAUD !

bporter
I was responding to chattymickey. Get a grip. This seems to be a sensitive area to you.

And, YES, it has everything to do with polygamy as the boys are thrown out to have fewer males for the available females so there will be enough females for plural living.

Facts are stubborn things. The Lost Boys problem is a fact.

chattymickey and summers
You are doing exactly what Stossel was talking about. You argument about these so-called "Lost Boys" has nothing to do with polygamy. It is a completely different matter that is an issue with numerous sects in this country.

I'm not condoning it, just as Stossel was not condoning Warren Jeff's incest or statutory rape. I'm just saying it is a different issue.

Ok, Chris
"Protestant, many of which are just fine with preachers and deacons with a string of broken homes behind them."

Give me, by name, 3 preachers or deacons that have left a "string of broken homes behind them." The fact is Christians are humans and are fallible. However, your claim that Protestant churches are rife with leaders who disrespect marriage is without merit.

chattymickey
These boys are known as the Lost Boys. They are totally cut off from their families by the 'old bulls'. Often they turn to drugs and alcohol. In interviews they often say that being cut off from their families is the most difficult thing to deal with. Plus, when they are thrown out, they have no money to live on. They are youngsters on their own. There was a special TV show on their plight not long ago on CNN. There are not enough people aware of their plight to help them; and, many of those aware do nothing.

bporter
specify your gripe much?

Arguements for banning polygamy...
Arguments for banning polygamy generally involve throwing a bunch of adjectives in front of it and associating it with things that are immoral on their own (i.e. arranged marriages are wrong whether its polygamous or not).

In a free society, there is a difference between what a person should do and what a person should be forced to do. Likewise, there is a difference between what a person shouldn't do, and what a person should be forced by law to not do. Polygamy should only be illegal to the extent that it violates the freedom of the individual. If a group of people want to get together and call themselves married, it is not a matter of whether government "allows" it. It is not the job of the government to tell people what they can and cannot call themselves. The only way the government should be able to interfere there is if someone is forced to participate against their will.

chris
Generalize much?

Vic - 9:08AM Post
Your post misses the mark widely. Excusing illegal behavior based on some argument that others commit illegal behavior is unacceptable in a court of law. For example, if you get stopped from running a stop sign, you do not have a legal defense that the guy before you ran the stop sign. Ignorance of the law is no defense, nor is ignoring the law.

As to your argument about illegitimate children being fathered by a rolling stone male, it is not comparable to a man who takes multiple women with the idea that one purpose would be child bearing. In the former, the guy is just passing through the neighborhood. In the second, the guy is building his own stable of mistresses. In both situations, the man is legally responsible for his off-spring. Women who have a child by a man have the legal right to pursue the man for child support. In all states that come to mind, the District Attorney will pursue the father for child support with no cost for legal fees to the mother.

While many of these women do not pursue the father of their child, all states that I can think of do try to track them down.

It is not unusual for polygamist 'wives' to apply for welfare services for support, medical treatment, and food for their children as the father of the children has more 'wives' and children than he can support. It is often almost impossible to get the information from these women as to who the father of her children is as that would alert law enforcement and child welfare to the conditions in which they live.

it seems like marriage is the hangup
why is it ok for a man to live with multiple women to whom he is not married and it is not ok for that man to be married to them?

why is it ok for a man to have multiple sex partners, fathering children with all of them, and it is not ok for a man to have multiple wives, fathering children with all of them?

if any of the things i have suggested as being ok are in fact not ok, why haven't there been laws proposed to outlaw this behavior?

Two or more are too many.
We didn't get the vote until 1920, we've been considered chattel property throughout history not possessing many of the rights afforded to men like inheritance. Heck! The Catholics and Protestants burned us at the stake because they were threatened by the notion of a woman owning property outright.

Now because some women want to choose this type of arrangement, no doubt because a real marriage is difficult to maintain, would force them to be full partners with a man taking equal responsibility, we should allow it? I don't think so John.

I don't want to go back to the past and I won't support anything that contradicts the acceptance of women as whole and equal beings with all of the rights and obligations of all members of society.

I worry about the boys
The young boys are sent out of the community because they can not marry. In polygamist sects only certain men are allowed to marry. These you boys have been raised in these cults and then are thrown out on their own. This is not a disputed fact this is reality.

More on deacons / elders / overseers:
I think it's ironic that the apostle Paul said that the church leadership should be men with with one wife who have done a good job raising a family. But in this country most churches are either:

- Catholic, where the leadership is not allowed to marry

or

- Protestant, many of which are just fine with preachers and deacons with a string of broken homes behind them.

oh well...

Some Questions
OK, yeah sure, one wife. Yes, yes, yes. We all agree. The Bible says so. Yeah, sure.

The real sin of the polygamists we've seen to date is that they're white and heterosexual. Forget, for the moment, the criminal polygamists that abuse minors. What about the "normal" polygamists that exist in America with a husband gainfully empolyed with no criminal record and receiving no welfare or government subsidies. What about them?

America is legalizing gay marriage, slowly but surely. It's an individual right, now. The country is bending over for gays. We're tripping over ourselves to acommodate them. They're the center of all our TV shows and other forms of entertainment. We've passed laws that punish us if ever we offend those perverted petrie dishes of STDs. They get extra special rights and can sue us in Federal courts whenever they have hissy fits for some perceived slight.

And look how we're submitting to Islam. Bet no one's going to have anything to say when muslims decide they can have mulitple wives according to whatever interpretation of the Koran they have. No sirrreee. No problem there.

So what about these evil white people, with no criminal records, gainfully employed, and otherwise law abidding? When we officially make gay marriage the law of the land and when we allow the merging of Islamic mosques with the State, how are we going to forbid these white heterosexuals their right to plural marriage? How will we explain this contradiction?

Wendy
'Spiritual marriages' (marriages without a state issued marriage license) are not marriages recognized by law. Therefore, the subsequent 'wife' is free to, or can be compelled to, testify against her 'husband' as no marriage exists. She is just one of multiple mistresses kept by a man. The only legal rights the woman would have against a 'spiritual' husband would be to seek child support. Again, these women are nothing more than a mistress.

In Hollywood, you have seen palimony cases where a woman has lived for years with some man and seeks support. That is separate and apart from polygamous situations and is not a comparison. In those cases, it was one man and one woman living together for a period of time.

There have been many cases of serial bigamists. In those cases, the man has married a woman, complete with the issuance of a marriage license, although he is not legally divorced from his first wife. The subsequent putative wives may testify against, and may be compelled to testify against, the 'husband', as he is not recognized as a husband by law. Some of these men are seeking to take money from the woman they are 'marrying'. Others actually establish separate families who are unaware of each other until something happens that brings the illegality to light. These women, who did not knowingly enter into an illegal marriage, have rights against the man who committed the crime.

FROG
"Your version is what I would have said if I actually had a brain. Really, I do have coherent thougths, just not a great way of relating them.

BTW, we obviously have very different views of our purpose in life, but for the most part I agree with your views on limited government."

Yes, I think we do.

And isn't that wonderful? In this great country of ours, you can have one view of your purpose in life and share it with others, and I can have another.

Just so long as we don't--either of us--try to impose our view on others.

Parker, 1Tim 3:2 says
"A overseer then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant..."

That's pretty clear. If Paul had just wanted overseers to be married to however many women, the phrase would not have had the word "one" in it. Claiming that a man with two wives is married to one woman is like saying it depends on the meaning of "is".

You're absolutely right about people who have divorced for reasons other than adultery, and then remarried - They are adulterers in God's eyes.

Parker asks: "You bible quoters who claim Adam's son's married sisters where do you find that?"

If you accept the Biblical account of creation:
- Adam and Eve were the only people on earth.
- Obviously their children had to marry each other to procreate.
- That was OK because their genes were pristine.
- Genes had deteriorated 2000 years later when Moses wrote the law.
- God gives different rules to different people. Who God is does not change.


Parker: "This is the first Adam; Jesus is called the second Adam (Heb.) why?"

All people (being descended from Adam) inherit Adam's sin. All people can also inherit Jesus' righteousness in the same way. What does that have to do with polygamy and incest?

MellorSJ2, thanks for the correction
Your version is what I would have said if I actually had a brain. Really, I do have coherent thougths, just not a great way of relating them.

BTW, we obviously have very different views of our purpose in life, but for the most part I agree with your views on limited government.

How many wives are too many?
ONE, UNO, 1, and I have mine.

Polygamy is evil
I urge you to read Under the Banner of Heaven by John Krakauer. Find out what polygamy does to children and women. Mormons will regain the right to legal polygamy and it will be a further descent down the slippery slope. It certainly does not make sense to allow homosexual marriage and then slam these pathetic people. This nation needs a new awakening to repentance from the depths of sin to which it has fallen.

legality of marriate
Re: the question of "how" polygamists can legally "marry" multiple wives.

Although I cannot cite any specific information, I have read that one way multiple marriages are "managed" is that the husband divorces his "current" wife and then marries the next one. Voila! He is legally married to one woman and in the eyes of the law no different than any other person who has been married and divorced multiple times. The difference being for the polygamist, all the divorced wives still live with him.

Now let me see...
"The New Testament clarifies that elders of the church were to be exemplary and be married to only one wife. "

This simply states, if a man desires to be an elder, he can have one wife. This has no application whatsoever to whether it is permissable to have more than one wife. In fact, it implies the opposite, polygamy was/is acceptable except for those desiring to be an elder.

Those of you who are divorced and your ex spouse still lives?
You are a polygamist. There is no justification for divorce outside of adultery and the penalty for adulterers is death. Remember your vows and the closing declaration, "What God has joined..." hypocrits

The idea of polygamy being banned by the bible is a bunch of bunk.
You cannot marry another man's wife. You cannot marry your sister.

You bible quoters who claim Adam's son's married sisters where do you find that?
So you're saying God changed his mind about incest?
"I the Lord do not change." Malachi 3:6
God made light, day and night, earth, trees, plants, birds, animals, fish and then...
"God made them male and female..." Gen 1
Then...God said, "Go forth and have dominion..." Go where? into all the earth...
Then...Gen. 2
"God planted a garden...and there he put the man..."
"Then...God said it is not good for the man to be alone."
Then...God made the woman...
This is the first Adam; Jesus is called the second Adam (Heb.) why?


MellorSJ2
I'm not sure of the number, but you have trotted out your great elf story dozens of times on Townhall columns.

Maybe it's time you tried something else.

By the way, did you read the article?

All of you people making the argument
that banning polygamy based on tax payers footing the bill for multiple children are building a huge straw man.

In this case we currently are footing the bill for men fathering multiple children, as Stossel said, only out of marriage.

And besides the fact that the argument there is not against polygay, but against socialism. It doesn't matter whether they are the product of marriage of bastardy, the public should not be forced to support children of other people against their will.