Do you support Polygamy?

An Appeal to tradition argument cuts both ways. You can't say "OMG this is how it should be done because it was done this way in the past" and then say "Well, what we have now is better than what we had in the past because it is newer". If you do that you are contradicting yourself.

 

While I cannot imagine why someone would want more than one spouse (even one can be one too many), I cannot think of any reason why I should care. In some places it's pseudo-legal anyway.

 

What I could see is husbands with so many wives,
and wives with so many surnames.
I prefer not to support it, for I do wish to have something that I could call my very own,
not something that can be used by another person anytime as he wish he would.

 

I think that marriage should have nothing to do with the state, just like Jesus said.

 

That seems like the best plan to me, as well. It won't happen here, however.

 

Of course it won't. This country is full of fake-ass Christians who think the Bible is a permission slip to persecute homosexuals and drug-users. They're a bunch of empty-headed hypocrites. Screw 'em.

 

Where'd He say that?

 

Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.

Marriage is the exclusive domain of God, not man. The state has no business interjecting itself into God's domain.

 

Plus, the government (in large part led by the folks you speak of) loves to use tax policy and other laws to promote things the government deems "good". So we ended up with more than a thousand laws pertaining to marriage. Laws that are clearly going no where.

 

IOW, what you said He said, He didn't say. Thanks for clearing that up.

You're obviously entitled to that opinion, but you are not entitled to ascribe it to Christ - Who, incidentally, would have looked rather hypocritical expressing such an opinion, seeing it was He Who delivered to the Israelites Mosaic law, which had a thing or two to say about marriage, and which He expected to be enforced by the government of the nation of Israel.

As to the general question of disempowering government WRT marriage, I have yet to encounter a libertarian who has given a moment's thought to whether the cure might be worse than the disease; but perhaps you'll be the first.

 

He said that marriage is between the couple and God. If he had believed it was between the couple, God, and the state, then he would have said so, but he didn't.

 

Not just wrong, really wrong. Speculate all you like about the LDS culture but you're way off base here.

However, you're spot on about the FLDS culture.

 

Strawman. The government is not a party to a marriage contract any more than it is a party to any other contract between private entities; but it nevertheless becomes involved in every enforceable contract whenever one party brings suit to enforce it.

 

Not exactly. The anti-gay marriage movements have consistently had stronger support until recently, yet have almost never outraised. For the same obvious reasons I pointed out earlier (if you didn't see or w/e, just ask and I'll explain).

 

Meh, I don't know that it's all that healthy. But I'm not going to stop anybody from being polyamorous. One wife is usually enough of a pain in the ass to keep happy. Why any man would want twice thrice, four.......ice? the headaches is beyond me.

That said, I don't believe in redefining the institution of marriage at all. I don't think it's necessary.

 

That's what I mean. They shouldn't.

Yes, and the conclusion needs to be that they shouldn't get the breaks. Their tax situation should be completely unaffected by whether they are married or not.

And your point would be...?

No tax consequences for any of them. Problem solved.

 

The trigger was probably the end of the last Ice Age, which made settled agriculture possible in many formerly unsuitable locations. Then written language made it possible to preserve and accumulate knowledge, and the rest is history.

What behaviors and worse are you talking about, specifically?

 

We currently have tax breaks for marriage under monogamous relationships, that's the point. "Getting rid of the breaks" would affect millions of people, and there would likely be some backlash. It could potentially be political suicide for a particular party.

No consequences, aside from the problem above. Whilst I'm not saying that getting rid of the breaks could be a good thing, it has it's consequences if not thought about; it should be treated as a delicate matter as millions of voters will be affected. Would a party want to suggest these changes with the possibility they will lose votes? I think not. Could it possibly harm people who need the breaks under their current lifestyle? Most certainly. Would it help the current debt? Unlikely.

 

I personally don't support the idea of Polygamy, but it isn't any of my business and really don't mind if it gets legalized.

 

You've gotten partially right. God created mankind as men and women. Marriage, as described by Jesus in the Holy Bible, is a special relationship between a man and a woman: Book of Matthew, Chapter 19, verses 1 - 11. But you are right, to my knowledge, the married man and woman are not tied in any formal way the the "state" or any platform of organized government.

 

Does it say exclusively?

The definition would apply to a polygamous union as well. Each marriage would be between one man and one woman. The women are not married to each other...the man is married to all of them individually.

 

I dunno... I guess you'd have to ask Jesus about that. IMHO, Jesus was not known for ambiguity or imprecision in things he said. Remember -- Jesus advocated direct, well-defined viewpoints; thus, the "let your 'yes' be YES, and let your 'no' be NO" from Matthew 5:37....

That said, in this forum poll, I voted to allow polygamy! I vote in favor of freedom and independence! I vote in letting others do what they want, and insofar as it does not affect me, I really don't give a damn what that is.

This is folly, of course, because what others do always ends up affecting me anyway, or further burdening me with higher taxes, or generally crapping up my life in ways that are now so common in 21st-Century America. But it all has to run its course, and come to a head, and a crisis, before we lurch off onto some new set of behavioral paradigms. ... "Meh, everybody's asleep... you can stop now."

"The stars are not for man." -- Arthur C. Clarke, from "Childhood's End" ..

 

Considering it was tacitly accepted by God in the Old testament, I would assume Jesus would not have a huge problem with it.

Exactly. Which leads me to believe he was either indifferent or accepting of Polygamy. Otherwise he would have said something about it specifically.

Semantics would be difficult to interpret since Jesus never spoke English. The references you posted are translations from the original (or, more likely, another translation of the original).

 

Well, if I lived in Colorado, I'd fix this mess with a happy jaunt to the herb store.

 

I don't get it and I don't want to be a polygamist, but I support it and think it should be legalized. It doesn't seem to do any harm, after all.