Would you have a second wife?

[Renoard]

One thing that stands out is the repeated use of the word polygamy.  Polygamy is the term for the criminal act of marrying more than one spouse.  But it is gender neutral.  One thing to remember, is the poly tradition for every "real-world" religion I've encountered is limited to  polygyny, however polyandry or compound poly (one person having several spouses, while also being one of several spouses to another) are not real world traditions. Looking at primates that have similar structures, it's always polygynous.  Where females mate with multiple males there is no nuclear structure.  That's just an observation.

Marriage is about contractual agreements to restrict sexuality, share property, reserve reproductive rights and traditionally, to convey medical and civil power of attorney.  The context and morality, has always been one that is religious.  Someone cited earlier how the European countries had traditionally had a vested interest in marriage as a state institution.  The important point is that these countries were bound to state religion.  They also had and in most cases still have, state appointed clergy and state appointed hierarchy.  This argue in favor of the exclusively religious nature of marriage and unions in general.

The same poster cited ancient peoples, but this argument is even more specious because in those same ancient nations the King and High Priest were the same individual, or the King was a religious figure sanctioned and authenticated by the religion.  There are legal issues of basic biology and heritage that are intertwined in marriage and best sorted in marriage but marriage itself has always been an issue for the local community and inextricably intertwined with the dominant religion.  Remember the antecedents to modern marriage were never pluralistic no matter how Hollywood propaganda wants to repaint history.

Lastly, given that marriage is as much about reproductive rights and inheritance, as it is about sexuality and companionship -- it's important to note that marriage has never been denied to homosexuals.  I know that on first take this will seem like a glib snark.  But the real gut level truth, is that homosexuals have always been free to marry any person of the opposite sex who would have them, and share in all the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals including reproduction and inheritance as well as companionship etc.

The whole issue is based on a fallacy.  Homosexuals are not denied any right under California's marriage amendment, that is granted to anyother group including heterosexuals.  If you think about his honestly and unemotionally for a moment you will see what I'm saying.

[Skar]

One thing that stands out is the repeated use of the word polygamy.  Polygamy is the terms for the criminal act of marrying more than one spouse.

Now you just look a little stupid.  Try looking up the definition of words like Polygamy before you castigate others for misusing the word.  I believe you were thinking of Bigamy.

The rest of your post is tortuous, it seems like much of it is tangential, and I had some trouble following it.  Given your misuse of one of the words at the root of the current discussion I can't give the rest of what you say enough credence to bother untangling it.

Polite suggestion: Write out your point and then condense it to 25o words or less.
That's not a rule of posting, just a trick I personally use to help my writing be more clear and concise.

[Renoard]

Skar, you really ought to look up polygamy.  It is found in statutes, and it is not used in religious texts.  You're response was needless pejorative and is really just a flame rather than a serious discussion, so I'm not really troubled that you can't bring yourself to read further.  The text is far from tortuous but would be wasted on someone who is so easily stirred to petty insults.

[Patriotic Kaz]

@ reonard HA HA HA wasn't that a petty insult...

[Renoard]

Not really, I was just saying that someone who gets aroused that easily is unlikely to read honestly enough to get anything of value out of it.  It was basically a way of saying, "If that's how you feel and react, then by all means don't read it."

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Renoard, you told Skar he ought to look up polygamy, in reply to a post in which he told you to look up polygamy and bigamy and provided dictionary definition links for each.

Think about that for a minute.

[Skar]

Yeah, I did look it up, before I posted the first time, just to be sure I wouldn't sound like a moron by misusing it.

Here on the interwebs there are things called links, words or pictures that you can click on in order to get more information or go to a related website.  There were two in my post. (Hint, in this case they're underlined)

Polygamy
po⋅lyg⋅a⋅my     [puh-lig-uh-mee]  Show IPA
–noun
1.   the practice or condition of having more than one spouse, esp. wife, at one time. Compare bigamy (def. 1), monogamy (def. 1).
2.   Zoology. the habit or system of mating with more than one individual, either simultaneously or successively.
Origin:
1585–95; < Gk polygamía. See poly-, -gamy

and, of course,
Bigamy
big⋅a⋅my     [big-uh-mee]  Show IPA
–noun, plural -mies.
1.   Law. the crime of marrying while one has a wife or husband still living, from whom no valid divorce has been effected.
2.   Ecclesiastical. any violation of canon law concerning marital status that would disqualify a person from receiving holy orders or from retaining or surpassing an ecclesiastical rank.
Origin:
1200–50; ME bigamie < ML bigamia (LL bigam(us) bigamous + L -ia -y 3 )

For your edification, I've copied the definitions found behind the links into this very post.

Explain to me why we should take you seriously when you reference things from history but don't know the definitions of the words you're using?

[Renoard]

 But in the context of this conversation, we were dealing with religion and law as is regards marriage and multiples.  The references in the New Testament, for instance, refers to polygyny in the context of the restriction that a church official must be monogynous (having one wife)  "Monogamy" and "polygamy" are more modern terms and therefore not historical, and in the context of dealing with European and Ancient history irrelevant.

But here let me post definitions too.

po⋅lyg⋅y⋅ny
   /pəˈlɪdʒəni/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [puh-lij-uh-nee] Show IPA
–noun
1.    the practice or condition of having more than one wife at one time.
2.    (among male animals) the habit or system of having two or more mates, either simultaneously or successively.
3.    (among social insects) the condition of having two or more functioning queens in a colony.
4.    Botany. the state or condition of having many pistils or styles.

Compare monogyny.

Origin:
1770–80; < Gk polygýn(aios) having many wives (see poly-, gyn- ) + -y 3


pol⋅y⋅an⋅dry
   /ˈpɒliˌændri, ˌpɒliˈæn-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pol-ee-an-dree, pol-ee-an-] Show IPA
–noun
1.    the practice or condition of having more than one husband at one time. Compare monandry (def. 1).
2.    (among female animals) the habit or system of having two or more mates, either simultaneously or successively.
3.    Botany. the state of being polyandrous.
Origin:
1770–80; < Gk polyandría. See poly-, -andry

[Skar]

Nevertheless, "Polygamy..." is not "...the term for the criminal act of marrying more than one spouse."

And has been used correctly by everyone here, except you.

In an effort to re-rail the train I tried to tease apart your earlier post.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  Are you saying that:

• A:  Arguments that marriages were, in ancient times, only state sanctioned are wrong because there was always a very close connection between state and religion, even a lack of distinction between the two, therefore marriages were religious in nature even then?
• B: That since a Gay man has always been free to marry any female who would have him, his rights to a state-sanctioned "marriage" and the legal considerations granted to citizens of that class have never been abridged?

[Patriotic Kaz]

Can we not argue over definitons now?

[Renoard]

Skar I wasn't limiting myself to homosexual men, I was including homosexual women as well.  And that's the standard that heterosexuals are stuck with (who will have us).   But yes you've summarized my position without the proofs I alluded to, with one notable error. 

Classes are not protected under American law and constitution.  Individuals are protected against discrimination on the basis of membership in a class.  So I'm not maintaining(or even contemplating) whether there is discrimination against a class, only that all individuals, regardless of class, are presented with precisely the same options and opportunities with regard to marriage, limited only by their own strengths and weaknesses.  No only equal protection but identical protection.

[Shaggy]

On the gay thing–we had to take this survey at school today, and they asked us for our sexual preference (gay, transgender, bisexual, don't know, heterosexual, etc.) and a lot of people didn't know which one meant 'straight.' Most people thought it was heterosexual so they asked…and the way they asked is something that I HATE HATE HATE with a passion I HATE PEOPLE WHEN THEY DO THIS they said ' "Is 'heterosexual' the normal one?" '

Anyways.  On topic. Polygamy would get annoying. Who do you sleep with? Do all of you share a room? How would your kids feel? Who do you have sex with? (I think we talked about this in another thread a bit (on one of our sidetracked rants    ).)

[Renoard]

Yeah it's ironic that the Jewish patriarchs, Avraham, Itzak and Yaakov were each polygynous -- but it was a source of deep sorrow and family strife in each case.  The polygyny of David and Solomon caused succession wars.  In general the message on the Bible is that it is a seriously bad idea most of the time, although never forbidden.

[Shaggy]

Peeps did…a lot of stuff back then. 

[Peter Ahlstrom]

The LDS position (via the Book of Mormon) is that it's forbidden by default but may be dispensationally permitted when God wants a more rapid population increase, which was indeed the case with the patriarchs. And that David and Solomon got in trouble when they went after too many and in ways not approved by God—David when he went after someone else's wife and Solomon when he married outside the faith.