Defining Marriage Out of Existence: We told you So....

[Gondwanaland]

They already consider themselves married but seek to game the system.

correct. Because they can't legally marry. I can't say I wouldn't similarly game the system to punish the system if it refused to recognize me and my relationship.

Nothing indicates that would change. Way too much money pouring into the house this way.

Assertion without evidence.

There is a reason that most of these groups continue to stay in the U.S. rather than going down to Mexico which largely turns a blind eye to their activities. They don't have a welfare system to cheat down there.


Perhaps you should cite polygamous communities here where that isn't the rule and then we can make an actual valid comparison, unless you think spousal abuse takes place in every Christian home.

See right there we see your bias. You assume polyamory only occurs within "polygamous communities"

[firstfloor]

Unfortunately, the Sea Dog Table from Hardwick Hall is currently Stateside, so I only saw a photograph.

[rogue06]

correct. Because they can't legally marry. I can't say I wouldn't similarly game the system to punish the system if it refused to recognize me and my relationship.

There is no indication it would change. This way they have their cake and can eat it to.

They already regard themselves as being married. Period. But now they can collect welfare as a single mom while being married. Nothing to indicate that they want that spigot shut off.

See right there we see your bias. You assume polyamory only occurs within "polygamous communities"

See right there how you keep switching polyamorous for polygamy. Polyamorous can mean swingers or an "open marriage" or even people who have affairs.

We're talking about getting married to multiple wives. That's polygamy.

[Thoughtful Monk]

See right there we see your bias. You assume polyamory only occurs within "polygamous communities"

True. I suspect there is a lot of polyamories occurring without being in a community.

[Gondwanaland]

There is no indication it would change. This way they have their cake and can eat it to.

They already regard themselves as being married. Period. But now they can collect welfare as a single mom while being married. Nothing to indicate that they want that spigot shut off.

Assertion without evidence.

See right there how you keep switching polyamorous for polygamy. Polyamorous can mean swingers or an "open marriage" or even people who have affairs.

We're talking about getting married to multiple wives. That's polygamy.

Polygamy is just one type of polyamory. The decision is about polyamorous marriage.

You do grasp that were not just talking about getting married to multiple wives, right?

You do understand that the term polygamy itself is not just about marrying multiplr wives, (thats polygyny - the term also includes polyandry as well) and that the decision would affect people with multiple husbands, etc., right?

[shunyadragon]

Paul is explicit, that if you are in a leadership roll you can only have one wife. And Christ was explicit too, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

If you can cite a specific passage by Paul forbidding polygamy I will acknowledge it. If he was explicit we would not have churches over the millennia that allowed polygamy.He did talk about marriage and its purpose and celibacy.

[seer]

monogamy. If he was explicit we would not have churches over the millennia that allowed polygamy.

Actually no, for the most part they didn't.

Monogamy as policy

Socially imposed monogamy was first established in ancient Greece and Rome (even if sexual infidelity with concubines and slaves was largely tolerated). One of the plausible reasons, as explained by R. D. Alexander in The Biology of Moral Systems, was that monogamous groups were advantaged militarily over polygynous groups: imposing monogamy meant that fewer men would leave a group to search for wives elsewhere and would be available to fight in battles and pay taxes. As Christianity emerged in the Roman Empire in the first centuries AD, it embraced monogamy and took it further, insisting that two people must reserve their bodies and desires for each other, marriage becoming ‘an everlasting threesome with God’. It was Christianity that spread monogamy throughout the Western world, even as it struggled to fully justify its monolithic order on romance...

https://feeld.co/blog/feeld-guides/m...e%20with%20God'.

[shunyadragon]

Actually no, for the most part they didn't.

Monogamy as policy

Socially imposed monogamy was first established in ancient Greece and Rome (even if sexual infidelity with concubines and slaves was largely tolerated). One of the plausible reasons, as explained by R. D. Alexander in The Biology of Moral Systems, was that monogamous groups were advantaged militarily over polygynous groups: imposing monogamy meant that fewer men would leave a group to search for wives elsewhere and would be available to fight in battles and pay taxes. As Christianity emerged in the Roman Empire in the first centuries AD, it embraced monogamy and took it further, insisting that two people must reserve their bodies and desires for each other, marriage becoming ‘an everlasting threesome with God’. It was Christianity that spread monogamy throughout the Western world, even as it struggled to fully justify its monolithic order on romance...

https://feeld.co/blog/feeld-guides/m...e%20with%20God'.

Yes for the most part they did not accept polygamy, but that was not the point. Biblically polygamy was never forbidden. I believe there were cultural/political trends that lead to this in my study of history in the distant past. I may resurrect some past research on this. The importance of sanctity of marriage was the standard regardless.

[seer]

If you can cite a specific passage by Paul forbidding polygamy I will acknowledge it. If he was explicit we would not have churches over the millennia that allowed polygamy.He did talk about marriage and its purpose and celibacy.

Paul is explicit for those in leadership rolls: 1 Tim 3:

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money...

Implicit, if not explicit in 1 Cor. 7

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.

Not multiples wives or multiple husbands.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

We're talking about getting married to multiple wives. That's polygamy.

My emphasis. That is polygyny.

[rogue06]

Assertion without evidence.

Except they could join various groups in Mexico were the government basically ignores any laws regarding polygamy. But then they couldn't keep getting those checks from the tax payers.

[shunyadragon]

Paul is explicit for those in leadership rolls: 1 Tim 3:



Not multiples wives or multiple husbands.

It remains tha polygamy is not forbidden in the Bible. Even the above quote does not in and of itself does not forbid someone having more than one wife. It specifies how they must be treated.

[Gondwanaland]

Except they could join various groups in Mexico were the government basically ignores any laws regarding polygamy. But then they couldn't keep getting those checks from the tax payers.

Because there obviously is nothing else going on in Mexico that would dissuade then from moving their families. No mass cartel violence, kidnapping rape and executions, etc. Nominee, clearly they're just staying here and not moving to a random country rogue glommed onto because they want a check

[seer]

It remains tha polygamy is not forbidden in the Bible. Even the above quote does not in and of itself does not forbid someone having more than one wife. It specifies how they must be treated.

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife

each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband

Not wives not husbands, not plural

[Sparko]

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife

each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband

Not wives not husbands, not plural

And before Shunya tries to claim that was only for leaders, Paul's point was that they have to be above reproach, which means they needed to hold to the truest standards of Christianity. Which means someone who had more than one wife was "reproachful" and sinning.