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

[rogue06]

My emphasis. That is polygyny.

Either is correct.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Either is correct.

Not strictly. Polygamy refers to many marriages [poly/many + gamos/marriage]

A woman with several husbands is polygamous.

[Gondwanaland]

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

Doesn't necessarily say a number. Could easily be interpreted as talking about each husband and wife in a polygamous marriage

[Gondwanaland]

Either is correct.

As you seem hyperfocused on a man marrying multiple wives, and seem to ignore other plural marriages, polygyny seems the most accurate.

[seer]

Doesn't necessarily say a number. Could easily be interpreted as talking about each husband and wife in a polygamous marriage

The husband of ONE wife?

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

[Gondwanaland]

The husband of ONE wife?

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

Ah, you're right, I was mixing it with a different verse. Your verse is about someone wishing to take the office of overseer/bishop, I was thinking of a similar verse about husbands and wives in general.

[rogue06]

Not strictly. Polygamy refers to many marriages [poly/many + gamos/marriage]

A woman with several husbands is polygamous.

Polygamy covers either a man with many wives or a woman with many husbands.

While polygyny is more precise in this case it does not make polygamy wrong.

[Sparko]

Polygamy covers either a man with many wives or a woman with many husbands.

While polygyny is more precise in this case it does not make polygamy wrong.

And it is just as wrong for a woman to have more than one husband as it is for a man to have more than one wife.
Both are illegal in the US and should stay that way (as well as other versions of plural marriages)

[Thoughtful Monk]

And it is just as wrong for a woman to have more than one husband as it is for a man to have more than one wife.
Both are illegal in the US and should stay that way (as well as other versions of plural marriages)

It won't stay illegal. Watch over the next 5 years or so the push to legalize plural marriages will start. Predict first legalization will be in California or New York.

[Sparko]

It won't stay illegal. Watch over the next 5 years or so the push to legalize plural marriages will start. Predict first legalization will be in California or New York.

Or Utah. The mormons would probably push for any legalization efforts.

I fear you are right. There is a sort of entropy at play in society. Morals tend to degrade over time. This is how many civilizations eventually fail.

[rogue06]

It won't stay illegal. Watch over the next 5 years or so the push to legalize plural marriages will start. Predict first legalization will be in California or New York.

Utah. You already have a community that makes up 55% of the state's population who might be willing to support it.

Arizona, also with a large Mormon population could be a dark horse.

[Thoughtful Monk]

While I'm well aware of Mormon history on polygamy, I'm not sure today they would be on the forefront of legalizing polygamy. I think this will be a mostly secular movement with yes, some Mormon plus other religious beliefs that allow polygamy claiming it's a freedom of religion issue.

Does anyone have any recent evidence that Mormons are chomping at the bit to get polygamy legalized?

[Sparko]

While I'm well aware of Mormon history on polygamy, I'm not sure today they would be on the forefront of legalizing polygamy. I think this will be a mostly secular movement with yes, some Mormon plus other religious beliefs that allow polygamy claiming it's a freedom of religion issue.

Does anyone have any recent evidence that Mormons are chomping at the bit to get polygamy legalized?

seems like every few years they bust some mormon group of polygamy or sexual abuse. And the only reason they stopped in the first place was that the US wouldn't let Utah join the union without stopping polygamy (not to mention that was why they were chased off to Utah in the first place). Smith had to invent a whole new "revelation" saying why polygamy was no longer allowed by God. I am sure if they thought they could make it legal again, they would get a new "revelation" saying God reinstated it.

[rogue06]

While I'm well aware of Mormon history on polygamy, I'm not sure today they would be on the forefront of legalizing polygamy. I think this will be a mostly secular movement with yes, some Mormon plus other religious beliefs that allow polygamy claiming it's a freedom of religion issue.

Does anyone have any recent evidence that Mormons are chomping at the bit to get polygamy legalized?

I'm not sure there is a whole lot of chomping at the bit taking place, and most would reject doing it. But that isn't the point. It was never a requirement, and they might support it for those who want that right.

A similar thing might be said about some Muslim groups where the husband is married to a couple of women but one is presented as the wife's sister.

[NorrinRadd]

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.

1 Tim. 3:2, 12 and Tit. 1:6 are the main ones that come to mind, but even there the meaning of "one-woman-man" is disputed among scholars, even ones who would reject polygamy as valid.