because the Bible clearly states that marriage should be between one man and however many women he wants

Show me.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/polygam...

Suggested reading:

http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/bible/dis...
http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/bible/his... (along with the follow-ups at the end)

'The bible says' is often synonymous with 'my community's tradition of interpreting it', though this is not always admitted. But the debate raises more profound and serious questions. What is progress? What is God saying when we come to the boundaries of traditions? When does God speak through people's experience of the mysterious 'true self' of which some mystics write, and what possibilties for dialogue does that create? The prophets condemned animal sacrifices, Jonah believed in the salvation of gentiles (which Peter took a special revelation to be convinced of), George Fox said 'Jesus says this, the apostles say that, but what can you say?' - a very important question, IMHO. We might say, for example, that women need not always obey their husbands, that there should be no slaves, that salvation may come to anyone who sincerely follows his conscience, or even that no-one is necessarily condemned eternally. These are just examples. In any case we are responsible for our own free will, which includes acts of belief. I've a lot of time for examples of 'liberal' piety like Martin Buber and John Hick, without necessarily agreeing with everything they might say. I have to say that among christians (even though it is Catholic figures who are my own 'inspiration'), the Quakers impress me a lot. They were against slavery from the word go, I believe.

Wow, I’m for it! Let’s fight for that old “civil right”: Marrying a whole bunch of not siblingly related women... Let’s vote on that!

In the bible there are God's laws, and Hebrew (human religious laws). God never meant for a man to have more then one wife, but men where corrupted by the tradition of the times and so God tolerated it, letting man make there own mistakes and learning from the consequences of it.

if you see all the examples of a man in the bible having more then one wife, there is never good that comes out of it.

"Abraham" was already married to Sarah, but he took on a concubine in order to have a son. Soon jealousy came between Sarah and Hagar. To the point where Abraham had to send away Hagar and Ishmael (Abraham first son). To this day, the children of Issac and the children of Ishmael are still fighting for who is the rightful heir to Abraham and therefor to Gods blessings.

Jacob married Leah and Rachel, (who where sisters, it wasn't till after this that sisters weren't allowed to be married to the same man, you see, instead of just saying man should only have one wife, like they should have, the Israelite and their human laws believed that the trouble occurred because they where sisters). Anyways,... the sons of one of them (can't remember which anymore) betrayed Joseph (the son of the other) and sold him into slavery into Egypt.

More examples can be taken from King David and the problems he had with his wives, and their children. And King Salomon, who's many wives are believed for his down fall.

from what i see, the bible is a big history lesson, God tells us what is right and wrong, and "people" don't listen, and therefore reap what they sow.

you must read the bible in context. somethings of it is just recordings of what people believed and did, but that doesn't mean they're right, or that their laws should be our laws.

theres so much more i could right, but i must get ready for school. if Any of my facts about the bible are wrong, please correct me, as i did this in a hurry and didn;t look everything up in the bible as i wrote it.

Sorry for the long message, its just so many people (both secular and religious) use one line of the bible, to interpret their own definition without taking the bible as a whole. Need to funnel out what Man says and what God says.

peace!

sorry I'm back, but I'm not going to use the bible to back up my theory this time.

ok lets say we allow same-sex marriages.
Q; why?
A: they love each other, and therefore have a right to be married.

so then i must ask, where is the limit, is there a limit to this idea?

if a sister and brother love each other, should they get married?
your reply: no, because theirs children will likely have genetic problems.
my reply: well what if they choose to adopt their children, and get a vasectomy so they can't have children? problem solved, no?

If someone loves an animal and the animal loves him back, should they get married? They can't have children, so problem solved?

and for polygamy: same argument, how can you say that i only love one person? how about mass-marriages where whole community are married together?

I'm not trying to mock anyone, and I'm defiantly not trying to endorse these different arguments, i just thought it was an interesting thought. like where do we put the limits if there is not a diffident morality?

Input and feedback, very welcomed. just please try to keep it friendly.

mnlg:

because the Bible clearly states that marriage should be between one man and however many women he wants

Show me.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/polygam...

As I alluded to above, just because an act is described in the Bible is not an endorsement or that act. The Skeptics' Annotated Bible asks, "Is polygamy ok?", and under the "Yes" column we find a bunch of verses like, "and Lamech took two wives", or "Solomon took 700 wives", and so on. But let me illustrate why that's an invalid interpretation with a couple of parallel examples. When the Bible describes Cain murdering Abel, is that an endorsement of murder? The Bible describes King David committing adultery with a married woman and murdering her husband -- is that an endorsement of those actions? To me it seems clear that just because Lamech or Cain or David did something, doesn't necessarily mean it's ok. It's necessary to interpret the Bible fairly; context is key.

trojo:As I alluded to above, just because an act is described in the Bible is not an endorsement or that act.

Thank you for your reply. Personally I have very little interest in both the bible (which I consider to be some sort of spiritual wikipedia gone very wrong; interesting as a historical document, but too incoherent to be a basis for anything, at least for me) and polygamy. However I am fascinated at the amount of material on this topic that I am finding on the internet. Look at this for instance.

http://www.btinternet.com/~familyman/biblpoly.h...

When the Bible describes Cain murdering Abel, is that an endorsement of murder?

Doesn't matter, really. Leviticus, one of my favorite books, has so many examples of endorsement of murder, slaughter and violence that really, Abel vs Cain is just a drop in the ocean. Just read here, but I trust you know the bible enough to know what I am talking about.

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

It's necessary to interpret the Bible fairly; context is key.

Define "fairly". No, actually, never mind.

If you find truth in the bible, I am happy for you. I really am. Unfortunately I seem to find it to be too much of a jumble and a mess and I would be extremely wary (to say the least) of using it as a basis for truth. All this assuming that the bible you have in your hands is indeed what it is claimed to be, that is, the unadulterated word of god. I think (and this is an impression, not a belief) that there is enough historical evidence to doubt that assertion. I can understand using the bible to tickle and nudge your own spiritual quest, but I can hardly see the bible as a point of arrival.

Peace.

Senlando:sorry I'm back, but I'm not going to use the bible to back up my theory this time.

ok lets say we allow same-sex marriages.
Q; why?
A: they love each other, and therefore have a right to be married.

so then i must ask, where is the limit, is there a limit to this idea?

if a sister and brother love each other, should they get married?
your reply: no, because theirs children will likely have genetic problems.
my reply: well what if they choose to adopt their children, and get a vasectomy so they can't have children? problem solved, no?

Yeah, I see no issue with this, assuming one of them is "sterilized". Seriously, what problem could possible arise from that? Whatever siblings do to other siblings is fine, as long as they aren't doing it on my lap.

Senlando:If someone loves an animal and the animal loves him back, should they get married? They can't have children, so problem solved?

I didn't realize homosexuals were considered a different species. They do look human and all. I suppose different races are more dissimilar than two gay individuals from the same race, but in all honesty, WHO cares if farmer bill marries "Sally the Bovine"? Marriage is sort of arbitrary, it's only purpose is to allow for tax breaks, and feed some sort of faith based need, which has no place in the legal system.

Senlando:and for polygamy: same argument, how can you say that i only love one person? how about mass-marriages where whole community are married together?

I think polygamy is a heterosexual thing, although I must say there are logical issue there as well, due to the lack of females available, this would limit the variety of genes passed on to future generations. Also, it could be discrimination, assuming that only men were allowed to marry multiple women. If it went both ways, then who cares? Does it effect us? As long as no one is forcing me to marry, I couldn't care less.

Senlando:I'm not trying to mock anyone, and I'm defiantly not trying to endorse these different arguments, i just thought it was an interesting thought. like where do we put the limits if there is not a diffident morality?

The limits would largely be based on "equal rights", "liberty", "logic", and "Justice". Gays getting married effects absolutely none of those, (except it abides by equal rights, but that's besides the point). Jethro marrying Betsy (the Cow) effects absolutely none of those as well. Sisters and Brothers hinders the "logic" category, but if they were sterilized than I see no issue (other then we'd have to check for sterilization, which could be costly, and may allow for "cognitively delayed" children.) Polygamy, sure, the more the merrier!

mnlg:If you find truth in the bible, I am happy for you. I really am. Unfortunately I seem to find it to be too much of a jumble and a mess. Peace.

Many thanks for this honest observation. It illustrates that the bible may well not make sense unless read with a particular community's tradition, which may include the influence of religious experiences. But, IMHO, if we follow our consciences, as Jiminy cricket told Pinocchio, we should not have much to fear.

Peace!

To everyone arguing about Polygamy.

Seriously?! Polygamy in the old testament is an issue? That's one of the "ok" things in the bible. The old testament is one of the most evil pieces of literature I've ever read. Infant death: Hosea 9:11-16 NLT
Mass Murder: Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT
"Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and possess the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants." (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
"For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death." (Exodus 35:2)
Oh man, there are not enough characters available in 20 posts to cover all the weird shit in the old testament. Hell, you can't even eat shellfish (Lev 11:10)!

Basing ANY law on religious text is a terrible idea. Who knows what sort of wackiness would come from it!