Polygamy

[Aleser]

I do think if a man/woman finds that INCREDIBLE person, the person they don't want to let go, I don't think they would be okay knowing that the person is out and about with every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

And see, there the ridiculous notion of relationships = ownership comes in to play. You do not possess the people you are in a relationship with, even if they are your best relationship ever and you never intend to leave them.

A person is not a prize to be won and kept. They are not a toy that you don't allow others to play with.

Ownership in a relationship is an active, voluntary consensual agreement that should be made with the deepest of consideration and clearly defined boundaries. It should NEVER be the default, or taken as part of the dating or marriage package without consideration.

 

[DeafCaroline]

I thought we weren't supposed to give religious reasons in this thread? Oh, well, you brought it up.

Yes, there were polygamous marriages in the Bible. There was also murder, lying, cheating, and other sins. Just because God documented real life and real events in His book doesn't mean He approved of them. In fact, He used those examples to show how wrong they were, and how bad the consequences were.

God specifically established marriage as one man and one woman in His very first book, Genesis. That was the model that people were supposed to follow. It is also a picture of the relationship between Christ (the Bridegroom) and His church (the Bride). It's a one-on-one relationship and permanent.


That's not what the Bible says.


Since God created all nature, He determined what was "meant" for each species, including the human species (which is separate from animals). In the perfect way that God formed man and woman, they were designed to be monogamous. However, because man fell into sin, that perfection was distorted, and man has gone on to do his own thing without regard for God.

YOU brought it up = "men and women are meant to be together" - obviously I knew where that belief comes from. And when we asked you for your source, you sidestepped. If you really didn't want to bring "R" into this, you wouldn't have made that post in the first place. You could have just said "I think men and women should be monogamous" - not "It is said" or "it is written".

But whatever. Believe whatever you want. I happen to believe in science and facts.

 

[Barbaro]

Are you sure that you studied the Victorian era?

Did Queen Victoria say "lie back and think of England."? I am not sure if that is a legend.

I remember Queen Victoria was extremely frustrated with her son (then King Edward VII) who ran around in the city sleeping with ladies while married to his wife. He even slept with Prime Minister Churchill's mother. Ew.


As for arranged marriage, I know this Portugal-born doctor who was American educated. His parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great grandparents all had arranged marriage. Well, this doctor in America is divorced for very first time in his family. His American ex-wife is very manipulate, and uses her own kids to play games. She also abuses them verbally. He wishes he was in an arranged marriage, then he would not be divorced.

Now, he got re-married, and asked his second American wife to sign prenuptial, and she did it. She also agreed with his view on arranged marriage, because her family had an arranged marriage,too. Zero divorce. He considers prenuptial an "insurance". He has always been an advocate of arranging marriage, and prenuptial.

 

[Reba]

YOU brought it up = "men and women are meant to be together" - obviously I knew where that belief comes from. And when we asked you for your source, you sidestepped. If you really didn't want to bring "R" into this, you wouldn't have made that post in the first place. You could have just said "I think men and women should be monogamous" - not "It is said" or "it is written".

But whatever. Believe whatever you want. I happen to believe in science and facts.

Jillio didn't have to give her source, so why should I? She said, "it is said." Who said it?

If she can say men and women aren't meant to be monogamous, why can't I say that they are?

 

[DeafCaroline]

Jillio didn't have to give her source, so why should I? She said, "it is said." Who said it?

If she can say men and women aren't meant to be monogamous, why can't I say that they are?

Jillio has scientific facts to back up her statements. You have ...well...

 

[Reba]

...As for arranged marriage, I know this Portugal-born doctor who was American educated. His parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great grandparents all had arranged marriage. Well, this doctor in America is divorced for very first time in his family. His American ex-wife is very manipulate, and uses her own kids to play games. She also abuses them verbally. He wishes he was in an arranged marriage, then he would not be divorced.

Now, he got re-married, and asked his second American wife to sign prenuptial, and she did it. She also agreed with his view on arranged marriage, because her family had an arranged marriage,too. Zero divorce. He considers prenuptial an "insurance". He has always been an advocate of arranging marriage, and prenuptial.

I didn't mention being against arranged marriages. That's not the same as polygamy. I think that could be a new topic.

 

[Reba]

Jillio has scientific facts to back up her statements. You have ...well...

She didn't post them, did she? So, we don't know the basis for her statement, do we?

 

[DeafCaroline]

I dated an Indian guy who's now in an arranged marriage. He's very happy. The matchmaker took great care to match him up with someone of similar backgrounds, values, perspectives and did a great job. He's now happily married and a proud papa of twins.

Match.com is kinda similar - they ask you what your interests are and what you are looking for then try to hook you up with people of similar interests. matchmakers of arranged marriages do the same.

Nothing wrong with an arranged marriage as long as both the man and the woman were in favour of it for practical reasons.

 

[DeafCaroline]

She didn't post them, did she? So, we don't know the basis for her statement, do we?

But we do. her statements are based on scientific knowledge that we've all grown up with. Yours is based on one book that is rather fictitious.

 

[posts from hell]

She didn't post them, did she? So, we don't know the basis for her statement, do we?

I asked you for your sources because what you said differs from what I believe. In asking for the source I am opening myself to changing what I believe.

Needless to say, I didn't ask Jillio for her sources because it reflects what I believe. Perhaps someone can challenge her, but it will not be me this time.

 

[Daredevel7]

I wouldn't even know how posting "proof" that people are not meant to be monogamous will help anything! In what form will this "proof" come in? That men and women naturally get sexually aroused by people other than their spouses? That, in nature, most species (animals) mate with more (much more) than just one mate? People who believe that humans should be in a monogamous relationship would NOT deny those type of "proofs", but that doesn't mean that they don't believe that humans should "give in" to their feelings or act like animals. (Sorry for all those double negatives! )

There is no purpose of proof in this case at all.

I personally believe that being monogamous or not is something that you need to decide based on numerous factors: your beliefs, risks of pregnancy and STDs, your values, who you are as a person and how you deal with relationships and/or sex, your judgement of character, and so on.

 

[Reba]

But we do. her statements are based on scientific knowledge that we've all grown up with. Yours is based on one book that is rather fictitious.

How do you know what her statements are based on if she didn't post them?

If you choose not to believe me, that's your prerogative.

It's interesting that you couldn't just say "the Bible" instead of making a slur against it.

BTW, I grew up with the same "scientific knowledge" that you "all" did.

 

[Reba]

I asked you for your sources because what you said differs from what I believe. In asking for the source I am opening myself to changing what I believe.

Needless to say, I didn't ask Jillio for her sources because it reflects what I believe. Perhaps someone can challenge her, but it will not be me this time.

Well, my source is the Bible. Now, this thread will probably get locked. I'm sorry about that. I tried to avoid contributing to it's being locked but I also don't like seeing only one viewpoint given as though that's it.

 

[DeafCaroline]

How do you know what her statements are based on if she didn't post them?

If you choose not to believe me, that's your prerogative.

It's interesting that you couldn't just say "the Bible" instead of making a slur against it.

BTW, I grew up with the same "scientific knowledge" that you "all" did.

I didn't slur the bible. Calling it fictitious is not a slur anymore than calling Santa Claus fictitious is a slur.

 

[Daredevel7]

I didn't slur the bible. Calling it fictitious is not a slur anymore than calling Santa Claus fictitious is a slur.

Oooh... now that was just mean.

I don't believe in the Bible at all, but some people devote their lives to this book. I don't see the harm to others for most (NOT all) people who try to live their lives based on the Bible. When someone abuses it to push their beliefs (or worse!), then I will diss them, but Reba really hasn't done anything bad except defend herself and her beliefs.

 

[Reba]

I wouldn't even know how posting "proof" that people are not meant to be monogamous will help anything! In what form will this "proof" come in? That men and women naturally get sexually aroused by people other than their spouses?

I didn't say that there is no temptation. However, humans are more than instinct, and can make rational choices. They don't have to succumb to temptation.

That, in nature, most species (animals) mate with more (much more) than just one mate?

I have no quarrel with animals. I thought this thread was about people.

People who believe that humans should be in a monogamous relationship would NOT deny those type of "proofs", but that doesn't mean that they don't believe that humans should "give in" to their feelings or act like animals. (Sorry for all those double negatives! )

Hey, I'm not the grammar police.

There is no purpose of proof in this case at all.

I personally believe that being monogamous or not is something that you need to decide based on numerous factors: your beliefs, risks of pregnancy and STDs, your values, who you are as a person and how you deal with relationships and/or sex, your judgement of character, and so on.

There you go. It's something you decide to do.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Oooh... now that was just mean.

I don't believe in the Bible at all, but some people devote their lives to this book. I don't see the harm to others for most (NOT all) people who try to live their lives based on the Bible. When someone abuses it to push their beliefs (or worse!), then I will diss them, but Reba really hasn't done anything bad except defend herself and her beliefs.

Ah...you see, if Reba were to say "I believe men and women are meant to be together because that's what the bible says" then fine, I would have left it alone but no, she stated it as this "men and women are meant to be monogamous" - that I took issue with because she's stating it as if it's a fact. I will always challenge that.

 

[Reba]

I didn't slur the bible. Calling it fictitious is not a slur anymore than calling Santa Claus fictitious is a slur.

Perhaps I was wrong. This "bible" of which you post must not be the same "Bible" to which I refer.

 

[Aleser]

There you go. It's something you decide to do.

All consensual sex, or refusal of sex, is a choice.

Consensual implies that and everything. :roll:

 

[Daredevel7]

I didn't say that there is no temptation. However, humans are more than instinct, and can make rational choices. They don't have to succumb to temptation.

That was my point. If one were to "prove" that humans were NOT meant to be monogamous, all I can think of is to prove that they have temptations or compare them to animals. I don't see what other proof there would be. And you DO accept that humans have temptations, it's just a matter of not giving in.

Everyone is talking about showing proof. I am just questioning the purpose of giving proof in the first place.