"Polygamy" v. "Polygyny" —— NOT a doctrinal topic


LeSellers
 Share

Recommended Posts

In several other topics, we've seen a melding of the concepts of polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, and the Celestial idea of Plural Marriage. These are not the same things, and speaking about them as if they were only muddies the waters and makes understanding more difficult than it need be.

The superset is polygamy: from the Greek, meaning "many joinings", i.e., marriages (whether formalized or not) between or among multiple partners, male or female, same-sex or natural.

Completely within "polygamy" are "polyandry" and "polygyny". The former means "many men", the latter, "many women". "Polygamy" also subsumes "polyamory", a portmanteau (mixing of Greek and Latin roots) meaning "many loves", i.e., several men and/or several women who engage in sex with each other promiscuously, including homosex if desired, with the knowledge and consent of all of the others in the "family".

"Polygyny" could  mean (but I've never seen it used this way) same-sex joinings between/among women. In parallel, "polyandry" could mean (but unattested) the common homosexual practice of having multiple homosexual males partners. In general, however, either means heterosexual marriages (formal or not) with one partner of one sex and multiple partners of the complementary sex.

"Plural Marriage" is a subset of "polygyny" (with some "outerlaps", that is, parts that common polygyny does not include). Plural Marriage is not the subject of this topic. Please do not raise it, and only use scriptures (please divorce them from their spiritual basis) to support or undermine the other, legitimate, subjects. An example might be 1 Samuel 1, wherein we meet Hannah and her polygynous husband and see the strife between the wives of Elkanah. The question to be examined here would be "Is polygyny inherently stressful, or can two women share a husband without harming each other?"

Finally, while it is a major issue in our time (we're not alone, the ancients did it, too), serial polygamies of whatever sort, don't lend themselves to this topic, either. Divorces and remarriages have little redeeming value, absent brutality. Jesus condemned them, and that's good enough for me.

The goal (assuming "goal" isn't too strong a word) of this topic is to examine the plusses and minuses of each arrangement.

It would be really nice if participants could keep it scholarly and detached. This is a potentially contentious topic, deeply imbued with emotion. That's not the point.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
correct minor typos and reword one sentence for clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

The goal (assuming "goal" isn't too strong a word) of this topic is to examine the plusses and minuses of each arrangement.

We have many real world examples of polygny...  But I can't think of any real world polyandry examples.  Am I missing some?  It would seem that we would need to have some kind of reference point for the later to have a meaningful discussion on the matter.

Anyways if we remove the spiritual aspects (aka the Thus Sayth the Lord) then it really becomes a demographics issue.  If the ratios between the sexes are basically equal (in those desiring marriage) then monogamy is usually the best way to get the most people to that goal... Any of the Polys will cause an imbalance between the two groups causing hardships for the group that is lacking in partners.  (Aka the surplus of young males among some of the fundamentalist break offs of the LDS church.)

If however the demographics of the sexes is already unbalanced for whatever reason then the Poly that matches it has the change to reduce some of the hardships caused by such an unbalance.

That being said biologically speaking such an imbalance should correct itself within a generation or two unless there is some ongoing issue or event that removes one of the sexes more predominately then the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only "scholarly" comment is that all those terms (polygamy, polyandry, polygyny, polyamory) are perfectly clear in meaning; "Plural Marriage" by which the church means one man married to more than one woman, is imprecise (there is no indication as to how the sexes are represented in the plurality - 1:M, M:1, M:M - only plurality and marriage are clear).  Just sayin'.

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From secular sources that I have seen, they usually mention a handful of things that make a "successful" polyamorous relationship:

1) Honesty. full disclosure of polyamorous relationships or desire for polyamorous relationships. If opposed or jealous, full disclosure of opposition or jealousy.

2) Consent. All parties must agree to the poly relationships. I am not an expert on out 19th century practices, but it seems that, consent was mostly required, but could be overriden.

3) Fairness/equality. Polyandry should be equally acceptable with polygyny. Biblical and 19th century examples are all (or very nearly) all polygynous. Does the absence of historical polyandry suggest that polyandry is absolutely forbidden? Does D&C 132:41-42 ("...If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.") suggest the possibility that God could allow polyandry if He wished?

4) Continued communication about the relationships to discuss changes in feelings and actions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, estradling75 said:

We have many real world examples of polygny.

Indeed. History, ancient, modern, and contemporary, is full of polygyny for one very good reason: it is a highly successful mating strategy.

10 hours ago, estradling75 said:

I can't think of any real world polyandry examples.  Am I missing some?

I have heard of some examples. But they are rare. I suspect that is because polyandry is not a successful mating strategy: men don't like raising other men's children — it means they expend their resources on a child/ren who will not carry on their own lineage. That's why adultery is such a horrific crime. (Recalling that "adultery", anciently, always involved a married woman, the marital status of the man was immaterial.)

10 hours ago, estradling75 said:

it really becomes a demographics issue.  If the ratios between the sexes are basically equal (in those desiring marriage) then monogamy is usually the best way to get the most people to that goal

If "get[ting] most people to that goal" really were the optimum, you'd be right. But it's not clear this is the case.

Men and women run a gamut from "highly desirable" to "extremely undesirable". What constitutes desirability differs from man to man, and from woman to woman, but, in general, men want beauty and health (so their children will be healthy and attractive to future generations and give them healthy grandchildren). Just as generally, women want mates who will provide for them and their children and protect them from all kinds of dangers.

In men, this means there is a great deal of competition for the highly desirable women, and not as much, or even none at all, competition for the undesirable ones. In women, it often leads to adultery (hence the biblical definition of adultery) to get beautiful children while under the protection of a trustworthy, reliable man.

We have, as a recent, quasi-contemporary example of polygyny, the concept of "the kept woman". The legitimate wife doesn't know about her (at least neither adulterer believes she does), but the mistress is willing to take a lesser role as an unofficial wife, in order to have his protection, and, possibly, his children. She would, in other words, prefer part of this desirable man than all of a less desirable one. So we cannot say that all enlightened women hate polygyny.

Further, in both formal and informal polygyny, all but the most highly desirable women benefit. If we take a simplistic case of five men (ranked A, B, C, D, and E) and five women (ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), under monogyny, the pairings would be A-1, B-2, C-3, D-4 and E-5, assuming that D & E and 4 & 5 would consent to marry so low down the pecking order. We should recall that nearly every woman is desirable to some extent because she would give her mate access to her eggs and to reasonably reliable sex: ergo, the men would not likely turn down the opportunity to take one of them, despite her low status. However, E, and possibly D, might choose not to marry at all instead of accepting undesirable men.

So, in contrast to the above one-to-one pairings, under polygyny, we might get A-1,2; B-3; C-4; and D-5, leaving E unmated. (Other mating schemes are possible, and perhaps more likely, depending on what resources A and B have compared to the other men, e.g., A-1, 2, 3, 4; and B-5, with three unmated men.) Here, the less desirable women get better mates than they would have under monogyny, and only the most desirable women "suffer" by sharing their husband(s) with these other women. But, on the whole, the women fare better than the men, one or three of whom have no mates at all. Wives 2, 3, and 4 get (part of) the most desirable man, each seeing this as preferable to having the second, third or fourth, while 5 gets a much better mate, B rather than E (or no one).

Women have the better deal in polygyny, or most of them do.

Men, as implied above, get the worse end of the stick: all but the most highly desirable man marry a woman of lower desirability, and one or more cannot marry at all: no woman will have him/them because she has chosen a "better" man — "better" in her eyes.

11 hours ago, estradling75 said:

biologically speaking such an imbalance should correct itself within a generation or two

But it's not a matter, strictly speaking of a 50% male and 50% female population. It's more a matter of who wants to have whom as a mate(s). And, as in all reproduction decisions and strategies, women hold the upper hand. If they want polygyny, polygyny they will have. If not, absent force (not allowed in this hypothetical or most real-world scenarios), then it will be monogyny, with fewer unhappy men, and far more unhappy women (whether they understand whence the unhappiness stems or no).

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do understand there is a counterculture of polyandry, name your specific details, with participants claiming to just want to not be judged about it. I wouldn't call these "Thus saith the Lord", but clearly even in our modern anti-polygamy days one can find people willing to create such relationships on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While men and women find different traits desirable and some people are more desirable then others. I do believe that if is the ratio is roughly 50/50 if the market is free that the Law of Supply and Demand will work just fine in optimizing the number of and quality of happiness for majority involved.

For example if you have a highly desirable woman she will have her pick... and by all logic and rationality she will pick the one she find the most desirable.  And since this is monogamy both are out and the ratio remains the same.  While I used the example of highly desirable woman it work the same for highly desirable men in monogamy.  Thus we have system that will pair up people with others who are roughly equal in desirability (There are of course outliyers in every system).

Now of course you are going to have a group that falls into the category of less then desirable... They have some hard choices... Ideally they will work on themselves to increase their personal desirability and therefore increase the total quality available. Others will come to realize and accept a lower standard.  All of which is a good thing.  Some (rather a few I would expect) will do nothing and be miserable because they will not improve or adjust there expectations.

 

In a roughly 50/50 environment "polyandry" and "polygyny" both create a scarcity of one sex.  For the opposite sex that means only the very top has any real chance at all.  For the med and low level desirable it does not really matter how much they might try to improve... there is simply no one there.  Where as the other sex while they get married easily enough... But they simply change one battle ground for another.  They have to fight for the attention of the shared spouse.  And if they are against several highly desirables and they are only mid range they are going to constantly fail...  Thus the mid level and less of both suffer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, zil said:

My only "scholarly" comment is that all those terms (polygamy, polyandry, polygyny, polyamory) are perfectly clear in meaning;

While you are right, it is unclear in many people's minds: they use "polygamy" instead of the accurate "polygyny", and don't understand "polyandry" at all. My Word/Google/Firefox spell checkers don't even, by default, accept "polygyny" as a correct spelling. I had to teach them the word.

Clear in meaning, perhaps, but not in common usage.

"Plural Marriage" is, as a term, precise in this way (at least): the man has many marriages, but the women have no connection to each other by any of these marriages, i.e., they are not married in any way to each other. Each of the resulting families is separate (irrespective of their living arrangements), sometimes geographically, but always as entities.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

"Plural Marriage" is, as a term, precise in this way (at least): the man has many marriages, but the women have no connection to each other by any of these marriages, i.e., they are not married in any way to each other.

Yes, but it could just as accurately describe one woman with many marriages, or any other combination involving 2+ marriages.  Whether the general population uses any given term correctly does not alter that this term imprecisely reflects what the church means by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, zil said:

Yes, but ["Plural Marriage"] could just as accurately describe one woman with many marriages, or any other combination involving 2+ marriages.  Whether the general population uses any given term correctly does not alter that this term imprecisely reflects what the church means by it.

Possibly, but we should revert to the original meaning of "marriage". Women don't "marry", you "are given in marriage". Men, on the other hand, marry, and, anciently, it was he who arranged the whole thing.

With this understanding, "Plural Marriage" is centered on the formal mating pairings of a man, not on the women he may be married to.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I don't see this has been specifically addressed yet, but a few social studies have shown people tend to pick mates more at their own level rather than necessarily the cream of the crop.

This is more-or-less true. It does not change the fact that a man will choose the most desirable available women he can get from whatever pool is before him. Likewise, a woman will choose the most desirable man from the pool she has access to. Whether these pools are limited by geography or otherwise does not change the fact that each will choose the best he can get.

55 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Poly can probaby wreck that.

"Wreck" is an amorphous word. But what it would do is change the dynamics by allowing women to choose better men than the remnants, the picked-overs, those others have not chosen.

It would also allow women from lower status pools to "move up" into other pools because they are depleted by men who have taken multiple wives from the pools on the same levels they were allowed to fish.

Again, under polygyny, it is the lower/est grade men who suffer the most and the most highly desirable women who become gatekeepers for their highly desirable husbands as to whether they can take additional wives. If they permit additional marriages, one might say they, too, suffer. But they are in control, so any suffering is of their own choice.

With polyandry, the sexual roles are reversed with regard to which class suffers and which gains. Nonetheless, the total benefit is higher across the whole population.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While not sleeping this morning (at around 2:30), it struck me that we do have a contemporary example of polyandry, or, perhaps more accurately, polyamory. The huge fraction of unwed mothers, especially in inner cities, where ¾ of children are born to mothers whose "husbands" (however temporary) also have children by other "wives", and whose many children often have different fathers, shows us that polyandry or polyamory is rampant under the welfare state.

It seems possible that the welfare state not only makes this possible, but a rational choice for the women, perhaps for the men, as well, since not only do the mothers not have to worry about choosing a long-term partner to raise her/their children, but, it makes no sense to do so: the state will take the role of provider/protector and will fill it better than most of the men whom she has access to. The men, on other hand, don't need to choose mates to complement them — they can merely spread their seed as far and as widely as testosterone drives them or allows.

Does it work? That's the only question we need consider. It does and it does not. It only does because the state takes resources (money, primarily) from pair-bonded families and subsidizes whatever-in-the-heck these other entities are. Take away the welfare state, and this kind of mating strategy would collapse and disappear. (Whether an unsubsidized system or polyandry or polyamory would work is an open question. I've read of such things, but in one case, polyamory, it was fiction, and in the other, polyandry, I don't recall any of the details.)

Does it work emotionally? I don't know anyone in this kind of situation, so I have no observations up close and personal. However, we can discern a thriving community with this mating structure. The women turn to each other (especially their own mothers and grandmothers) for the emotional support they need, but it seems they don't do well at all in raising the children: murder, stealing, rape, and other violent, along with a pervasive miasma of non-violent, crime accompanies this culture. Death at a young age, usually violent death, is part of the fabric of these communities.

Does it work economically? Were it possible to extract the welfare component, we'd probably see it falter in weeks or months. Partly because there is no incentive for the men to create wealth. They live of of their mothers or "wives" and do nothing useful — just "chill out", have sex, rob, kill, and do a lot of drugs. Take away the money stolen from productive people, and it is a toss up whether they'd go "get a job" or simply increase their criminal activities. There is little to support the former theory, and much to buttress the latter.

But it does work reproductively: the fraction of people in these circumstances has grown significantly over the past five decades, whether the economy grows or not.

So, whether you consider this polyandry or polyamory, it's an aberration that will not positively affect anyone involved (except bureaucrats and politicians): those living it are not well off, those "contributing" are worse off, and there is no reasonable means of escaping the vicious cycle.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

While not sleeping this morning (at around 2:30), it struck me that we do have a contemporary example of polyandry, or, perhaps more accurately, polyamory. The huge fraction of unwed mothers, especially in inner cities, where ¾ of children are born to mothers whose "husbands" (however temporary) also have children by other "wives", and whose many children often have different fathers, shows us that polyandry or polyamory is rampant under the welfare state.

It seems possible that the welfare state not only makes this possible, but a rational choice for the women, perhaps for the men, as well, since not only do the mothers not have to worry about choosing a long-term partner to raise her/their children, but, it makes no sense to do so: the state will take the role of provider/protector and will fill it better than most of the men whom she has access to. The men, on other hand, don't need to choose mates to complement them — they can merely spread their seed as far and as widely as testosterone drives them or allows.

Does it work? That's the only question we need consider. It does and it does not. It only does because the state takes resources (money, primarily) from pair-bonded families and subsidizes whatever-in-the-heck these other entities are. Take away the welfare state, and this kind of mating strategy would collapse and disappear. (Whether an unsubsidized system or polyandry or polyamory would work is an open question. I've read of such things, but in one case, polyamory, it was fiction, and in the other, polyandry, I don't recall any of the details.)

Does it work emotionally? I don't know anyone in this kind of situation, so I have no observations up close and personal. However, we can discern a thriving community with this mating structure. The women turn to each other (especially their own mothers and grandmothers) for the emotional support they need, but it seems they don't do well at all in raising the children: murder, stealing, rape, and other violent, along with a pervasive miasma of non-violent, crime accompanies this culture. Death at a young age, usually violent death, is part of the fabric of these communities.

Does it work economically? Were it possible to extract the welfare component, we'd probably see it falter in weeks or months. Partly because there is no incentive for the men to create wealth. They live of of their mothers or "wives" and do nothing useful — just "chill out", have sex, rob, kill, and do a lot of drugs. Take away the money stolen from productive people, and it is a toss up whether they'd go "get a job" or simply increase their criminal activities. There is little to support the former theory, and much to buttress the latter.

But it does work reproductively: the fraction of people in these circumstances has grown significantly over the past five decades, whether the economy grows or not.

So, whether you consider this polyandry or polyamory, it's an aberration that will not positively affect anyone involved (except bureaucrats and politicians): those living it are not well off, those "contributing" are worse off, and there is no reasonable means of escaping the vicious cycle.

Lehi

 

I had two students a year ago and two years before last. They were half-sisters, daughters of a woman very much like the one you described. She had three other kids, and I don't think any more than two were by the same man. It was a very sad situation as this woman went from man to man, looking for what seemed like emotional and financial support (speaking merely practically, not bad things in and of themselves in the social construct of marriage), only to find things not working in her favor. Unlike other women you describe, she did not seem to have any other social support and I believe the family spent most of last year in a women's shelter. She had a state welfare support system that even then failed her as she was jumping between men and thus "losing" that support. She did not even have a high school graduation and seemingly no skills to generate her own income. Quite a mess.

Regarding such setups working emotionally, I see certain differences between men and women. Women tending to be more gentle can certainly impart plenty of morality, but that gentleness can backfire when there isn't a more masculine sense of discipline and justice to balance out that gentleness.

 

On a side note, I recall hearing about a certain culture somewhere where marriage simply didn't exist in the classic term. Men raised their sisters' children, that's where responsibility lay.

Edited by Backroads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason I thought we were talking about committed relationship. 

Without some form of commitment then the whole "hook up" culture seems to include all the poly's.  Both men and women can have as many different partners as they wish.  But I can't help but think that biology screws the women over in this case, because they are the ones that get pregnant. And nothing in the "hook up" culture gives them support for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, estradling75 said:

For some reason I thought we were talking about committed relationship. 

Well, in some senses, we are. But for this case, I was just looking at the general situation.

 

8 hours ago, estradling75 said:

I can't help but think that biology screws the women over in this case, because they are the ones that get pregnant. And nothing in the "hook up" culture gives them support for that

Indeed, they are the ones who get pregnant, and it's a wonderment that they put up with the hook up culture. In fact, one is forced to wonder why.

It's only the welfare state that permits such a lurid and loose culture. It could not sustain itself without obscene amounts of stolen money. But, in the end, those who pay the highest price for their choices are the women who don't care who their children's fathers are. The next ones (but this order may be disputed) are the children. Then the taxpayers (and, through inflation brought on by magic money, savers), and, finally the fathers who don't know or raise their children. Only politicians and bureaucrats benefit.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Well, in some senses, we are. But for this case, I was just looking at the general situation.

 

Well... my guess would be porn.  In many ways porn reduces the number available males by offering a cheaper alternative to what they desire.  Then is it s simple matter of supply and demand.  With a greater supply of women then men on the market then men get to set the price and women have to meet it or otherwise make themselves more attractive.  And I think that explains quite clearly what we see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Backroads said:

I had two students a year ago and two years before last. They were half-sisters, daughters of a woman very much like the one you described. She had three other kids, and I don't think any more than two were by the same man. It was a very sad situation as this woman went from man to man, looking for what seemed like emotional and financial support (speaking merely practically, not bad things in and of themselves in the social construct of marriage), only to find things not working in her favor. Unlike other women you describe, she did not seem to have any other social support and I believe the family spent most of last year in a women's shelter. She had a state welfare support system that even then failed her as she was jumping between men and thus "losing" that support. She did not even have a high school graduation and seemingly no skills to generate her own income. Quite a mess.

Welcome to my world.  There is a whole segment of our society that lives their lives this way; and I deal with them on a daily basis.

Oh--and, they vote.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Backroads said:

Women tending to be more gentle can certainly impart plenty of morality, but that gentleness can backfire when there isn't a more masculine sense of discipline and justice to balance out that gentleness.

It is said that women civilize men and men civilize children.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

With a greater supply of women then men on the market then men get to set the price and women have to meet it or otherwise make themselves more attractive.  And I think that explains quite clearly what we see.

It explains a good part, but far from all, of the matter.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

It explains a good part, but far from all, of the matter.

Lehi

True... In the past there have been shortages of men due to war or something...  And when that happens we haven't see it go this far before and I think there was biology explanation for that to.  Since women are the ones that become pregnant they always had to place the value of physical intimacy really high.  Because the social and physical cost of pregnancy was very high for them.  So even when the men were sparse there was a limit on how low they could afford to go.

But now we have easy birth control, morning after pills, abortions, and a society saying... be irresponsible and the government will bail you out.   All of which offset or removes the biological cost of pregnancy.  Without that then there is nothing keeping the price high... Therefore supply and demand dictate the new low.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One woman said something along the lines of "We used to have a pact: we didn't give it away, and men were, more or less, forced to marry us. Now he can get it anywhere, so there's no advantage in being chaste any more. Bad girls make good girls irrelevant."

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With polyandry, a man has no reason to think that he is the father of the wife's child/ren, but he has no reason think he cannot be, either. So he, along with his brother-husbands care for her children on the basis of, "well one of them is mine." (The same thing might be true for polyamory, as well.) While his resources may be applied to some other man's child, he, at least, knows the odds and agreed to the deal in advance.

Under both monogamy and polygyny, the husband knows (as well as possible, given a woman's tendency to roam or not) that he is the father of all of his wife's or wives' children, and so dedicates his resources to raising them because they are his. This, as mentioned earlier, is the reason adultery is the serous crime (and sin) it is: it's theft of a man's productivity for as long as it takes to raise someone else's child. The guilty party is the unfaithful wife. Her accomplice is also guilty (assuming he knows she's married), but she is the one perpetrating the theft.

The Law of Moses required a man who raped a virgin to marry her (irrespective of his marital state) because he would be responsible for her and her/their child. Most ancient legal systems had similar provisions and for the same reasons: an adulteress or fornicatrix was pretty well on her own (without any assistance from the state, as today, or her family, who would disown her) in raising the child and even taking care of herself. And prospects were limited primarily to begging and whoredom.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LeSellers said:

With polyandry, a man has no reason to think that he is the father of the wife's child/ren, but he has no reason think he cannot be, either. So he, along with his brother-husbands care for her children on the basis of, "well one of them is mine." (The same thing might be true for polyamory, as well.) While his resources may be applied to some other man's child, he, at least, knows the odds and agreed to the deal in advance.

Interestingly, in the animal kingdom the males will very often kill the progeny of any other male except themselves.  I think as men, the desire not to raise other men's children is hard-wired into us to some degree--a staggering proportion of child abuse, for example, is perpetrated--not by a child's biological father--but by the mother's newest boy-toy.  That tendency might perhaps be part of the reason why cultures where men are responsible for raising other men's children (such as the arrangement Backroads mentions) tend to be out-competed by cultures where men are largely responsible for their own progeny.

Quote

Under both monogamy and polygyny, the husband knows (as well as possible, given a woman's tendency to roam or not) that he is the father of all of his wife's or wives' children, and so dedicates his resources to raising them because they are his. This, as mentioned earlier, is the reason adultery is the serous crime (and sin) it is: it's theft of a man's productivity for as long as it takes to raise someone else's child. The guilty party is the unfaithful wife. Her accomplice is also guilty (assuming he knows she's married), but she is the one perpetrating the theft.

As a crime, from a civic/social standpoint, you have a good point.  But as a sin, from a theological standpoint; I think the major factor making all sexual sin abhorrent is that our whole raison d'etre on this earth is to learn to become a god and to have absolute power over life and death.  If you abuse that power--either by the inappropriate termination or creation of life--you have failed the test in way that is pretty darned close to irreversible.  

Quote

The Law of Moses required a man who raped a virgin to marry her (irrespective of his marital state) because he would be responsible for her and her/their child. 

Probably worth noting that when Deuteronomy is read in conjunction with Exodus 22:16-17, it appears that the victim and/or her family had the right to opt out of the marriage and simply collect the fifty-shekel fine.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share