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

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

6 hours ago, LeSellers said:

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.  

You're right from a theological standpoint: adultery and other sexual sins are evil because of what they do to both married (or future married) parties. The sinner harms himself, as you indicate, as well as his spouse.

My point was that adultery, especially if it results in a child born to a married woman, constitutes theft of her husband's resources used in raising another man's child. She not only is an adulteress, but a fraud and a thief. And, to the extent that this theft reduces the resources available to his other children, it is also theft from them.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

6 hours ago, LeSellers said:

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.

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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.

Given 50 shekels was about $20,000 in today's money (based on the cost of housing or labor), that was not "simply collecting". My inclination is to believe it would have been more likely her parents would have taken the money if she wasn't pregnant, but forced the marriage if she were.

Just my impression.

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, LeSellers said:

You're right from a theological standpoint: adultery and other sexual sins are evil because of what they do to both married (or future married) parties. The sinner harms himself, as you indicate, as well as his spouse.

My point was that adultery, especially if it results in a child born to a married woman, constitutes theft of her husband's resources used in raising another man's child. She not only is an adulteress, but a fraud and a thief. And, to the extent that this theft reduces the resources available to his other children, it is also theft from them.

Lehi

Up until relatively recently, absolutely.  In this modern age of DNA tests and women being married to one man (who is aware of her situation) but collecting child support from another . . . it all becomes quite dizzying.

2 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Given 50 shekels was about $20,000 in today's money (based on the cost of housing or labor), that was not "simply collecting".

Sure.  My understanding is that if we track it to the modern price of that same amount of silver, it would be $400-$500; but if we take it as the amount of time it would take a working man of that era to accrue such a sum it starts approaching $20-$30K in equivalent value.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

On 8/6/2016 at 9:07 PM, LeSellers said:

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.)

Looking at this from an economic perspective, this will tend to even out the economic structure.  This is assuming, for the most part, the "A" will probably be more successful financially.  He would then have to distribute his money among a greater number of children during the rearing phase and during the inheritance phase.  Additionally, a greater number of children will be in the presence of and be raised by someone who knows how to be successful in their endeavors.  Thus the economic quality of the people in the society improves as well.

On the other end, the poor men will have fewer offspring/heirs and will have less of an impact on society.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Guest

[LeSellers]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Looking at this from an economic perspective,

This is, indeed, a legitimate perspective. In fact, it is, outside the morality itself, the best perspective.

Whether it would work out as you propose is open to debate. Much of the evidence supports your comment.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

On 8/5/2016 at 9:37 AM, zil said:

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'.

I think the issue is resolved by using the classic definition of "marriage", that is, a relationship between a man and a woman.

No, I did not say "one man and many women" because in Plural Marriage, as explained elsewhere herein, the man is married to each woman separately and individually, and there is no joining among his wives: they do not participate in any marriage but their own.

Lehi