2005-09-29
13:53
polygamy
Posted by Luke Schierer under morality/religion, politics/law | Permalink | | Leave A Comment
In a turn of events that bodes ill for all, it appears that the Dutch have decided to legalize polygamy.[1] I bet the Mormons and the Muslims will waste no time jumping on this new “right.” How long until we see a push for this here I wonder? Heaven help us when it comes.
[1] Mr. Paul Belien. “First Trio ‘Married’ in The Netherlands” The Brussels Journal 2005-09-27. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301
4 Responses to “polygamy”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Exactly how, pray tell, does this bode ill? Be specific. How does this threaten you personally, or your family, or society at large… I’m curious to hear.
Interesting, a comment from someone I do not know, a first.☺
I may not be able to satisfy your curiosity Mr. Leavitt, and I will certainly prove unable to convince you. I quite purposefully called this site “Random Unfinished Thoughts,” as my ramblings here rarely show sufficient cohesion or coherency to deserve even the minimal traffic that my server logs show. Still, since you request it, I will expand somewhat on my thoughts here.
Marriage, the family, is the foundation of society. You cannot mutate, distort, change marriage without impacting society at large, sometimes in evident ways, sometimes in less evident ways. We learn that death entered the world with a relatively simple act of disobedience, and can take from that reality that sometimes the full consequences of a given course of action have far broader impact that we, as humans, can comprehend.
I do not mean to say though that the effects are always so (apparently) distantly connected. Sometimes the connections are obvious. Looking at divorce, the decision on the part of society to pretend that a marriage (properly understood only as a sacrament) can be dissolved has lead to something that can, I think, only be described as “disaster.” So many children in the United States grow up in single parent families, or in families formed from fragments of two other families. All of these children are scared for life, depending on which study you believe, they have between 30 and 60 percent less likelihood of forming a stable marriage themselves. Even those children whose parents do not divorce are harmed, they grow up flooded with the stories of family shipwreck, and with a societal expectation, perception that marriage is just another contract, to be broken at will for whatever reason. As a Christian people (to the extent that we are still a Christian people), we should be aiming to create a society that supports our efforts to raise good, moral children, not accepting and creating new pressures that must be resisted.
At this point several objections will be raised. What does this talk of divorce have to do with the subject at hand? Am I intolerant, what about the non-Christians among us? And others. I will address the later before the former.
The Collaborative International Dictionary of English (gcide) defines “tolerance” as follows:
A wordy definition, encompassing a variety of distinct ideas, but not at all a poor one. Notably, it defines tolerance rather differently from current societal usage. To endure the actions and choices of others, not to condone or support them. WordNet, another dictionary available to a personal install of the dictd[1] dictionary server, defines “tolerance somewhat differently, somewhat more in line with contemporary usage:
Yet even this definition represents a slight, but significant societal distortion. I recognize the beliefs of others. I respect them. But I know them to be inaccurate where they differ. I utterly disagree with WordNet definition #2, as true freedom is found only in discovery of and response to absolute Truth. There is free will, but freedom is available only if you exercise that choice in certain ways. Yet perhaps the most noteworthy difference between society and the WordNet definition is the inclusion of #5, “permissible difference” and “within limits.” Some actions are beyond tolerance, such as murder. Yet this is no different from marriage laws. Both represent a society enforcing one belief structure (it is wrong to kill; Marriage is between one man and one woman) on its members, regardless of their agreement (the serial murder at least considers himself justified) or disagreement with that belief. I am tolerant. I do endure. But I do not condone deviancy. I will not support it.
And this brings me neatly to the point at hand. How does all this relate to the topic at hand, polygamy and polyandry? Marriage is not simply an act between two people. The creation of a family through marriage also involves societal recognition of the rightness of that union. This is, even in civil marriages, the distinct difference between the married life and co-habitation. The marriage is considered normative, right, and the co-habitation considered lesser, and at least to some extent (entirely to the Catholic world view), wrong. The homosexual couple seeking marriage, or the polygamous group seeking marriage both seek something beyond the legal benefits and protections available to the married couple. Were these alone the goal, proposals of “Civil Unions” would be accepted. They are not, and are in fact logically rejected, because there are benefits of the marriage that are not monetary, are not legal protections. These include the societal support, societal blessing, and societal acceptance of their union.
I am part of society. When society speaks in support of a union, it is, in part, my voice it is speaking with. My voice shall not be raised, with my consent, to support an act I consider immoral. The harm to me and my family here, were it legalized here, is in fact the same harm done to me and mine by the legality of divorce. Children would grow up with a distorted view of marriage. Parents will have yet another idea to combat as they seek to raise their children to be just and good.
Nor is this an entirely hypothetical situation. While Christendom (which admittedly shipwrecked some time ago) has, until now, avoided the evil of polygamy, (the Mormons were driven out from the communities, driven west where they founded their own society in Utah, one that battled with the advancing American population for some time (the justice or lack of justice in that advance is not here considered)), other societies have not. We look at the Muslim societies and we can see the damage that polygamy does: women are not accorded the full measure of respect due to them as persons. Why is the woman subject to “honor killings” but not the man who was necessarily party to her offense? It can only be because the society does not accord her the same level of person-hood that it does to him. While Christendom has not uniformly respected the person-hood of women as it should, our record is never the less far superior to that of the Muslim society. And this is not the only example, for we see the same thing in other societies. Read Wild Swans[2] and tell me that the concubinage of China before World War II respected women. While it differs from true polygamy, both are never the less unacceptably disrespectful to the woman (as polyandry is to the man).
[1] Homepage of the Dict development group. This page provides rather more databases than are generally available to those looking to set up their own server. [2] Ms. Jung Chang. Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China Anchor, 1992. ISBN: 0385425473
Hi! I share your view towards polygamy and the harms it can bring upon a society.
In reference to “Honor Killings”, I would like to clarify that this is a practice not at all endorsed, in fact forbidden, by Islam. It is unfortunate that despite this, some muslim countries allow/turn a blind eye on this matter because of cultural issues. I don’t have enough knowledge on this, so I would refer the following for more reading: http://www.mwlusa.org/publications/positionpapers/hk.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#In_countries_with_Islamic_law
The technical legality or illegality of “honor killings” is really rather irrelevant to my point. As is the support, or lack of support, for it in the tenants of Islam. My assertion is that the behavior is indicative of a population that does not treat women as full persons.