For those who will use the predictable argument that just because something is in scripture does not mean god condones it, keep these verses in mind:
Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15 - Inheritance laws for multiple wives in the old law.
2 Samuel 2:18 - Says god would have given David even more wives if he had prayed for them
God never any biblical patriarch for polygamy. Rather, he condemned David for adultery with Bathsheba and Solomon for marrying wives who worshiped other gods.
@chirectomy Good find! Though the Samuel scripture is 2 Sam 12:8. I also like ProfMTH's point about the 10 virgins. I can't believe it never clicked with me that the parable highly implies polygamy.
Sorry about the typo. I also could swear I once read a verse the the old testament that said God "blessed David with many wives and concubines" but I just can't find it again. Of course all this pales in comparison to god condoning what amounts to the rape of captured women in Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. "
"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. "
@ProfMTH Polygamy can refer to a man or woman having more than one spouse at the same time. Polygyny is what is endorsed in the Bible. Polyandry, plural marriage for a woman, is forbidden.
@tadpoleposition I know what all the words means, but thanks for the, um, lesson just the same. Polygny is a form of polygamy.
Of course, polyandry creates a host of practical problems in the biblical concept of marriage--especially as its presented in the Jewish scriptures--since a wife is the property of her husband in that context.
@ProfMTH The Pagan Arabs used to practice polyandry and do a generic DNA test to decide who was the father. Islam abolished such nonsense. I was surprised to find out that although the Quran also endorses polygyny, it is the only religious book that contains the phrase "marry only one". Not to mislead you, this phrase comes after issuing a warning about being just to your wives. Some Muslim apologists make it seem otherwise, rather than explaining it honestly.
1:27 King David, in my opinion, apart from having 8 wives, was at least BISEXUAL, if not GAY. He was romantically involved with Jonathan, the son of Saul. (2Sam.1;27: "Your love fo rme was wonderful !more wonderful! than that of !women!.")
check out the video "gay marriage same sex marriage polygamy question" For the last 2 years people have been commenting trying to come up with a way to distinguish ssm from polygamous marriage and no one has succeeded yet. There are no types of arguments that support ssm that wouldn't equally apply to polygamous marriage.
@miggetymike1 "The video claims to address the point that all arguments in favor of same sex marriage equally apply to polygamous marriage."
No, that's not really the point at all. You might want to watch the video again and pay closer attention. The point is that the Bible condones polygamy. So those who are concerned about polygamy should be concerned about people reading the Bible and seeing how it condones the practice.
"I noticed the comment tried to include bestiality as...
(con't) @miggetymike1 "...as parallel with polygamous and ssm."
Which comment? I said nothing about bestiality in this video.
"God referring to someone as "my servant" hardly means that every one of his actions is acceptable."
Actually, it was the reference to David's keeping all of God's commandments. Feel free to point to the divine command against polygamy that David broke. And then you can explain why Yahweh said David kept all of his commandments when, in fact, David did not.
God referring to someone as "my servant" hardly means that every one of his actions is acceptable. David had an innocent man killed and his son was killed (or stillborn?) because of that so God probably wasn't incredibly happy about that.
@miggetymike1 King David's sin wasn't polygyny (God never condemned him for having multiple wives). His sin was "adultery". David took Bathsheba, who was married to another man. His adultery with her led to his ordering her husband killed. Polygyny was never the issue here. The loss of his infant son was a punishment from God for what he had done.
@fairlightdawn112 "King David's sin wasn't polygamy (God never condemned him for having multiple wives). His sin was "adultery". David took Bathsheba, who was married to another man. His adultery with her led to his ordering her husband killed. Polygamy was never the issue here. The loss of his infant son was a punishment from God for what he had done."
@ProfMTH If polygamy is biblical, because there are evil Christians idiots if fully biblical polygamy? ignorance? or cultural imposition of the Catholic Church?
@ARTEHISTORIAISLAM " If polygamy is biblical, because there are evil Christians idiots if fully biblical polygamy? ignorance? or cultural imposition of the Catholic Church?"
The video claims to address the point that all arguments in favor of same sex marriage equally apply to polygamous marriage. But it's just ascerted that this isn't true. No evidence. btw I noticed the comment tried to include bestiality as parallel with polygamous and ssm, this isn't true because that is distinguishable, animals can't consent to marriage.
@fairlightdawn112 Actually, a concubine by definition is a right-hand possessed maid servant acquired by lawful means. In order to marry a concubine she would first be freed then married. It was lawful to have sexual intercourse with a concubine. It didn't constitute adultery or fornication.
That was great! I've read 3 books about polygamous Mormon wives this past year. It's a fascinating subject. It makes me laugh when I think about those christian conservative politicians who tout "family values." What to hell are they doing with only 1 wife? That especially goes for Mitt Romney.
@voyzovrezon I know. Mitt Romney talks about polygamy as, "...the most disgusting and despicable thing I can imagine." all the while believing in the prophet Joseph Smith who historians believe had 34 wives.
You have even admitted there is no objective morality so on what basis do you condemn polygamy? I also noticed you skipped over the issue of how it is that someone that believes in subjective morality can condemn other people for committing bestiality.
Ok granted that was an assumtion based on what most Americans believe about polygamy. But since you brought it up would you care to clarify if you believe polygamy, incest, etc. is wrong? I don't see how you can say anything is wrong because without objective morality what is "wrong" for you could be right for somebody else.
No, I'm not really interested in changing the subject to morality here. I know many of my Christian interlocutors are eager to get off the actual topic of a video in order to discuss morality, where they believe they have firmer ground on which to stand.
"No, I'm not really interested in changing the subject to morality here."
Maybe you should tell yourself that.
"Where did I 'condemn' it? "
Despite how ambiguous you stated your claim it is still clear that to some extent you are denying that you condemn incest and polygamy. But I can see why it has to be ambiguous. You will shock everyone if you approve of these things outright. But if you do in fact condemn them then you contradict your statement that there is no objective morality.
Incest in the case of a heterosexual relationship, can and may not have a negative consequence on the offspring if there is such an offspring(condom, etc), without this possibility there is no ethical reason as to why two people cannot live together just because they are related by blood. And if one or more than two people wish to live together they can do it without your consent. The problem lies in your mediaeval concept of sin, that is of hurting the law of your imaginary friend.
To summarize my other reply I can see the bind you are in. You will most likely refuse to answer my question as to whether you approve of or condemn incest and other things we Christians deem sin. Despite this I will at least repost this question on your video concerning objective morality so my question matches the subject of the video.
In any case, as I suspected, you're quite eager to go off on your Christian morality talking points. If you'd like to keep it relevant, apply it to the fact that your holy book has no problem with polygamy.
It's simple. You said you were not interested in changing the subject to morality but earlier you ambiguously denied the charge that you condemned polygamy by saying:
"Where did I 'condemn' it?"
So you had already commented on the subject of morality and now that I am asking you to outright approve or condemn polygamy, incest, etc. you refuse to do it.
This law, calls something a crime(sin) based not on the real outcome of an event but on the feelings of your imaginary friend. Today you say as a Christian schizophrenic that you consider incest, polygamy and homosexuality a sin, when in fact your dogma proves that your god has a very different opinion on the first two. So how dare you call polygamy a sin when in fact your god allows it? In the end it does not matter if you are capable of following the orders of an invisible being, you are sick!
@ProfMTH where in the Bible does it say it is OK to have multiple wifes? There were those that did it and if you see the end results it wasnt good, God allows you to make a choice it doesnt mean He agrees with the choice you get my point?
@armoral Genesis 4:19,Genesis 26:34,Genesis 31:17,1 Kings 11:2-3, 2 Chronicles 13:21. god seems pretty ok with polgamy look at Solomon wasnt he one of the chosen ppl by god and he had over 700 wives. than what about abraham and his half sis sarai and hagar? god seemd ok with that
Both incest(Adam and his sons, the daughters of Lot, etc) and polygamy were practised by so called righteous men and their sons in this so called holy book for religious schizophrenics. The taboo of incest is majorly related to heterosexuality, as it relates to the greater possibility of having a sick offspring(law). The polygamy is practiced exclusively by heterosexual men(in the bible). And they are both accepted by your moral lighthouse, the bible joke.
Nobody is scapegoating homosexuals. That is a product of your strawman. First lets dissect your strawman and move on to the real argument. You are claiming that this person is saying homosexuals are responsible for polygamy. What this person is actually saying is that the same logic used to justify gay marriage can be just as easily used to justify marriage between many partners and I dont see why that isnt true.
Yes, I know what the person is saying. And what I'm saying is that your holy book condones polygamy. But instead of being honest about it, people like you prefer to scapegoat other human beings rather than be honest about your scriptures say.
Polygamy is a touchy subject... I'm a Christian and while instinctively I feel like it is wrong after the new law was put into place in the New Testament... I'm still unsure. However, Homosexuality is addressed straight-forwardly in the New Testament and it is not right. I'm not sure why someone would say that polygamy is the fault of homosexuals though.
Not the 'fault' I think but 'results to'. Like Prof's other vid on if homosexuals are allowed marriages, man-animal marriage might be allowed because of it.
Only if the animal gives its consent and I don't see how an animal can give its consent. The same applies to adult-child marriages. We don't think that a child can give its consent as it doesn't understand what a marriage is all about.
As long as two consenting ADULTS agree, it is none of your business whether they are heterosexual or homosexual or have more than one spouse.
im learning something new every day. god loves virgins, specifically 12 year old virgins (mother mary), and now he LOVES his servants who had hundreds of wives and whores on the side. loool. maybe god isn't such a bad guy after all? im really starting to dig this whole jew thing!
I (a straight male) am dating 2 bi-sexual women in a 3-way relationship. We are very happy.
When most people think of polygamy they think of 2 straight women married to one man. That's kind of weird and awkward in my opinion.
When the 2 women are bi-sexual and are dating each other and the man... Then it's great. The women get to enjoy both women and men... and the man gets to enjoy two women.
I know religious by-sexual people in polygamous relationships. The TORAH does not forbid relations between women. Although it is a very controversial subject.
Of course polygamy occurs in the Bible. It wasn't banned in Judaism until the Rabbinic period. So what?
The point is that if we allow same-sex marriage, we will have to allow polygamy on the grounds of equality and mutual consent. Same w/polymory and incestual marriage.
And I've always found it so bizarre how Christians condemn the practice, its all over the damn book. In fact, even "I'm-better-than-everyone-else-Paul" doesn't condemn it. The only way you're not allowed more than one wife is if you desire to be a elder. Then you can only have one. Pity.
The great irony here is the vast majority of Christians are technically guilty of "heresy" in claiming the bible outlaws polygamy. Funny how it goes....
Nice, short and to the point! And wow, looking at the stats on Solomon again, its got "fable" written all over it. So we are to believe he had exactly 1,000 women he could sleep with? As soon as he reached that number he was satisfied? Right.....
I'm sure once you reach 12 wives or so and you have all the power in the world, you'll keep going and going and going.
Moreover, Scripture reports that Solomon's foreign "wives turned away his heart after other gods" (1 Kings 11:4), a violation of the first commandment, and David's multiple marriages led to incest and murder among his progeny." God, Marriage, and family Rebuilding Biblical Foundations by Andreas Kostenberger
For example, the Old Testament reports disruptive favoritism in the polygamous marriages of Jacob (Gen. 29:30), Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:4-5) Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:21). In addition, jealousy was are recurrent problem between the competing wives of Abraham (Gen. 21:9-10), Jacob (Gen. 30:14-16), and Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:6).
"While it is evident, that some very important individuals (both reportedly godly and ungodly)in the history of Israel engaged in polygamy, the Old Testament clearly communicates that the practice of having multiple wives was a departure of God's plan for marriage. This is conveyed not only in Scripture verses that seem univocally to prohibit polygamy (cf.Deut. 17:17;Lev. 18:18),but also from the sin and general disorder that polygamy produced in the lives of those who engaged in the practice."
"That's no unequivocal prohibition on polygamy. Whom do you think you're fooling, Jioia69? You're not fooling me."
Not trying to fool anyone ProfMth...I am just pointing to the fact that those who choose to go against God's design for marriage have unfortunate circumstances happen to them!! That's all I am saying!!
But it's *not* all you were saying. You claimed those passages were unequivocal prohibitions on polygamy, which they're not. So why bullshit about this, hmm?
I know that you do not like it when Christians quote Scripture...but I really can't help when it fits the situation so perfectly!! Don't know what to tell other the that!
"16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16
"I know you do not like it when Christians quote Scripture...."
I have no problem with Christians quoting their scriptures. So, no, you don't know that. What I have a problem with is Christians like you who claim their scriptures say X when in fact they do *not* say X. That's what you did here. You and other Christians who do this are either liars or bullshitters. In either case, it won't be tolerated here. So step up your game, Jioia69 or move your carnival somewhere else. Got it?
If it wasn't HIS design then why did he govern it in HIS TORAH and why does every patriarichal figure throughout the TANAHK have more than one wife, Abraham, Yitshac, Ya'acob, Dawid, Solomon. . .
Not that I support bestiality, but implying animals don't and can't consent is as baseless as saying they're not gay either.
At that level it's little different than two people who don't speak the same language hooking up.
It alternatively projects human morality onto the other animals by suggesting consentual sex is even relevant to them, and if it isn't, then why should it be a factor?
So if they can consent, it should be legal, and if they can't, it's irrelevant.
I speak of consent in the legal way. An animal isn't able to speak and thus is unable to enter into a contract or in any way show its opinion on something.
Yay! Polygamy in the Bible. I'd practice, but finding one good, single, magnanimous, non-possessive, attractive woman that can then turn me, rather than my stomach on, is already a challenge.
And NOO!! The Virgins were Bridesmaids, get it right, even though bridesmaids weren't invented until the Middle Ages. LOL
Don't bother trying to reach this guy. He's just another immature creationist. These people never have the integrity to admit that they are wrong. They do not care about truth. I had this asshole arguing against the theory or relativity the other day. It took him over 24 hours to let go of his childish pride and admit that matter and energy were the same thing, something every high school kid knows. So unless you have 24 hours to waste educating a 50 year old child, I suggest you move on.
Oooh, I don't know about that. When you block them, they win. Now I will be the first to admit that I fully understand that deniers like marklross2 are wholly uninterested in an actual dialog, preferring instead to just ask questions and ignore your answers in an attempt to get under your skin. That's annoying stuff and worthy of ignoring. But in the end, they will use it as a badge of honor. "Look at me, I beat ProfMTH so bad that he blocked me!" That's the ultimate goal here.
Subjecting myself to his unending stream of moronic comments is too high a price to pay in order to prevent him and his circle-jerk buddies from misinterpreting my blocking him as an honor,
You vid so you do what you want, but I agree that blocking people and removing their comments should be an option of last resort and only executed byt YouTube due to deadly serious issues like threats of violence or other such comments. Blocking people is what VenomFangX does, not us.
Did you just assume the bridegroom was to marry all ten virgins? The parable does not specifically say. Perhaps he was to pick only one for the wedding ceremony...otherwise why would the virgins seem to feel as though they were competing - if all were to be included?
I'll take that your answering my question with a question as a concession that the passage says nothing about the women competing with one another, but, rather, the competition thing is an interpretation of yours.
As is the interpretation of yours that all the virgins are to be wed. The passage does not stipulate or imply that. It is very well known that men were often given a choice of which woman he would marry. Your assumption is bogus,...
"It is very well known that men were often given a choice of which woman he would marry."
Really? And where might one find a source for that claim, Marklross2? And will that source give examples of men regularly being given a choice among ten women at the same time? Thanks.
In cultures where arranged marriages were (and still are) used to acquire social status, often a prince, or wealthy bachelor (or their parents) might be presented with many perspective brides from which to choose. That sort of practice has been going on for thousands of years. Of course I won't be able to find documented examples of EXACTLY ten. That does not invalidate the fact that the custom was practiced.
So instead of answering my question, you've gone from your initial claim that "men were often" given a choice among many women to marry to your more recent -- and far less broad -- claim that "often a PRINCE, or WEALTHY BACHELOR ... MIGHT be presented with many perspective brides" (emphasis added). Before you water your claim down any further, Marklross, I'll just ask you whether it's your belief that polygamy is not something one sees regularly practiced in the Bible.
So polygamy is in the Bible - there's plenty in the Bible that we no longer recognize as the current moral structure. SECULAR America has decided not to allow polygamy as well. It is not just the religious.
Marklross2, a bit of research will very quickly reveal to you that the foundation of the ban on polygamy in the United States is religious, not secular. To the extent that there are secular objections, they are usually not to polygamy itself, but, rather, to (1) certain problematic practices that have sometimes attended polygamy, e.g., coercion and the involvement of minors, and/or (2) the potential for significant policy problems in our legal system, if polygamy were permitted -- as one...
...comment on this video noted, probate law would quickly become a very thorny matter.
In any case, the point of my video was twofold: to point out that denying homosexuals the legal right to marry is not a rampart against polygamy *and* polygamy is as biblical as Passover.
oh so what you're saying is that there are problems endemic to polygamy that just make the practice problematic if not abhorrent. Well. is it a surprise that religious people would object?
Actually, no, I didn't say that at all, Marklross2. In fact, I quite clearly said that the secular objection is usually not to polygamy itself. E.g., one needn't outlaw polygamy in order to outlaw coercion and the involvement of minors. Moreover, the religious objections are not about what I've described. But, hey, good shot at trying to twist what I said.
Interesting, I can't find your previous comment where you said there were endemic problems with polygamy. oh well....Regardless your tired old "it's in the Bible" approach to this matter, is polygamy an institution you would say has proven itself to be good for society as a whole?
You said it when you mentioned coercion of minors - oh well...
this society, the one we live in...good? That it is fair to all parties involved and provides an overall positive and stabilizing effect as to the formation of healthy inter personal relationships between all members of society....
"You said it when you mentioned coercion of minors...."
lol Are you actually reading the comments, Marklross2? First, the comment to which you refer -- albeit incorrectly -- appears above. (I can see it as I'm typing this response to you.) Second, I talked about coercion, the involvement of minors, and potentially thorny problems for the legal system to work out. I said nothing about any of these problems being endemic to polygamy. In fact, I noted that the objection didn't go to...
...polygamy itself. Time for you to pay attention.
"this society, the one we live in...good?"
We've never had polygamy on a society-wide basis in the United States. This is like asking me whether a monarchy has been good for the United States -- we don't have one.
ok - since you obviously will continue to be evasive, I guess I will directly challenge the subject of your video. Why do you find it so unreasonable for those who do not favor changing the current definition of marriage to include marriages of same sex to say that allowing that significant change would open the door to other changes?
"Since you obviously will continue to be evasive...."
Evasive? How could I possibly answer a question about whether something has been good for this society when this society has never done it? Stop being a moron.
As for the slippery slope panic that so many opponents of extending the legal right to marry to same-sex couples go on about, I've done detailed videos on the topic. I encourage you to watch those if you're interested in my position. It's too much for a comment box.
You call it extending a legal right. What it is - is changing the definition of marriage to include same sex marriage. ya know - whatever - I give up...
Yep. That's what it is. Perhaps you prefer loaded, kulturekampf-y language about "changing the definition of marriage," but that generates heat rather than light, obscuring the actual matter, i.e., extension of an already existing legal right to couples who currently cannot exercise the right in most jurisdictions. If you find this insufficiently inflammatory, well, that's not my problem.
I'm sure you can present the legal document that records the addition of that right to the Constitution, or the individual state constitutions....I don't remember marriage being described in the same manner as free speech. In fact, even heterosexual couples must apply for a license from the state before they are married. It happens rarely, but legally the state could deny that license...
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:
No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
"I'm sure you can present a legal document that records the addition of that right to the Constitution...."
If you're suggesting that a right must be enumerated in the Constitution in order for it to be protected by the Constitution, you're betraying an ignorance of basic American constitutional jurisprudence. Have a look at the 9th Amendment, which directly addresses your mistaken belief. As for "legal documents," there are 3 Supreme Court decisions that are especially on-point here:...
... Loving v. Virginia; Zablocki v. Redhail; and Turner v. Safley. For a fuller treatment of the topic of the right to marry, have a look at this video I did about it:
/watch?v=1OeYg3MbKx4.
"I don't remember marriage being described in the same manner as free speech."
Well, then, you're learned something here. Marriage is as fundamental a right as the right to freedom of speech. The aforementioned decisions and video will provide you the details.
"In fact, even heterosexual couples must apply for a license from the state before they are married. It happens rarely, but legally the state could deny that license."
First, the mere fact that one must apply for a license doesn't mean that a right isn't fundamental. Before one may hold a parade or a public march or demonstration, one must obtain a permit. The permit application may be denied on various grounds, but that doesn't mean our 1st Amendment speech rights aren't fundamental.
Second, neither the permit nor the marriage license may be denied for reasons that violate the United States Constitution, which protects the underlying rights at issue.
Finally, I'm quite aware of what the federal DOMA says. That's the federal government's current definition of the legal right to marry.
Marriage is not a fundamental right. If it were, the government would have to force women to marry men who would otherwise go unmarried because no one would want to marry them. But if marriage is a fundamental right, then the government MUST enforce that even vile people could exercise their right to marry. What a ludicrous idea you have about marriage.
Loving v. Virginia, "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man." Turner v. Safley, "The decision to marry is a fundamental right."
"If it were, the government would have to force women to marry men who would otherwise go unmarried...."
I've been teaching American constitutional law for a little more than 10 years, and until I read this above-quoted statement I thought I'd heard every truly stupid claim that could be made about...
...American constitutional law. However, you have demonstrated that there is yet more stupid stuff that can be said. The above-quoted moves right to the top of the list. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, Marklross2. Does that mean government forces people to speak? No. The right to vote is a fundamental right. Does that mean the government compels people to vote? No. In American constitutional law, when X is denominated a fundamental right, what that means is that it's among...
...the most basic rights we have and it's afforded the highest level of protection against governmental interference. It most certainly does NOT mean that we're compelled to exercise the right.
Right - the 9th reserves the right "to the people" as to the conference of any rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. that's why the people consistently vote against gay marriage. So, of course you will cite supremme ourt cases. Once the people have spoken, gay activism relies on activists judges to overturn ther will of te people.
"the 9th reserves the right 'to the people' as to the conference of any rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution"
That's not what the 9th Amendment says. You'd best procure a copy of the United States Constitution and read it.
"of course you will cite supremme court cases"
The United States Supreme Court is the highest level in one of the co-equal branches of this republic's federal government. It is charged with interpreting the law of the land, including, without...
Welcome to reality. I read the 9th. "others to be retained by the people." In order to retain a right, the people need to agree upon its existence and definition. That is why we vote. Again, you rely upon the super minority to force your views upon everyone else...oh well welcome to Amerika comrades.....
This is territory I've covered with you, Marklross2. Before I return yet AGAIN to the 9th Amendment, let's review. Everyone of your "interpretations" about the right to marry has been refuted here. You claimed that a license and a permit were not the same, but you could identify no legally (much less constitutionally) significant difference. You claimed that if marriage were a fundamental right, the government would have to compel marriages -- without question the stupidest, most...
...profoundly ignorant takes on fundamental rights that I've ever heard (and I've been teaching this stuff for over 10 years and have heard students say some extremely crazy stuff). And that's just the worst of your stuff here. As for the 9th Amendment, you've claimed that it gives the people the authority to confer rights. It says nothing about that. Among other things, this idea of yours betrays an ignorance of one of the basic tenets of Anglo-American legal/contract theory, i.e., that...
...we come to society with certain rights just by virtue of our being human beings. In other words, society does not give us our rights, but, rather, we come to society with them. We establish government to protect our rights. So why are you wrong? The reasons are many and have already been explained.
Again, Marklross2, I've attempted to correct your mistaken and often quite whacky ideas about American constitutional law. I've done what I can. If you're just going to keep coming back with unsupported bumper-sticker claims, I'm not going to waste my time. Go take a good course on American constitutional law. it will be time well spent for you.
The only course anyone needs in Constitutional law is to read it...it says what it's supposed to. It is you, and your activist judges who try to convince the rest of us that you know better. You don't understand any better than the rest of us, you just have your own version of the truth...good luck with tat...
And yet it's *you* who has been proven wrong at every turn in this exchange. lol Oh, well, Marklross2, clearly you prefer to cling to inflammatory buzzwords and bumper-sticker slogans than anything involving actual knowledge. It's sad really.
Wow, you just don't know how to quit when you're behind, do you, Marklross2? It seems I'll have to embarass you with your own moronic bullshit. OK, you asked for it. Let's return to your claim that marriage isn't a fundamental right because if it were a fundamental right, then the government would have to compel marriages. I'll ask you a couple of questions. Is freedom of speech a fundamental right? Is the right to vote a fundamental right?
Don't be obtuse...Because the right to employment has been elevated to near fundamental status there is an official government program to ensure that those who for whatever reason cannot get themselves hired in the free market place of employment, are ensured employment by the governmental coercion of employers to hire not according to skill and merit, but by government enforced policy.
If I can't, for whatever reason get myself a spouse, if marriage is a fundamental right, then the government must supply a spouse for me. waaaa waaa! Life is unfair! bwaaa haa....
Answer the question you've been asked, Marklross2. You say freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Does that mean the government compels you (or anyone) to speak? A "yes" or "no" will suffice. Let's get to it.
I refuse to allow you to use an apples to oranges comparison. The right to free speech does not hinge upon the person interacting with any other person. Of course the government would not compel someone to speak. But I demand my right to marriage be fulfilled! Give me a spouse!
no - actually speech isn't absolutely fundamental. If your speech is deemed to incite violence, it can be restricted. Even "hate speech" laws marginalize the right to free speech for the sake of hurt feewings aw!
Once again, please answer the question you've been asked, Marklross2. Whether or not one exercise's one's right to freedom of speech is irrelevant to the right being fundamental, correct? Yes or no.
What is relevant is whether you CAN exercise the right or not. If you are denied the opportunity - your right has been infringed. I want to exercise my fundamental right to marriage! But no one will consent to marriage with me. I am being denied my right! oh big gubbament! Y'all better find me a mate lest i file suit!! There is no yes or no - black and white. I know you wish there were, but the world is more complicated than hanky codes...
Prof...I am glad you added the 10 virgin story because most christians will always refute that with "that was the old testament", but I am certain that they will say that was a parable.....but a parable that jesus EQUATES with the kingdom of heaven. Thanks for the video!
Actually, I agree with the Christians and disagree with them at the same time. If more than two adults consent to be married (regardless of their gender and number, as long as it's more than just one person) we should let them.
The christians are so lucky to have you around Prof, you compensate for all the time they DON'T spend reading their 'holy' book. I wonder if any honest christian out there has read the entire bible, not just the parts their pastors point them to.
For those who will use the predictable argument that just because something is in scripture does not mean god condones it, keep these verses in mind:
Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15 - Inheritance laws for multiple wives in the old law.
2 Samuel 2:18 - Says god would have given David even more wives if he had prayed for them
God never any biblical patriarch for polygamy. Rather, he condemned David for adultery with Bathsheba and Solomon for marrying wives who worshiped other gods.
chirectomy 4 months ago
@chirectomy Good find! Though the Samuel scripture is 2 Sam 12:8. I also like ProfMTH's point about the 10 virgins. I can't believe it never clicked with me that the parable highly implies polygamy.
Discern4 4 months ago
@Discern4
Sorry about the typo. I also could swear I once read a verse the the old testament that said God "blessed David with many wives and concubines" but I just can't find it again. Of course all this pales in comparison to god condoning what amounts to the rape of captured women in Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
chirectomy 4 months ago
@Discern4
Just found another verse:
"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. "
1 Kings 15:5.
chirectomy 4 months ago
@Discern4
Just found another verse:
"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. "
1 Kings 15:5.
chirectomy 4 months ago
I blame Jesus for many things. I shall add Polygamy to the list. Thank you ProfMTH :D
Tiwaking 1 year ago
@Tiwaking lol Well, he's not to blame. But he certainly didn't condemn the practice.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Polygamy can refer to a man or woman having more than one spouse at the same time. Polygyny is what is endorsed in the Bible. Polyandry, plural marriage for a woman, is forbidden.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition I know what all the words means, but thanks for the, um, lesson just the same. Polygny is a form of polygamy.
Of course, polyandry creates a host of practical problems in the biblical concept of marriage--especially as its presented in the Jewish scriptures--since a wife is the property of her husband in that context.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH The Pagan Arabs used to practice polyandry and do a generic DNA test to decide who was the father. Islam abolished such nonsense. I was surprised to find out that although the Quran also endorses polygyny, it is the only religious book that contains the phrase "marry only one". Not to mislead you, this phrase comes after issuing a warning about being just to your wives. Some Muslim apologists make it seem otherwise, rather than explaining it honestly.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Marry one, when one is not fair but of course that can be fair it was the prophet Muhammed.
ARTEHISTORIAISLAM 8 months ago
Comment removed
tadpoleposition 8 months ago
@tadpoleposition I'm not questioning the prophet, on the contrary I am saying that you can be fair. AND THAT POLYGAMY IS NATURAL.
ARTEHISTORIAISLAM 8 months ago
1:27 King David, in my opinion, apart from having 8 wives, was at least BISEXUAL, if not GAY. He was romantically involved with Jonathan, the son of Saul. (2Sam.1;27: "Your love fo rme was wonderful !more wonderful! than that of !women!.")
aditzzaaa 1 year ago
@aditzzaaa 2 Samuel 1;26, my mistake :D
aditzzaaa 1 year ago
check out the video "gay marriage same sex marriage polygamy question" For the last 2 years people have been commenting trying to come up with a way to distinguish ssm from polygamous marriage and no one has succeeded yet. There are no types of arguments that support ssm that wouldn't equally apply to polygamous marriage.
miggetymike1 1 year ago
@miggetymike1 "The video claims to address the point that all arguments in favor of same sex marriage equally apply to polygamous marriage."
No, that's not really the point at all. You might want to watch the video again and pay closer attention. The point is that the Bible condones polygamy. So those who are concerned about polygamy should be concerned about people reading the Bible and seeing how it condones the practice.
"I noticed the comment tried to include bestiality as...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @miggetymike1 "...as parallel with polygamous and ssm."
Which comment? I said nothing about bestiality in this video.
"God referring to someone as "my servant" hardly means that every one of his actions is acceptable."
Actually, it was the reference to David's keeping all of God's commandments. Feel free to point to the divine command against polygamy that David broke. And then you can explain why Yahweh said David kept all of his commandments when, in fact, David did not.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
God referring to someone as "my servant" hardly means that every one of his actions is acceptable. David had an innocent man killed and his son was killed (or stillborn?) because of that so God probably wasn't incredibly happy about that.
miggetymike1 1 year ago
@miggetymike1 King David's sin wasn't polygyny (God never condemned him for having multiple wives). His sin was "adultery". David took Bathsheba, who was married to another man. His adultery with her led to his ordering her husband killed. Polygyny was never the issue here. The loss of his infant son was a punishment from God for what he had done.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112 "King David's sin wasn't polygamy (God never condemned him for having multiple wives). His sin was "adultery". David took Bathsheba, who was married to another man. His adultery with her led to his ordering her husband killed. Polygamy was never the issue here. The loss of his infant son was a punishment from God for what he had done."
Indeed. Polygamy was never the issue.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Homosexuality is banned, polygamous marriage, as polygamy is allowed in the Bible.
ARTEHISTORIAISLAM 8 months ago
@ARTEHISTORIAISLAM "Homosexuality is banned, polygamous marriage, as polygamy is allowed in the Bible."
Yes, I know.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
@ProfMTH If polygamy is biblical, because there are evil Christians idiots if fully biblical polygamy? ignorance? or cultural imposition of the Catholic Church?
ARTEHISTORIAISLAM 8 months ago
@ARTEHISTORIAISLAM " If polygamy is biblical, because there are evil Christians idiots if fully biblical polygamy? ignorance? or cultural imposition of the Catholic Church?"
I haven't a clue what you're asking here.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
Comment removed
ARTEHISTORIAISLAM 8 months ago
@ProfMTH Polygamy is natural and biblical, because it is forbidden for a man to have a plural marriage?
ARTEHISTORIAISLAM 8 months ago
Comment removed
ARTEHISTORIAISLAM 8 months ago
The video claims to address the point that all arguments in favor of same sex marriage equally apply to polygamous marriage. But it's just ascerted that this isn't true. No evidence. btw I noticed the comment tried to include bestiality as parallel with polygamous and ssm, this isn't true because that is distinguishable, animals can't consent to marriage.
miggetymike1 1 year ago
can you define concubines because wherever i look i get a different definition
misterstarwars 1 year ago
@misterstarwars It's what known now as a "hoe"
Paulwhoisvegan 1 year ago
@misterstarwars A "concubine" was a wife without inheritance rights.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112 Actually, a concubine by definition is a right-hand possessed maid servant acquired by lawful means. In order to marry a concubine she would first be freed then married. It was lawful to have sexual intercourse with a concubine. It didn't constitute adultery or fornication.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
wow
Solomon was a stud
Katfellow 1 year ago
That was great! I've read 3 books about polygamous Mormon wives this past year. It's a fascinating subject. It makes me laugh when I think about those christian conservative politicians who tout "family values." What to hell are they doing with only 1 wife? That especially goes for Mitt Romney.
voyzovrezon 2 years ago
lol Indeed. Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
@voyzovrezon I know. Mitt Romney talks about polygamy as, "...the most disgusting and despicable thing I can imagine." all the while believing in the prophet Joseph Smith who historians believe had 34 wives.
SuperTheophany 1 year ago
at the root of polygamy is righteous preservation of the heart and family
NoticeOfDefault 2 years ago
How come no one points out that the OT not only talks about polygamists but right out ALLOWS polygamy?
Deuteronomy 21:15
Right of the Firstborn
"15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love,"
Emphasis on "IF A MAN HAS TWO WIVES"
falasteeniyyeh 2 years ago
Because most believers -- at least Christian believers -- prefer to pretend that the Bible doesn't condone what it actually condones.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
You have even admitted there is no objective morality so on what basis do you condemn polygamy? I also noticed you skipped over the issue of how it is that someone that believes in subjective morality can condemn other people for committing bestiality.
reprise92 2 years ago
"on what basis do you condemn polygamy?
Where did I "condemn" it?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Ok granted that was an assumtion based on what most Americans believe about polygamy. But since you brought it up would you care to clarify if you believe polygamy, incest, etc. is wrong? I don't see how you can say anything is wrong because without objective morality what is "wrong" for you could be right for somebody else.
reprise92 2 years ago
No, I'm not really interested in changing the subject to morality here. I know many of my Christian interlocutors are eager to get off the actual topic of a video in order to discuss morality, where they believe they have firmer ground on which to stand.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"No, I'm not really interested in changing the subject to morality here."
Maybe you should tell yourself that.
"Where did I 'condemn' it? "
Despite how ambiguous you stated your claim it is still clear that to some extent you are denying that you condemn incest and polygamy. But I can see why it has to be ambiguous. You will shock everyone if you approve of these things outright. But if you do in fact condemn them then you contradict your statement that there is no objective morality.
reprise92 2 years ago
Incest in the case of a heterosexual relationship, can and may not have a negative consequence on the offspring if there is such an offspring(condom, etc), without this possibility there is no ethical reason as to why two people cannot live together just because they are related by blood. And if one or more than two people wish to live together they can do it without your consent. The problem lies in your mediaeval concept of sin, that is of hurting the law of your imaginary friend.
eldadevata 2 years ago
To summarize my other reply I can see the bind you are in. You will most likely refuse to answer my question as to whether you approve of or condemn incest and other things we Christians deem sin. Despite this I will at least repost this question on your video concerning objective morality so my question matches the subject of the video.
reprise92 2 years ago
"Maybe you should tell yourself that."
Huh?
In any case, as I suspected, you're quite eager to go off on your Christian morality talking points. If you'd like to keep it relevant, apply it to the fact that your holy book has no problem with polygamy.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"Huh?"
It's simple. You said you were not interested in changing the subject to morality but earlier you ambiguously denied the charge that you condemned polygamy by saying:
"Where did I 'condemn' it?"
So you had already commented on the subject of morality and now that I am asking you to outright approve or condemn polygamy, incest, etc. you refuse to do it.
reprise92 2 years ago
You're boring me with your drivel, Reprise92.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
This law, calls something a crime(sin) based not on the real outcome of an event but on the feelings of your imaginary friend. Today you say as a Christian schizophrenic that you consider incest, polygamy and homosexuality a sin, when in fact your dogma proves that your god has a very different opinion on the first two. So how dare you call polygamy a sin when in fact your god allows it? In the end it does not matter if you are capable of following the orders of an invisible being, you are sick!
eldadevata 2 years ago
@ProfMTH where in the Bible does it say it is OK to have multiple wifes? There were those that did it and if you see the end results it wasnt good, God allows you to make a choice it doesnt mean He agrees with the choice you get my point?
armoral 1 year ago
@armoral No, I don't get your point.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@armoral Genesis 4:19,Genesis 26:34,Genesis 31:17,1 Kings 11:2-3, 2 Chronicles 13:21. god seems pretty ok with polgamy look at Solomon wasnt he one of the chosen ppl by god and he had over 700 wives. than what about abraham and his half sis sarai and hagar? god seemd ok with that
ellimist6 1 year ago
@armoral see Exodus 21:10, Leviticus 19:20 and Deuteronomy 21:15-17.
pbhs07 1 year ago
Both incest(Adam and his sons, the daughters of Lot, etc) and polygamy were practised by so called righteous men and their sons in this so called holy book for religious schizophrenics. The taboo of incest is majorly related to heterosexuality, as it relates to the greater possibility of having a sick offspring(law). The polygamy is practiced exclusively by heterosexual men(in the bible). And they are both accepted by your moral lighthouse, the bible joke.
eldadevata 2 years ago
Nobody is scapegoating homosexuals. That is a product of your strawman. First lets dissect your strawman and move on to the real argument. You are claiming that this person is saying homosexuals are responsible for polygamy. What this person is actually saying is that the same logic used to justify gay marriage can be just as easily used to justify marriage between many partners and I dont see why that isnt true.
reprise92 2 years ago
Yes, I know what the person is saying. And what I'm saying is that your holy book condones polygamy. But instead of being honest about it, people like you prefer to scapegoat other human beings rather than be honest about your scriptures say.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Polygamy is a touchy subject... I'm a Christian and while instinctively I feel like it is wrong after the new law was put into place in the New Testament... I'm still unsure. However, Homosexuality is addressed straight-forwardly in the New Testament and it is not right. I'm not sure why someone would say that polygamy is the fault of homosexuals though.
mvickers277 2 years ago
Not the 'fault' I think but 'results to'. Like Prof's other vid on if homosexuals are allowed marriages, man-animal marriage might be allowed because of it.
SkullMech 2 years ago
@SkullMech
Only if the animal gives its consent and I don't see how an animal can give its consent. The same applies to adult-child marriages. We don't think that a child can give its consent as it doesn't understand what a marriage is all about.
As long as two consenting ADULTS agree, it is none of your business whether they are heterosexual or homosexual or have more than one spouse.
TheKilgoretrout 1 year ago
700 wives and 300 concubines. He probably couldn't even remember most of their names. That
guy is a total sex fiend.
AsleepWithDragons 2 years ago
im learning something new every day. god loves virgins, specifically 12 year old virgins (mother mary), and now he LOVES his servants who had hundreds of wives and whores on the side. loool. maybe god isn't such a bad guy after all? im really starting to dig this whole jew thing!
LordHines420 2 years ago
I (a straight male) am dating 2 bi-sexual women in a 3-way relationship. We are very happy.
When most people think of polygamy they think of 2 straight women married to one man. That's kind of weird and awkward in my opinion.
When the 2 women are bi-sexual and are dating each other and the man... Then it's great. The women get to enjoy both women and men... and the man gets to enjoy two women.
Just fyi: We are all secular (non-religious).
(note: most bi-sexuals are not polygamous).
Vindaven 2 years ago
I know religious by-sexual people in polygamous relationships. The TORAH does not forbid relations between women. Although it is a very controversial subject.
keemonta 2 years ago
Good video. Good points.
Vindaven 2 years ago
Of course polygamy occurs in the Bible. It wasn't banned in Judaism until the Rabbinic period. So what?
The point is that if we allow same-sex marriage, we will have to allow polygamy on the grounds of equality and mutual consent. Same w/polymory and incestual marriage.
Aegius 2 years ago
And I've always found it so bizarre how Christians condemn the practice, its all over the damn book. In fact, even "I'm-better-than-everyone-else-Paul" doesn't condemn it. The only way you're not allowed more than one wife is if you desire to be a elder. Then you can only have one. Pity.
The great irony here is the vast majority of Christians are technically guilty of "heresy" in claiming the bible outlaws polygamy. Funny how it goes....
RobotzAreAwesome 2 years ago
Nice, short and to the point! And wow, looking at the stats on Solomon again, its got "fable" written all over it. So we are to believe he had exactly 1,000 women he could sleep with? As soon as he reached that number he was satisfied? Right.....
I'm sure once you reach 12 wives or so and you have all the power in the world, you'll keep going and going and going.
RobotzAreAwesome 2 years ago
Moreover, Scripture reports that Solomon's foreign "wives turned away his heart after other gods" (1 Kings 11:4), a violation of the first commandment, and David's multiple marriages led to incest and murder among his progeny." God, Marriage, and family Rebuilding Biblical Foundations by Andreas Kostenberger
Jioia69 2 years ago
You should look up the word "anecdote".
You have yet to provide a verse that condemns the practice. Why spend so much energy defending what you know deep down isn't true?
RobotzAreAwesome 2 years ago
For example, the Old Testament reports disruptive favoritism in the polygamous marriages of Jacob (Gen. 29:30), Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:4-5) Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:21). In addition, jealousy was are recurrent problem between the competing wives of Abraham (Gen. 21:9-10), Jacob (Gen. 30:14-16), and Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:6).
Jioia69 2 years ago
"While it is evident, that some very important individuals (both reportedly godly and ungodly)in the history of Israel engaged in polygamy, the Old Testament clearly communicates that the practice of having multiple wives was a departure of God's plan for marriage. This is conveyed not only in Scripture verses that seem univocally to prohibit polygamy (cf.Deut. 17:17;Lev. 18:18),but also from the sin and general disorder that polygamy produced in the lives of those who engaged in the practice."
Jioia69 2 years ago
"Deut 17:17"
That's no unequivocal prohibition on polygamy. Whom do you think you're fooling, Jioia69? You're not fooling me.
"Lev 18:18"
That's not an unequivocal prohibition of polygamy. It tells a man not to marry his wife's sister. Again, who do you think you're fooling here?
Doesn't your Bible instruct you to handle your scriptures honestly?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"That's no unequivocal prohibition on polygamy. Whom do you think you're fooling, Jioia69? You're not fooling me."
Not trying to fool anyone ProfMth...I am just pointing to the fact that those who choose to go against God's design for marriage have unfortunate circumstances happen to them!! That's all I am saying!!
Jioia69 2 years ago
"That's all I am saying!!"
But it's *not* all you were saying. You claimed those passages were unequivocal prohibitions on polygamy, which they're not. So why bullshit about this, hmm?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I know that you do not like it when Christians quote Scripture...but I really can't help when it fits the situation so perfectly!! Don't know what to tell other the that!
"16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16
Jioia69 2 years ago
"I know you do not like it when Christians quote Scripture...."
I have no problem with Christians quoting their scriptures. So, no, you don't know that. What I have a problem with is Christians like you who claim their scriptures say X when in fact they do *not* say X. That's what you did here. You and other Christians who do this are either liars or bullshitters. In either case, it won't be tolerated here. So step up your game, Jioia69 or move your carnival somewhere else. Got it?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I believe the correct slang is "Step your game up" :P Just putting in my 2 cents lol. Keep up the good work i love your vids.
ElDominicano317 2 years ago
Is that the correct slang? Funny, 'correct slang' seems oxymoronic, doesn't it? In any case, thanks and thanks for the nice words.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
You're right it is oxymoronic! Guess that's what I get for trying to sound smart :P
ElDominicano317 2 years ago
If it wasn't HIS design then why did he govern it in HIS TORAH and why does every patriarichal figure throughout the TANAHK have more than one wife, Abraham, Yitshac, Ya'acob, Dawid, Solomon. . .
keemonta 2 years ago
Otokogorshi:
Not that I support bestiality, but implying animals don't and can't consent is as baseless as saying they're not gay either.
At that level it's little different than two people who don't speak the same language hooking up.
It alternatively projects human morality onto the other animals by suggesting consentual sex is even relevant to them, and if it isn't, then why should it be a factor?
So if they can consent, it should be legal, and if they can't, it's irrelevant.
yadlashem 2 years ago
I speak of consent in the legal way. An animal isn't able to speak and thus is unable to enter into a contract or in any way show its opinion on something.
Otokogoroshi 2 years ago
so what?
we kill and eat animals.
so why can't we mate with them without consent?
Kurushimus 2 years ago
Yay! Polygamy in the Bible. I'd practice, but finding one good, single, magnanimous, non-possessive, attractive woman that can then turn me, rather than my stomach on, is already a challenge.
And NOO!! The Virgins were Bridesmaids, get it right, even though bridesmaids weren't invented until the Middle Ages. LOL
yadlashem 2 years ago
Don't bother trying to reach this guy. He's just another immature creationist. These people never have the integrity to admit that they are wrong. They do not care about truth. I had this asshole arguing against the theory or relativity the other day. It took him over 24 hours to let go of his childish pride and admit that matter and energy were the same thing, something every high school kid knows. So unless you have 24 hours to waste educating a 50 year old child, I suggest you move on.
h8uall66 2 years ago
Thanks. I've realized this. Now I'm just poking fun at him and his blow-up doll collection. :-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Also a waste of my time, really. So I've just blocked him.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Oooh, I don't know about that. When you block them, they win. Now I will be the first to admit that I fully understand that deniers like marklross2 are wholly uninterested in an actual dialog, preferring instead to just ask questions and ignore your answers in an attempt to get under your skin. That's annoying stuff and worthy of ignoring. But in the end, they will use it as a badge of honor. "Look at me, I beat ProfMTH so bad that he blocked me!" That's the ultimate goal here.
h8uall66 2 years ago
Subjecting myself to his unending stream of moronic comments is too high a price to pay in order to prevent him and his circle-jerk buddies from misinterpreting my blocking him as an honor,
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Ha! It really is a circle jerk. Or an echo chamber if you will.
h8uall66 2 years ago
You vid so you do what you want, but I agree that blocking people and removing their comments should be an option of last resort and only executed byt YouTube due to deadly serious issues like threats of violence or other such comments. Blocking people is what VenomFangX does, not us.
grahamers 2 years ago
Thanks for your opinion, Grahamers.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Did you just assume the bridegroom was to marry all ten virgins? The parable does not specifically say. Perhaps he was to pick only one for the wedding ceremony...otherwise why would the virgins seem to feel as though they were competing - if all were to be included?
marklross2 2 years ago
Where does the story say anything about "the virgins seem[ing] to feel as though they were competing," Marklross2?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Why else would the "wise" virgins refuse to share the lamp oil?
marklross2 2 years ago
I'll take that your answering my question with a question as a concession that the passage says nothing about the women competing with one another, but, rather, the competition thing is an interpretation of yours.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
As is the interpretation of yours that all the virgins are to be wed. The passage does not stipulate or imply that. It is very well known that men were often given a choice of which woman he would marry. Your assumption is bogus,...
marklross2 2 years ago
"It is very well known that men were often given a choice of which woman he would marry."
Really? And where might one find a source for that claim, Marklross2? And will that source give examples of men regularly being given a choice among ten women at the same time? Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
In cultures where arranged marriages were (and still are) used to acquire social status, often a prince, or wealthy bachelor (or their parents) might be presented with many perspective brides from which to choose. That sort of practice has been going on for thousands of years. Of course I won't be able to find documented examples of EXACTLY ten. That does not invalidate the fact that the custom was practiced.
marklross2 2 years ago
So instead of answering my question, you've gone from your initial claim that "men were often" given a choice among many women to marry to your more recent -- and far less broad -- claim that "often a PRINCE, or WEALTHY BACHELOR ... MIGHT be presented with many perspective brides" (emphasis added). Before you water your claim down any further, Marklross, I'll just ask you whether it's your belief that polygamy is not something one sees regularly practiced in the Bible.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Yes polygamy is practiced by the ancient cultures recorded in the Bible. what's your point?
marklross2 2 years ago
My point is that I have a far more solid biblical case for that parable referring to polygamy than you do for it not. Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
So polygamy is in the Bible - there's plenty in the Bible that we no longer recognize as the current moral structure. SECULAR America has decided not to allow polygamy as well. It is not just the religious.
marklross2 2 years ago
Marklross2, a bit of research will very quickly reveal to you that the foundation of the ban on polygamy in the United States is religious, not secular. To the extent that there are secular objections, they are usually not to polygamy itself, but, rather, to (1) certain problematic practices that have sometimes attended polygamy, e.g., coercion and the involvement of minors, and/or (2) the potential for significant policy problems in our legal system, if polygamy were permitted -- as one...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...comment on this video noted, probate law would quickly become a very thorny matter.
In any case, the point of my video was twofold: to point out that denying homosexuals the legal right to marry is not a rampart against polygamy *and* polygamy is as biblical as Passover.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
oh so what you're saying is that there are problems endemic to polygamy that just make the practice problematic if not abhorrent. Well. is it a surprise that religious people would object?
marklross2 2 years ago
Actually, no, I didn't say that at all, Marklross2. In fact, I quite clearly said that the secular objection is usually not to polygamy itself. E.g., one needn't outlaw polygamy in order to outlaw coercion and the involvement of minors. Moreover, the religious objections are not about what I've described. But, hey, good shot at trying to twist what I said.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Interesting, I can't find your previous comment where you said there were endemic problems with polygamy. oh well....Regardless your tired old "it's in the Bible" approach to this matter, is polygamy an institution you would say has proven itself to be good for society as a whole?
marklross2 2 years ago
"Interesting. I can't find your previous comment where you said there were endemic problems with polygamy."
That's because I never made such a comment.
"...is polygamy an institution you would say has proven itself to be good for society?"
Good in what way? Which society?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
You said it when you mentioned coercion of minors - oh well...
this society, the one we live in...good? That it is fair to all parties involved and provides an overall positive and stabilizing effect as to the formation of healthy inter personal relationships between all members of society....
marklross2 2 years ago
"You said it when you mentioned coercion of minors...."
lol Are you actually reading the comments, Marklross2? First, the comment to which you refer -- albeit incorrectly -- appears above. (I can see it as I'm typing this response to you.) Second, I talked about coercion, the involvement of minors, and potentially thorny problems for the legal system to work out. I said nothing about any of these problems being endemic to polygamy. In fact, I noted that the objection didn't go to...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...polygamy itself. Time for you to pay attention.
"this society, the one we live in...good?"
We've never had polygamy on a society-wide basis in the United States. This is like asking me whether a monarchy has been good for the United States -- we don't have one.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
ok - since you obviously will continue to be evasive, I guess I will directly challenge the subject of your video. Why do you find it so unreasonable for those who do not favor changing the current definition of marriage to include marriages of same sex to say that allowing that significant change would open the door to other changes?
marklross2 2 years ago
"Since you obviously will continue to be evasive...."
Evasive? How could I possibly answer a question about whether something has been good for this society when this society has never done it? Stop being a moron.
As for the slippery slope panic that so many opponents of extending the legal right to marry to same-sex couples go on about, I've done detailed videos on the topic. I encourage you to watch those if you're interested in my position. It's too much for a comment box.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
You call it extending a legal right. What it is - is changing the definition of marriage to include same sex marriage. ya know - whatever - I give up...
marklross2 2 years ago
"You call it extending a legal right."
Yep. That's what it is. Perhaps you prefer loaded, kulturekampf-y language about "changing the definition of marriage," but that generates heat rather than light, obscuring the actual matter, i.e., extension of an already existing legal right to couples who currently cannot exercise the right in most jurisdictions. If you find this insufficiently inflammatory, well, that's not my problem.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Is marriage a right?
marklross2 2 years ago
In the United States, yes. In fact, it's been denominated a fundamental right -- one of the most basic and highly protected rights we have.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I'm sure you can present the legal document that records the addition of that right to the Constitution, or the individual state constitutions....I don't remember marriage being described in the same manner as free speech. In fact, even heterosexual couples must apply for a license from the state before they are married. It happens rarely, but legally the state could deny that license...
marklross2 2 years ago
I tried to find legal documentation to support your claim. The only thing I could find was this:
marklross2 2 years ago
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:
No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
marklross2 2 years ago
The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.
marklross2 2 years ago
"I'm sure you can present a legal document that records the addition of that right to the Constitution...."
If you're suggesting that a right must be enumerated in the Constitution in order for it to be protected by the Constitution, you're betraying an ignorance of basic American constitutional jurisprudence. Have a look at the 9th Amendment, which directly addresses your mistaken belief. As for "legal documents," there are 3 Supreme Court decisions that are especially on-point here:...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
... Loving v. Virginia; Zablocki v. Redhail; and Turner v. Safley. For a fuller treatment of the topic of the right to marry, have a look at this video I did about it:
/watch?v=1OeYg3MbKx4.
"I don't remember marriage being described in the same manner as free speech."
Well, then, you're learned something here. Marriage is as fundamental a right as the right to freedom of speech. The aforementioned decisions and video will provide you the details.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"In fact, even heterosexual couples must apply for a license from the state before they are married. It happens rarely, but legally the state could deny that license."
First, the mere fact that one must apply for a license doesn't mean that a right isn't fundamental. Before one may hold a parade or a public march or demonstration, one must obtain a permit. The permit application may be denied on various grounds, but that doesn't mean our 1st Amendment speech rights aren't fundamental.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Second, neither the permit nor the marriage license may be denied for reasons that violate the United States Constitution, which protects the underlying rights at issue.
Finally, I'm quite aware of what the federal DOMA says. That's the federal government's current definition of the legal right to marry.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
A permit is not on the same legal level as a license.
marklross2 2 years ago
"A permit is not the same legal level as a license."
What is the legally significant difference?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Marriage is not a fundamental right. If it were, the government would have to force women to marry men who would otherwise go unmarried because no one would want to marry them. But if marriage is a fundamental right, then the government MUST enforce that even vile people could exercise their right to marry. What a ludicrous idea you have about marriage.
marklross2 2 years ago
"Marriage is not a fundamental right"
Loving v. Virginia, "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man." Turner v. Safley, "The decision to marry is a fundamental right."
"If it were, the government would have to force women to marry men who would otherwise go unmarried...."
I've been teaching American constitutional law for a little more than 10 years, and until I read this above-quoted statement I thought I'd heard every truly stupid claim that could be made about...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...American constitutional law. However, you have demonstrated that there is yet more stupid stuff that can be said. The above-quoted moves right to the top of the list. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, Marklross2. Does that mean government forces people to speak? No. The right to vote is a fundamental right. Does that mean the government compels people to vote? No. In American constitutional law, when X is denominated a fundamental right, what that means is that it's among...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...the most basic rights we have and it's afforded the highest level of protection against governmental interference. It most certainly does NOT mean that we're compelled to exercise the right.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Right - the 9th reserves the right "to the people" as to the conference of any rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. that's why the people consistently vote against gay marriage. So, of course you will cite supremme ourt cases. Once the people have spoken, gay activism relies on activists judges to overturn ther will of te people.
marklross2 2 years ago
"the 9th reserves the right 'to the people' as to the conference of any rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution"
That's not what the 9th Amendment says. You'd best procure a copy of the United States Constitution and read it.
"of course you will cite supremme court cases"
The United States Supreme Court is the highest level in one of the co-equal branches of this republic's federal government. It is charged with interpreting the law of the land, including, without...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...limitation, the federal Constitution. And it is empowered to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. Welcome to America, Marklross2.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Welcome to reality. I read the 9th. "others to be retained by the people." In order to retain a right, the people need to agree upon its existence and definition. That is why we vote. Again, you rely upon the super minority to force your views upon everyone else...oh well welcome to Amerika comrades.....
marklross2 2 years ago
"I read the 9th."
Then you haven't understood it, and I'm growing weary of attempting to remediate your lack of knoweldge about the Constitution.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Oh here we go - my interpretation is wrong - you obviously have the correct interpretation. why?
marklross2 2 years ago
This is territory I've covered with you, Marklross2. Before I return yet AGAIN to the 9th Amendment, let's review. Everyone of your "interpretations" about the right to marry has been refuted here. You claimed that a license and a permit were not the same, but you could identify no legally (much less constitutionally) significant difference. You claimed that if marriage were a fundamental right, the government would have to compel marriages -- without question the stupidest, most...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...profoundly ignorant takes on fundamental rights that I've ever heard (and I've been teaching this stuff for over 10 years and have heard students say some extremely crazy stuff). And that's just the worst of your stuff here. As for the 9th Amendment, you've claimed that it gives the people the authority to confer rights. It says nothing about that. Among other things, this idea of yours betrays an ignorance of one of the basic tenets of Anglo-American legal/contract theory, i.e., that...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...we come to society with certain rights just by virtue of our being human beings. In other words, society does not give us our rights, but, rather, we come to society with them. We establish government to protect our rights. So why are you wrong? The reasons are many and have already been explained.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
The rights we come to society with are our unalienable rights - marriage is not one of those,
marklross2 2 years ago
Again, Marklross2, I've attempted to correct your mistaken and often quite whacky ideas about American constitutional law. I've done what I can. If you're just going to keep coming back with unsupported bumper-sticker claims, I'm not going to waste my time. Go take a good course on American constitutional law. it will be time well spent for you.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
The only course anyone needs in Constitutional law is to read it...it says what it's supposed to. It is you, and your activist judges who try to convince the rest of us that you know better. You don't understand any better than the rest of us, you just have your own version of the truth...good luck with tat...
marklross2 2 years ago
And yet it's *you* who has been proven wrong at every turn in this exchange. lol Oh, well, Marklross2, clearly you prefer to cling to inflammatory buzzwords and bumper-sticker slogans than anything involving actual knowledge. It's sad really.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Hilarious! YOU say I am wrong, based upon YOUR interpretations, and somehow that proves something?
Your presumption is rivaled only by your narcissism...
marklross2 2 years ago
Wow, you just don't know how to quit when you're behind, do you, Marklross2? It seems I'll have to embarass you with your own moronic bullshit. OK, you asked for it. Let's return to your claim that marriage isn't a fundamental right because if it were a fundamental right, then the government would have to compel marriages. I'll ask you a couple of questions. Is freedom of speech a fundamental right? Is the right to vote a fundamental right?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
speech yes
voting - no
marklross2 2 years ago
"speech - yes"
OK, so you say freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Does that mean the government compels you (or anyone) to speak?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Don't be obtuse...Because the right to employment has been elevated to near fundamental status there is an official government program to ensure that those who for whatever reason cannot get themselves hired in the free market place of employment, are ensured employment by the governmental coercion of employers to hire not according to skill and merit, but by government enforced policy.
marklross2 2 years ago
If I can't, for whatever reason get myself a spouse, if marriage is a fundamental right, then the government must supply a spouse for me. waaaa waaa! Life is unfair! bwaaa haa....
marklross2 2 years ago
Answer the question you've been asked, Marklross2. You say freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Does that mean the government compels you (or anyone) to speak? A "yes" or "no" will suffice. Let's get to it.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I refuse to allow you to use an apples to oranges comparison. The right to free speech does not hinge upon the person interacting with any other person. Of course the government would not compel someone to speak. But I demand my right to marriage be fulfilled! Give me a spouse!
marklross2 2 years ago
"Of course the government may not compel someone to speak."
So whether or not one exercises one's right to freedom of speech is irrelevant to the right being fundamental, correct?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Comment removed
marklross2 2 years ago
no - actually speech isn't absolutely fundamental. If your speech is deemed to incite violence, it can be restricted. Even "hate speech" laws marginalize the right to free speech for the sake of hurt feewings aw!
marklross2 2 years ago
Once again, please answer the question you've been asked, Marklross2. Whether or not one exercise's one's right to freedom of speech is irrelevant to the right being fundamental, correct? Yes or no.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
What is relevant is whether you CAN exercise the right or not. If you are denied the opportunity - your right has been infringed. I want to exercise my fundamental right to marriage! But no one will consent to marriage with me. I am being denied my right! oh big gubbament! Y'all better find me a mate lest i file suit!! There is no yes or no - black and white. I know you wish there were, but the world is more complicated than hanky codes...
marklross2 2 years ago
"...no one will consent to marriage with me."
No surprise there.
"There is no yes or no - black and white."
LOL! I *love* when believers go all relativist when they realize they can't defend their own positions.
You've wasted enough of my time. Have a good life.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Prof...I am glad you added the 10 virgin story because most christians will always refute that with "that was the old testament", but I am certain that they will say that was a parable.....but a parable that jesus EQUATES with the kingdom of heaven. Thanks for the video!
MrPerfect1zero 2 years ago
You're welcome. Thanks for the comment.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
The bible isn't even good as toilet paper because the paper is so thin.
boumar19721972 2 years ago
Actually, I agree with the Christians and disagree with them at the same time. If more than two adults consent to be married (regardless of their gender and number, as long as it's more than just one person) we should let them.
uberjim83 2 years ago
The christians are so lucky to have you around Prof, you compensate for all the time they DON'T spend reading their 'holy' book. I wonder if any honest christian out there has read the entire bible, not just the parts their pastors point them to.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
Sure there are: but they're called "atheists".
I think there is direct correlation between percentage of the bible read and lack of belief in such obvious nonsense.
middlekk 2 years ago
;-) Thanks, Andrew. Back from vacation? I hope you had a good time.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I sure did have a great time! Mexico is amazing. If you have facebook you can add me and I have 200 pictures up there.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
My partner uses Facebook. I'll have to use his account -- assuming he allows me to. ;-)
Glad to hear you had a good time. Welcome back.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Thanks a lot, I'll be back to making videos as soon as I get a bigger memory card for my new camera.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
Speaking of marriage, when is God going to do right by Jesus' mom and make and honest woman out of her?
strontiumcrypt 2 years ago
This reminds me of one of the titles Catholics give to Jesus' mother: "Spouse of the Holy Spirit."
ProfMTH 2 years ago