Never again. No more alcohol. Ever. Even for (erev*) Purim. Purim is the Jewish holiday on which it is a mitzvah** to get drunk until the point that you don't know the difference between the holidays hero, Mordechai, and it's villain, Haman.
That's what I decided to do at the pre-Purim party I went to. It didn't work out so well, for me. I got my first hangover ever and it has inspired me to never, ever, drink like that again.
The good news is that, as the Jewish sages teach, "When the wine goes in, the secrets come out," and that the secrets that I had to share proved that I definitely am a frum feminist.
That I'm frum I proved by informing a fella' that I would not be giving him my number because I'm Orthodox and only date Orthodox guys, and by refusing to touch any of the male guests at the party who stuck out their hand for me to shake.
That I'm a feminist I proved through my snarling answer to a guy who tried to tell me that polygamy is not only halachically*** sanctioned, but is actually good for the Jewish people.
Here's a little bit of how the conversation went...
My Friends and Me: "Like, yeah."
(For some reason, the idiot doesn't take the hint that that means that he should bugger off and bother some other girls who might be interested in his idiocy...)
Idiot's Friend: "Tell them your theory about polygamy."
Idiot: "According to halacha, not only is it allowed but actually it's required."
What I should have said: "You're an idiot. Goodbye."
What I actually said: "Um, that's a retarded thing to say."
Idiot: "Seriously! The gezeira of Rabbeinu Gershom (prohibition of polygamy from a 10th Century rabbi) ended 50 years ago. And there's a great Rabbi in Israel who preaches that it's allowed, and even necessary, now.
Me: Do you really want to argue with me about this? I'm a graduate of a BY (Bais Yaakov) type school, remember? You will not win this argument."
Idiot: (Idiotically ignores my warning)
Me: If you insist...
First I pointed out the precept of Jewish law of, "Maaseh avos siman la'banim," which means that something that has become a custom for the Jewish people because the Rabbis collectively decided to follow it, (such as the prohibition against polygamy,) becomes Jewish law by default.This is because, "Torah lo bashamayim hee," which means that when G-d gave the Torah to the Jewish people, he gave the authority over it to the Rabbis who, by majority rule, are supposed to make decisions regarding Jewish law.
Me: "Besides, the prohibition against polygamy was renewed by the rabbis." (Just for idiots like you.)
Idiot: "But this rabbi in Israel is a great scholar, and he says that considering the situation today, where there are more single Jewish women than single Jewish men, it's actually a kindness to allow a man to have more than one wife because it allows more women to get married and have children."
Oh boy. That one really set me off.
I nastilly informed him that his "rabbi" was just one amongst thousands, so his opinion really didn't matter. And that just because he was a Torah scholar that didn't mean that he knew what he was talking about because, "Chochma ba'goyim taamin, Torah ba'goyim al taamin," which is a teaching of the sages that means that even non-Jews have wisdom, but they don't have the wisdom of Torah, so his rabbi could be a brilliant scholar, but that didn't mean that he was scholarly enough to make decisions in Jewish law.
Me: "You just believe this rabbi because you're pro-polygamy. It's a man's mitzvah to get married, not a woman's, and I guarantee that there isn't a single Jewish female out there who so bemoans her fate of being single that she'll willingly marry a man who already has a wife. "
Idiot: "Actually, there are women in Israel who are married to men who have multiple wives - "
Me: "Those women are obviously ill. Polygamy is sexist and abusive and no woman with any self-respect or any sense of self-esteem would degrade herself by allowing another woman into her marriage."
I finished off by advising him to never mention his pro-polygamy opinions again if he ever wanted to impress a girl, refused his invitation to go and get something to eat with him, and walked away without saying goodbye.
You've learned a very important lesson today, chauvinists. Don't mess with a frum feminist. She's highly educated, highly intelligent, and won't take any crap (pardon my French) from you. So don't bother. You'll only end up looking like an idiot.
*erev - in this context, the word means that it's in the time leading up to Purim.
**mitzvah - commandment from G-d, also translated sometimes as, "a good deed".
***halachically - according to halacha, Jewish law
I honestly don't see the problem with Polygamy or Polyandry (woman with multiple husbands), so long as all parties are willing and give their consent.
ReplyDeleteIf 2 woman want to marry 1 man and that is genuinely the wishes of all 3 parties, on what grounds can one deny them?
If 2 men want to marry 1 woman and that is genuinely the wishes of all 3 parties, on what grounds can one deny them?
Because some Rabbi said so?
It doesn't stop there by the way, you can have 5 husbands and 3 wives, 6 wives and 4 husbands, or any combination of these, all married to each other. This may sound absurd, but the question still remains: On what grounds can one deny them this relationship if that is what they all truly want?
You mention :"Maaseh avos siman la'banim," which means that something that has become a custom for the Jewish people because the Rabbis collectively decided to follow it, (such as the prohibition against polygamy,) becomes Jewish law by default.This is because, "Torah lo bashamayim hee," which means that when G-d gave the Torah to the Jewish people, he gave the authority over it to the Rabbis who, by majority rule, are supposed to make decisions regarding Jewish law."
So according to you, if the Rabbis (by majority rule) made polygamy required, made it a custom, and decided to follow that rule/custom, then you would have no problem with polygamy? Is that really all it would take for you to completely switch your views around and become pro-polygamy? I highly doubt that. I think you are against polygamy for much greater reasons, none of which include "Maaseh avos siman la'banim", or the mere opinions of what any Rabbi has to say on that issue. I could be wrong though, but that's the impression I'm getting.
You also mention: "
I nastilly informed him that his "rabbi" was just one amongst thousands, so his opinion really didn't matter. And that just because he was a Torah scholar that didn't mean that he knew what he was talking about because, "Chochma ba'goyim taamin, Torah ba'goyim al taamin," which is a teaching of the sages that means that even non-Jews have wisdom, but they don't have the wisdom of Torah, so his rabbi could be a brilliant scholar, but that didn't mean that he was scholarly enough to make decisions in Jewish law."
Oh? So if this Rabbi was not one of thousands, his opinion DID matter, and he was a great Torah Scholar enough to make decisions in Jewish Law, and he made polygamy required for woman, you would have no problem with polygamy? (same question as above)
Also, I find it interesting how many people get into the Polygamy debate, but never get into the Polyandry debate. Go figure.
What an intriguing dichotomy you present, FF!!
ReplyDeleteYou will drink to excess, which has led many a (Christian women, in my humble experience) woman to touch, or to allow to be touched by, a man inappropriately... yet you won't shake hands with a male at a social gathering because of your religious convictions.
I'm not passing judgment, just saying that it seems like a contradiction in the concept of "being in control" of one's self...
I learn something new everyday -- thank you!
Joe
YA:
ReplyDelete"Polyandry," as you call it, is forbidden by the Torah. As far as I was taught it's because it would be impossible to tell whose baby a woman was carrying if she had more than one husband (today's DNA tests don't count).
You ask on what grounds we can deny someone the right to a polygamous marriage... The answer is on the grounds of halacha. Halacha forbids it. End of story. If you believe in G-d and in halacha, you have to believe that polygamy is not allowed.
Whether I would change my views on polygamy if the rabbis changed their opinion on it is really a waste of time to think about because the rabbis aren't going to change it. I'll worry about my views when they do.
As for the rabbi... Would you get a piece of your brain removed because you have headaches based on the opinion of one doctor when all other doctors tell you that all you need is medication? Anybody who believes a rabbi who says something that no other rabbi agree with is being just as dumb as you would be to go get that piece of your brain removed.
Joe:
ReplyDeleteWould you believe I only had one martini? And a little beer, which is where I think I went wrong. And having not enough body fat makes it pretty bad too, apparently.
It was a mistake and I readily admit that doing it was wrong.
But even if I had done it on purpose and had just let myself get out of control for fun, would it really be such a contradiction for me to still not touch guys? Doing one thing wrong (the drinking) doesn't automatically mean that I should do another thing wrong (touching guys.)
"Whether I would change my views on polygamy if the rabbis changed their opinion on it is really a waste of time to think about because the rabbis aren't going to change it. I'll worry about my views when they do."
ReplyDeleteIt's not a waist of time at all. The issue is not if they will do it or not. The issue is, is the reason you are opposed to polygamy because of a tradition you accepted as binding by halacha? Or is it something deeper?
"Doing one thing wrong (the drinking) doesn't automatically mean that I should do another thing wrong"
ReplyDeleteI agree. I'm just thinking that the potential for inappropriate behavior (and I'm making the assumption that touching men is a no-no because it may lead to sex, no?) is much greater with consuming alcohol than with shaking hands -- which is a social pleasantry based on the ancient practice of showing the other person that your hand was empty and did not contain a weapon (i.e. -- that you were a friend and not a foe).
I understand the religious practice of not touching men other than close family and your husband, but I've often thought that *some* Muslim culture took it too extremes when enforcing the edict.
Shalom,
Joe
Actually its very unclear that halacha really does prohibit polygamy. However there are more than enough reasons to oppose it. (Notice that there is NO happily married polygamous family in the torah, for starters. Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Leah, Pnina and Hanna- all miserable.)
ReplyDeleteInteresting how this guy claims all those women in israel are just dying to share a husband, how come I don't know them? how come none of them are here? Are israeli women THAT different??? Unlikely.
Perhaps he meant Bedouin women in Israel??? Well guess what, not even bedouin women are into sharing husbands these days! Just check out recent article in Jpost and documentaries for bedouin women rising up against polygamy, while this clown is trying to kosher it.
yeshiva guy you are just as crazy, i here this line sometimes from guys who are looking for some sleaze action but don't want to appear chauvinist. so they out with this polyandry-is-ok-too shtick. HA HA just wait until their girlfriend tries it on them and see how fast they change their tune.
what you're talking isn't marriage. marriage is a social institution for the creation of stable healthy families. what you're talking is plain chaos.
regarding the halachic issues: halacha will recognize a polygamous marriage as binding.
ReplyDeletea "herem" is valid only as long as the community upholds it. look at the ban on chassidus for example which disappeared. a herem means excommunication. therefore if the community stops upholding it it's gone. (i therefore urge you to continue opposing polygamy in any shape or form, halacha or no halacha.)
I should also remind you that no herem was ever accepted in sephardi lands until the establishment of the state of israel, thus whats known as herem d'rabennu gershom is actually herem d'rabbanut harashit l'yisrael.
i'm a hand shaker in normal circumstances but not around drunk frum guys. context is everything.
ReplyDeleteActually, the roshei yeshiva have begun actively campaigning for an end to חרם דרבינו גרשם... because its getting to hard to support a family on one income nowadays!
ReplyDeleteI just noticed your title "where i speak my opinions out of the reach of the frum community".
ReplyDeleteIf it takes a martini to get you to speak your opinions TO the community, may I humbly suggest that for you, drinking is a Mitzva as well as a public service?
Tell it to them sister.
Thanks for your comments Kisarita. They're much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteIf a "cherem" (I thought you wrote, "Harem" for a second there...) is instituted through halacha, and is then kept going through halacha, then it BECOMES halacha.
I wouldn't call the cherem one of the Rabbanut because there are too many Jews out there who don't follow the Rabbanut, (for political reasons) and this issue is too important to allow it to get mixed up in politics.
Anonymous1:
ReplyDeleteNo kidding. The guy actually tried to tell me that polygamy is so useful because one wife can go to work while the other one can stay home and watch the kids... This dude was a pig.
Anonymous2:
Hahahaha. Seriously though. Hangovers suck.
I don't know why Rabbenu Gershom should be considered any more authoritive than the Rav HaRoshi Lyisrael.
ReplyDeleteif you don't accept the rabbanut as authoritive then there is no herem, and polygamy would be completely permitted halachically for sephardim (and halacha allows for one to change their tradition by joining a new community, so ashkenazim could easily get away with it too).
My grandpa is a prominent sephardi rabbi, his line is "We could, but we don't want to."
Kisarita,
ReplyDelete"yeshiva guy you are just as crazy, i here this line sometimes from guys who are looking for some sleaze action but don't want to appear chauvinist. so they out with this polyandry-is-ok-too shtick. HA HA just wait until their girlfriend tries it on them and see how fast they change their tune.
what you're talking isn't marriage. marriage is a social institution for the creation of stable healthy families. what you're talking is plain chaos."
It's not about "action" it's about consenting adults joining with the intention of forming a social contract.
I personally would never enter a polygamous or polyandrous marriage of any kind. That doesn't mean I need to be in favor of outlawing such a marriage. Just because of the fact that I am not into that kind of stuff gives me no right to impose my disgust of polygamous or polyandrous relationships on other people who do enjoy that kind of stuff and willingly enter that social agreement. (and yes, they do exist)
On what basis can you say that the other marriages are stable, while the ones I speak of are chaos? I can point you to several polyandrous marriages that are stable (although it's a rare phenomena), and the same thing applies with polygamous marriages.
I just don't see what grounds I can deny consenting people the rights that follow with any marriage contract (hospital visiting rights, inheritance,...etc) simply because I find it disgusting.
You wrote:
ReplyDelete"Don't mess with a frum feminist. She's highly educated, highly intelligent, and won't take any crap from you."
Dear Frum Feminist,
Coming from bais yaacov, and hightly intelligent as you are probably much less educated than you think (though certainly more educated that those jerks at the party).
I'm not expert myself, but my impression of you is that you don't have a really good grasp of halacha. This is not your fault, of course.
You may know a lot of chumash and all, but halacha is not taught in the bais yacov system, with the exception of "do this, do that." You never learn how to study it independently, or how the whole system works.
if you haven't already, see my post All I Ever Need to Know I Learned In Seminary
i would suggest that if it is important to you, consider rounding out your education now, but beware, many frum feminists have had crises of faith upon intense study of halacha. if life is cool, it may not be worth the risk of rocking the boat.
Kisarita:
ReplyDeleteWhat you don't know about me is that my education is not nearly limited to my Bais Yaakov and\or seminary education. Please don't jump to conclusions just because you read a few of my blog posts.
Aside from the excellent halacha classes that I actually DID get in my "Bais Yaakov" type education (what Bais Yaakovs are you talking about that don't teach halacha?) I've actually studied halacha from the sources - from the Shulchan Aruch, tracing back to the Gemarah (though the latter was not, granted, taught at Bais Yaakov). I'm not a Rav, nor do I claim to be, but I know how halacha works. I know how to look halachos up if I have to.
I haven't had a crisis of faith because of studying halacha intensely. Nor do I plan to.
YA:
ReplyDeleteClearly you're uncomfortable with the task of telling others how to live their lives. That's fine. It's not your job to. It's G-d's job.
Not quite, Frum Feminist. We live in a society which upholds a separation of church and state. therefore, Social and legal institutions play a far more important role in regulating behavior. However, YA, in the US of A, there is no law limiting the number of sexual partners a person may have. So you really have nothing to complain about. The fact that we don't recognize it as marriage/ family building is easily backed up empirically by the extreme instability of these arrangements.
ReplyDeleteAnd if there are polyandrous communities out in the Himalayas, or polygamous communities in the sahara, where every one gets a long and life is a bowl of cherries, those are entirely different cultures whose norms frankly are not applicable to us.
Halacha in BY: They teach do this, do that. they sometimes use practical guides. They offer minimal theoretical grounding in הלכות שבת such as מלאכת מחשבת פסיק רישא and stuff like that. that's about it.
ReplyDeleteGemara? verboten. Rambam? Never touched.
Rishonim? Achronim? Unheard of.
Shulchan aruch? maybe, if you go to a more " progressive" place. note the shulchan aruch is a very bottom-line do this do that type of source as well.
Analysis of חילוקי דעות? Never.
Modern day poskim? only the bottom line is presented, and then again, only if it agrees with the school's party line.
Controversial issues in halacha? never touched either.
I don't want to give my schools (and I've been to a few, and most of them are the same) name for fear of disclosing my identity. But pretty much they were so backward, if you asked for rashi's source they would just say "don't you know? rashi had ruach hakodesh!"
I think it's great that you've advanced beyond that and that it has enhanced your life instead of confusing it.
"However, YA, in the US of A, there is no law limiting the number of sexual partners a person may have. So you really have nothing to complain about."
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't even ask it to be recognized as a marriage, I just ask that the same rights be entailed to those people as married people. For example, in a polygamous or polyandrous marriage, if one spouse is sick, the other 2 spouses should be able to have visiting rights. I don't think it's right to tell someone they have no relation to their loved one, so therefore they are not on the important list of people that can visit. There are many other practical benefits that marriage entails that you would be denying them. Simply stating that their marriage is unstable sounds like a pretty flimsy excuse to deny people the same rights you have.
yeshiva guy stop talking out of both sides of your mouth,you say you don't ask it to be recognized as marriage, but continue to refer to them as marriage, spouses, etc.
ReplyDeleteas well as marriage is not about conferring benefits. we confer benefits because we recognize family building units in our society, not the other way around. we don't offer recognition in order to confer benefits.
i'm not denying any one any rights that I have. I have the right to marry one person and so do they. what rights to i have that they don't?
AIFF one of the reasons I concluded that you are not terribly halachically literate is your tendency to back up your points of view with non-halachic material. eg מעשה אבות סימן לבנים.
ReplyDeletewhich is just not the way the system works.
Kisarita:
ReplyDeleteמעשה אבות סימן לבנים actually does come in in halacha. It's the reason, for example, why we still keep two days of Rosh Chodesh sometimes, even though we're certain of the calendar in modern times and no longer have to keep two days for fear that we're keeping the wrong day.
it's a maxim, not a halachic principle.
ReplyDeletemaxims are pithy ways of expressing a philosophical justification but are not part of the legal process.
Could you imagine a judge basing a legal ruling on "Honesty is the Best Policy." That might be true, and it might ultimately enlighten us as to the philosophical rationale on the law, but it really has no bearing on the legal process.
To get more sophisticated example.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal." is (lhavdil) an aggadic statement, not a halachic one. Would a judge quote it? quite likely. Would he base his ruling on it? no. he would instead base them on actual laws of the constitution. (eg the state shall not promote the institution of religion.)
And as a philosophical rationale, maase avot is comparatively weak, especially when talking about polygamy. And especially when there are so many more convincing ones.
Women because of their education tend to base their legal understanding on aggadic statements. Which actually on a moral and ethical level makes sense. but on a practical level, ethics are very murky and subjective, without clearcut legal principles to apply them.
BTW about rosh hodesh. The party line is that now that we have the calendar we know exactly when the new moon is. But the truth is that now that we have the calendar we don't care when the new moon is.
The New Moon does not always fall on the calendar rosh hodesh. I personally always try to keep the correct new moon date. Last Kippur I tried to fast again two days later but couldn't hold up. Not that that changes the argument, but I just couldn't resist.
are you sure it wasn't מנהג אבותינו בידינו?
ReplyDelete(same difference in the end)
There is actually Constitutional debate about whether the the text of the Declaration of Independence can be considered a part of the Constitution and, thereby, used in legislation. I don't have exact cases to quote from right here, but I know that I've read of cases that have used the Declaration of Independence as a premise for legislation.
ReplyDeleteAs you said, lehavdil that we should be comparing the Torah with the Constitution, but in some ways they do work in a similar manner. Laws in our country are based on the Constitution, but they are subject to interpretation through judicial review. How the first amendment's "freedom of religion" clause plays out legally is based on a great number of cases and judicial decisions.
Halacha works in a similar manner, lehavdil. It is based on statements in the Gemarah and arguments of halachis authorities. We do have a Shulchan Aruch, which states the laws one by one, but the Shulchan Aruch was only written because with yeridos hadoros, it was impossible for the average Jew to learn and know the original Halachic arguments and conclusions.
So there is nothing out of the ordinary for a halacha to be based on a statement (or, as you call it, a maxim,) from the Gemarah (or another halachic source,) such as, "Maaseh avos siman labanim," (which is based on a Ramban, I believe.) Hashem gave Torah to the Jewish people - "Torah lo bashamayim hi" - and so the halachic decisions of our Rabbanim are what halacha is made out of.
I haven't personally learned the halacha of when to keep Rosh Chodesh in depth, but the Rav who taught the halacha to me said that we keep more than one day because of, "maaseh avos siman labanim." This is a well-respected Rav and posek, (with a "chezkas kashrus,") who knows halacha and HAS learned it in depth, so I trust that he learned it in enough depth to know that the halacha IS actually based on "maaseh avos siman labanim."
The halacha that states that halacha is based on the words of our Rabbanim is actually based on a discussion in the Gemarah in which the conclusion was, "Torah lo bashamayim hi."
ReplyDeleteThis is a perfect example of a halacha being based on a discussion in the Gemarah and, thus, a "maxim," as you called it.
"yeshiva guy stop talking out of both sides of your mouth,you say you don't ask it to be recognized as marriage, but continue to refer to them as marriage, spouses, etc."
ReplyDeleteNo I'm not. I would prefer they be recognized as married, but if that's not an option, then all I ask is that the same benefits be awarded and that would make me, for the most part, contempt. After all, the word "marriage" is just a word.(although a separate but equal objection can be raised but that's a different conversation) So you're objection is that I used inappropriate wording? Ok, fine. Let's make up a new word, let's call it a social contract.
"as well as marriage is not about conferring benefits."
Fine. Then let them have the benefits and simply not call it marriage.
"we confer benefits because we recognize family building units in our society, not the other way around. we don't offer recognition in order to confer benefits."
So because you don't think it's a family building unit, you think it's right to deny people the ability to have visiting, inheritance, tax..etc privileges (that come with marriages and civil unions in some states) to the people they love and willingly made a social contract with? On what basis can you say a monogamous heterosexual marriage can be a family building unit, while a polygamous or polyandrous "social contract" can't make a stable family?
What exactly do you mean by "family building unit"? Why exactly should that definition (whatever definition you come up with) of stable family unit be subsidized? And what data do you have to support your conclusion that non-monogamous relationships can't result in a stable family unit?
"i'm not denying any one any rights that I have. I have the right to marry one person and so do they. what rights to i have that they don't?"
Firstly, (just wondering here) Would you extend that same argument to homosexual's wanting to get married and say that you are not denying homosexuals the right to marry, since they have every right to marry someone from the opposite sex, and so do I?
If you will try to make a distinction and say something along the lines of "Well, that's different because homosexuals are only attracted to the same sex" I can easly counter by showing you people who are only attracted to having multiple sexual partners.
לא בשמים היא
ReplyDeleteis a perfect example of a maxim, a general philosophical principle, that provides a theological justfication for a certain halachic practice, however no specific halachas are derived from it.
and even when such maxims are used by the gemara, later generations generally do not apply them to decide halachas in other contexts. as you said, they "is based on a great number of cases and judicial decisions"
BTW I do not accept the principle of לא בשמים היא; Surely, the direct word of god, if it was available to us, should be more valuable than our convoluted earthly interpretations of his will. but that is another topic.
applied to חרם על שם רבינו גרשם (sic):
ReplyDeleteyou quote a philosophical principle: we emulate our ancestors.
Obviously this is not a hard and fast law in itself- there are numerous examples in which we do not emulate our ancestors. Rabbenu Gershom himself, in enacting the ban, was departing from the ways of his ancestors.
Thus to explain why the halacha is still valid, you would need to analyze the legal mechanisms involved in the enactment, maintenance, and jurisdiction of a herem.
If you want to argue it at moral, aggadic level, you have a much stronger basis, than "well our grandparents did it so so should we"
(especially for those of us who do not adhere to the traditions of ashkenaz, for whom that doesn't apply at all.)
PS, to refer to something as "aggadic" is in no way to downgrade it, as it often is in the yeshivish world. (the perfect proof of its inferior status is that women are allowed to learn it...)
ReplyDeleteFor me personally, philosophy trumps legalism when it comes to religion. But then again, I'm not a frum feminist.
deny people the ability to have visiting, inheritance, tax..etc privileges (that come with marriages and civil unions in some states) to the people they love and willingly made a social contract with?"
ReplyDeleteone does not require a social contract in order to be visited by any person of one's choosing in the hospital, nor to leave one's inheritance to anyone one chooses either.
"On what basis can you say a monogamous heterosexual marriage can be a family building unit, while a polygamous or polyandrous "social contract" can't make a stable family?"
on biology as well as empirical evidence. polyandry can not make for stable families as it eliminates paternity. and while polygamy is biologically more tenable, socially it is an unstable unit and therefore tends to be reinforced with high levels of authoritarianism.
I don't call homosexual unions marriage either but I definitely have more sympathy for them then people who are only attracted to multiple partners. At least those people seem to be committed to a stable intimate relationship.
But, I bet that people who aren't attracted to one person, unless they suddenly have another person to be attracted to at the same time, must have some severe intimacy issues.
kisarita
Visiting rights:
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about the visiting of the spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Inheritance:
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
There are many other benefits as well
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/1/objectId/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catId/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/
"polyandry can not make for stable families as it eliminates paternity."
Lesbian marriages can also limit paternity and they can be stable.
"polygamy is biologically more tenable, socially it is an unstable unit and therefore tends to be reinforced with high levels of authoritarianism."
How do you know it can't be a stable unit? There are plenty of stable polygamous marriages that are stable with happy woman, man, and children. Who are you to determine if they are not allowed all the benefits we can get?
"I don't call homosexual unions marriage either but I definitely have more sympathy for them then people who are only attracted to multiple partners. At least those people seem to be committed to a stable intimate relationship."
The way you have been categorizing all people like this with one brush (can't be stable unit, not committed to a stable relationship) is somewhat disturbing. Not so long ago it was commonplace for people to make those same arguments against homosexual marriages, even further back it was not uncommon for people to make very similar arguments against interracial marriages. Honestly, you have not provided a justification as to why these types of relationships can't be stable, furthermore, you have yet to even define what a stable family unit is in the first place.
in social sciences, no definition is exact but in general here goes:
ReplyDeletemarriage: social unit for the creation and maintenance of families.
families: site of biological and subsequent social reproduction of society.
gays and lesbians- don't fit the criteria at all so not part of this discussion.
polygamy fits the criteria but is no good for the other reasons mentioned, including but not limited to stability.
You wrote:
"There are plenty of stable polygamous marriages that are stable with happy woman, man, and children"
Oh yeah? Show me them. They sure don't live on my block.
(BTW That's not what you said a few posts ago. you said they were rare).
"marriage: social unit for the creation and maintenance of families.
ReplyDeletefamilies: site of biological and subsequent social reproduction of society."
Wow. I guess infertile couples don't fit the criteria either, since they are not a site of biological reproduction. I'm not sure what you mean by "social reproduction" please elaborate, expand, and be more clear on this issue.
Secondly, I asked you how you define "stable". That is the key word here that is unclear.
"polygamy fits the criteria but is no good for the other reasons mentioned, including but not limited to stability."
Again, how do you know a man and 2 women can't be stable? How do you define "stable" in the first place
"Oh yeah? Show me them. They sure don't live on my block."
Some interesting viewing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OEaRn3uHsc&feature=related
"(BTW That's not what you said a few posts ago. you said they were rare)."
Polyandry is rare. Polygamy is more common.
oh please, you don't mean we're actually resorting to you tube for scientific proof now, do you?
ReplyDeleteinfertile couples: most absolutely DO feel incomplete as a family. hence the huge fertility and adoption industries. yet, they are still married, because they continue to fit the paradigm of marriage in our society.
definitions: i've had enough providing you with nitpicky defintions. how about you providing one for a change? how do you define marriage? from what you've written it sounds like marriage= a group of people of any number or gender who have made a social contract to have sex with eachother and share economic resources. in other words, something like a hippy commune.
"oh please, you don't mean we're actually resorting to you tube for scientific proof now, do you"
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't. You simply asked me to show some, and that's all I did. What's the problem? These are people that are stable and just want the same rights that you have.
"yet, they are still married, because they continue to fit the paradigm of marriage in our society."
Not according to the paradigm you gave me.
"definitions: i've had enough providing you with nitpicky"
Because your definitions are internally inconsistent with your beliefs?
"from what you've written it sounds like marriage= a group of people of any number or gender who have made a social contract to have sex with eachother and share economic resources. in other words, something like a hippy commune."
Yup.
hippy communes are not illegal, they just aint marriage. not even their own members think so. You are welcome to print your own dictionary of course, but don't expect the rest of society to swallow it.
ReplyDeleteAgain, my main contention is the issue of equal rights, not a name.
ReplyDeleteAnd apparently these people do think their relationship should be called marriage.
"You are welcome to print your own dictionary of course, but don't expect the rest of society to swallow it."
Well again, it's really not about the name. If that were all it were, it wouldn't be as big of an issue as it is now. The main thing is the equal rights that heterosexual couples have (visiting during restricted hospital hours, inheritance tax exemption...etc) that they do not.
Many women often complain that there is a shortage of men. Polygamy solves that problem.
ReplyDeleteNo, it really doesn't.
ReplyDelete@kisarita- I do not know which bais yakkovs you are familiar with but the halacha classes you described are nothing like the ones I sat in- and I attended a very typical, Flatbush, yehivish high school and then a typical bais yaakob seminary and Touro college and took halacka classes in each institution. It was far from "do this, don't do that"- we learned from inside the shulchan orach and discussed issues at length- tackling them from different sides until we came to a deeper understanding of the issues.
ReplyDelete