Monogamy - Should Jedi Follow Society's Rules?

Lib Drawde wrote: I had another thought. If you are interested in the polygamist lifestyle then go with it. Your marriage does not have to be a "legal" marriage, what I am trying to say is that you can be married spiritually but never fill out the government paperwork. You would still be married where it matters, this is unless your just after the tax and insurance advantages.

...or being legaly married really matters to you and your children like it did for me. Looking back on my life that public commitment changed a lot for myself and my wife. We settled down, became a lot calmer, more focused. I keep hearing how legal marriages are being brought into conjuction with superficial paper work. Well there are a lot of such legal marriages out there, which work, are more than just paperwork; the only thing is that you never hear much about them. Things which work out usually don`t break the news.

I apologize if what I said offended you. I was NOT trying to belittle legal marriages. What I was trying to say is that if polygamy is important to you then whether or not our government approves of this idea is unimportant. In my heart I do not see one as being better than the other. I probably should not have added the last half of the last sentence.

That`s OK Lib Drawde. Obviously things work out and others not on both sides of the coin. And like you suggested what is really important is that everyone finds that individual special key to unlock their own happiness... not forgetting of course the considering the individual special needs that dependent children have who are directly involved in those relationships. That is a major point, as far as I am concerned, where we all have to think carefully and may be prepared to make cuts to our dearly loved freedoms.

I agree with you that the children in relationships are of the utmost importance. I could not imagine someone not putting their kids needs before their own. Though we hear about this way more than I would like to. Maybe I should add that all those involved in any kind of marriage should meet the legal requirements, I don't care if it is spiritual or not.

My main thoughts are that a Jedi does not make promises lightly and takes a promise very seriously.

This is a complex question with many variables to consider. The best answer for one person won't be right for another.

What I was trying to say is that if polygamy is important to you then whether or not our government approves of this idea is unimportant.

The ban on polygamy nowadays mostly seems to be used to keep certain undesirables out without sounding outright racist.

All in all, what I can think about now, especially with that "promise" post of John, is that a major advantage of polygamy is that you can be honest about "one person isn't enough" and potentially severely reduce the risk of frustration or cheating which usually lead to divorce, which usually leads to hatred, with the kids stuck in the middle. All the divorcees and kids whose parents were divorced are the [strike]#1[/strike] only reason I will not get (officially) married. Common law marriage (british definition of it) seems perfect.

Polygamy sounds complex! I imagine it wouldnt be twice as difficult but exponentially more difficult given otherwise identical conditions compared to monogamy. A benefit of monogamy is you can devote a higher percentage of your time to the other person which means theoretically a greater amount per person. So whatever it is that the participants expect from the relationship might determine if polygamy is suitable or preferred. Likewise for a religious pursuit it depends what the person wants from it. In some ways religion can be a marriage between the person and the pursuit and that concept seems to be a common foundation in asceticism. The concept being that "abstinence from various sorts of worldly pleasures" allows a greater physical and mental commitment to enable a better spiritual relationship. In Christianity chastity, poverty and obediance are not done by the clergy to avoid sin per se, but rather because Jesus was to have said it is the purest lifestyle for those whose aim was to have the closest possible relationship with God. It seems logical from a system theory perspective also, less relationships, less complexity, less variability = greater potential for accuracy. I echo the above posts though in not judging if others chose it and in fact I can think of at least one benefit

Br. John wrote: My main thoughts are that a Jedi does not make promises lightly and takes a promise very seriously.

This is a complex question with many variables to consider. The best answer for one person won't be right for another.

The strict definition of Polygamy, at least as far as some public references are concerned, is that Polygamy (from πολύς γάμος polys gamos, translated literally in Late Greek as "often married")is a marriage which includes more than two partners. So whether the relationship is monoganomous or polygamous there is a serious commitment to be considered. The variables concerned however would depend on the type of society you are living in, the mortality rate, the cultural tradition, and as already mentioned so far the ratio of males to females. If a Jedi were to accept "societies" rules then s/he would have to accept monogamy and polygamy alike, as there are countries which host either one or the other or both. The Laws say different things, but they are all Laws none the less.

- "That the systems of truth in the field of morals, ethics, and religious belief that we have studied are not absolute: they vary by culture, by religion, and over time.
- Jedi Believe"

If a Jedi is for life how could s/he be against polygamy which, due to its probably resulting high birth rate, may secure racial survival? Then there is the element of common sense or reason which is encouraged in the Jedi Doctrine. In werstern society for instance (Europe in particular), how are pensions going to be financed when one man has payed taxes yet two or more women have to be also financed? Either the state would have to pay more (which could lead to bancrupy, especially where people are getting older), or each woman gets only one half or one third of what a monogamous partner would. The same principle applies for social security and health insurance. So would not a Jedi support the Laws in this case because it serves the well being of the public at large rather than just considering personal preferences?

You seem very very old fashioned Apophis. First of all you assume polyandry. Then you assume that the women wouldn't work or pay tax. Then you assume the bread earner who can sustain all his wives will not pay enough in pensions to sustain them, and then, ofcourse you ignore the fact that polyandry doesn't mean that there will be more women. Same amount of women = same amount of pension to pay for. In fact, depending on how the pension system works, if the household comprises of people with an income (pension), and that pension levels from the state depend on household income, polygamists would be at a loss.

In fact that's a positive aspect of polygamy. Out of, let's say 4 parents, only one needs to look after the kids, that's only a "waste" of 1/4 of the resources. In the traditional monogamous relationship, you spend half you resources in home making (or not, but both parents working is bad imo). then, if the earner loses his or her job, it will have immediate impact on family life. When there are two or more earners on top of the home maker, the issue would be barely felt. there would also be no pressure to take whatever job comes along just to earn money, meaning the earners could spend more time looking for jobs they like better. and be happier.

Please explain Ren. Where did I assume Polyandry? I spoke about Polygamy which could include Polyandry of course. And just because I did not mention women as wage earners does not mean that is so, but what would interest me is where did I in my post not assume that women did not work. You seem to be doing a great deal of assuming yourself. As far as the pension is concerned I was thinking about a system where the pension depends entirely on how much was earned in working time irrespective of how many partners be they men or women. So if for example only one member has worked (be that person male or female) then the pension has to stretched more than for example only one partner. Of course if more partners are working then you have a point that would indeed speak for Polygamy.