Polygamy should be allowed
Dr. Jai Maharaj
m_kri...@yahoo.com (M. Krishna) posted:
> Hypocrite organisations like arya samaj, brahma samaj, xyz samaj etc
> tried to start "widow remarraige." Their idea was, this will improve
> the population race against muslims and christians. At the same time
> they banned polygamy for hypocritic reasons. The result was disastrous,
> children born to some widows were outcasted by the orthodoxy and
> they have become rabid hindu haters contrary to what xxx samaj thought.
>
> Instead due to lack of polygamy now, many hindu women remain unmarried.
> This is because there are millions of "whywar<some_number>" kind of
> mediocres who do not become eligible for marraige even after passing
> their '30s but their women counterparts become marraigeable just by
> turning 18. There are only few men who become marraigeable and can
> support more than one wife, but due to this stupid ban, they marry only
> one. Result is falling population. This shows stupidity of xxx samaj
> kind of people. Widow remarraige created anti-hindus and banning polygamy
> reduced the good hindus. They achieved exactly opposite of what they
> themselves
> wanted. So again widow remarraige should be banned and ban on polygamy should
> be lifted. We need to reduce people like "whywar<some_number>"
This is an interesting topic not only from the spiritual,
religious, social and legal points of view but also from
the writing perspective. In this day and age, the masses
tend to follow what they see on the screen. Will Mollywood
and Hollywood entertain portrayals of polygamy and polyamory
in a positive light?
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
adriantullberg
Personally, the thought of two mothers in law is terrifying ...
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <use...@mantra.com> wrote in message
news:poly-14kj7...@news.mantra.com...
Abrigon Gusiq
Mormons got into polygamy for old testament reasons, as well as a way to legally
protect the wives of the fellows.. Those fellow that died, leaving a widow and
kids..
Some say that major outbreaks of homosexual behaviour is due to major stress, a
need for protection, but not for more kids.. Basically the natural order needs
protection but it does not need many more mouths to feed, just strong males..
Lesbians are likely just womens love for each other taken to an extreme. Or cause
of to many males that are abusive and like.
Mike
Abrigon Gusiq
to the US and other nations to marry single males.. Why is this a good idea?
Well, see how many Catholics came about cause the Empire or Catholic Church
married daughters to pagan kings.. The kids became christians.
Mike
aryanviking
adriantullberg wrote:
> Hmmm ... interesting, from a purely sociological point of view.
>
> Personally, the thought of two mothers in law is terrifying ...
---> that is coz you have made yourself a willing slave to feminism ---
Dr. Jai Maharaj
aryanviking <aryan...@europe.com> posted:
> adriantullberg wrote:
> > Hmmm ... interesting, from a purely sociological point of view.
> > Personally, the thought of two mothers in law is terrifying ...
> ---> that is coz you have made yourself a willing slave to feminism ---
Well, undesirable influences from two mothers-in-law, if
any, may actually cancel themselves out. Don't ask me how,
I haven't developed this idea yet.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
> > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
Iyengar BMS
Men having relation with more than one women among hindus ... all over
india. But since Polygamy is not allowed according to Hindu Marriage
act. All the second wifes are called
MISTRESS.. And finally degrade women...
My conclusion is We need to Polygamy allowable under certain
situations.. i know it can be misused abused ... what is it good
now... some married women shown as keeps....just because husband has
more than one wife....
Dr. Jai Maharaj
iyeng...@yahoo.com (Iyengar BMS) posted:
> Interesting facts ....And I support Polygamy...Even today there are
Polygamy, serial or otherwise, is common among Christians
and others in western countries.
Supreme4007
Isn't polygamy forbidden by the US constitution ?
It is certainly an Immigration criterion for exclusion from the country <
even though some communities - eg. Mormons/Utah - have a past of Polygamy.
Today
they have laws forbidding it, I believe; though. it might still exist in
practice ? >
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <use...@mantra.com> wrote in message
news:writing-178...@news.mantra.com...
aryanviking
Supreme4007 wrote:
> Isn't polygamy forbidden by the US constitution ?
> It is certainly an Immigration criterion for exclusion from the country <
> even though some communities - eg. Mormons/Utah - have a past of Polygamy.
> Today
> they have laws forbidding it, I believe; though. it might still exist in
> practice ? >
---> yeah, it does exist in the mormom community to certain extent --
thing is Man by nature is Polygamous -- the banishment of polygamy in
Hinduism can be directly traced to the slavish mentality of Hindu idiots
who have adopted it from Xians ---
Dr. Jai Maharaj
aryanviking <aryan...@europe.com> posted:
> Supreme4007 wrote:
> > Isn't polygamy forbidden by the US constitution ?
> > It is certainly an Immigration criterion for exclusion from the country <
> > even though some communities - eg. Mormons/Utah - have a past of Polygamy.
> > Today
> > they have laws forbidding it, I believe; though. it might still exist in
> > practice ? >
> ---> yeah, it does exist in the mormom community to certain extent --
> thing is Man by nature is Polygamous -- the banishment of polygamy in
> Hinduism can be directly traced to the slavish mentality of Hindu idiots
> who have adopted it from Xians ---
Monogamy was forced by the invading, occupying Christians.
Of course, millions of Christians themselves are polygamous.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
> > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
Dr. Jai Maharaj
http://www.quransearch.com/ntpoly.htm
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
In article <3DC5E818...@europe.com>,
aryanviking <aryan...@europe.com> posted:
>
>
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"Supreme4007" <user...@att.net> posted:
> Isn't polygamy forbidden by the US constitution ?
> It is certainly an Immigration criterion for exclusion from the country <
> even though some communities - eg. Mormons/Utah - have a past of Polygamy.
> Today
> they have laws forbidding it, I believe; though. it might still exist in
> practice ? >
Polygamy - Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.absalom.com/mormon/polygamy/faq.htm
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
M. Ranjit Mathews
> aryanviking <aryan...@europe.com> posted:
>>---> yeah, it does exist in the mormom community to certain extent --
>>thing is Man by nature is Polygamous -- the banishment of polygamy in
>>Hinduism can be directly traced to the slavish mentality of Hindu idiots
>>who have adopted it from Xians ---
>
> Monogamy was forced by the invading, occupying Christians.
Really? On what date did Christian occupiers force monogamy on Indians?
> Of course, millions of Christians themselves are polygamous.
Indeed? How many wives does a typical polygamous Christian have?
aryanviking
M. Ranjit Mathews wrote:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
>> aryanviking <aryan...@europe.com> posted:
>>
>>> ---> yeah, it does exist in the mormom community to certain extent --
>>> thing is Man by nature is Polygamous -- the banishment of polygamy in
>>> Hinduism can be directly traced to the slavish mentality of Hindu
>>> idiots who have adopted it from Xians ---
>>
>>
>> Monogamy was forced by the invading, occupying Christians.
>
>
> Really? On what date did Christian occupiers force monogamy on Indians?
---> Legislation of laws relating to Hindu marriage began from the year
1829 when sati was abolished by law and declared an offence at the
instance of Raja Ram Mohan Roy (now, he never represented the Hindu
majority opinion at that time -- he just was influential and imposed his
personal opinions of entire Hindu society by conspiring with the British
(read Xians). In 1856 Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act legalised the
marriage of Hindu widows. In 1860 Indian Penal Code prohibited polygamy
-- all these are instances of the British (read Xians) intruding into
the internal affairs of the idiot slavish servile Hindus -- cannot blame
others when you have such slavish mentality ---
M. Ranjit Mathews
> ---> Legislation of laws relating to Hindu marriage began from the year
> 1829 when sati was abolished by law and declared an offence at the
> instance of Raja Ram Mohan Roy
He got his Raja title from a Muslim ruler who sent him to London to
argue a certain matter on his behalf.
> (now, he never represented the Hindu
> majority opinion at that time -- he just was influential and imposed his
> personal opinions of entire Hindu society by conspiring with the British
> (read Xians).
Oh dear; what a step backward; Sati abolished:-> FYI, sati was practiced
by a tiny minority of Hindus.
> In 1856 Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act legalised the
> marriage of Hindu widows.
Egad; on top of not being burnt to a crisp; teenaged widows get to marry
again when their old geezer of a husband kicks the bucket. How atrocious!:->
> In 1860 Indian Penal Code prohibited polygamy
How did Muslims continue polygamy with this law in effect? Why did
polygamy have to be made a noncognizable offence in 1955 if it was
already prohibited?
Severn
<j...@mantra.com> "Dr.: Judas Maharaj wrote:
> Polygamy in the Christian bible:
>
> http://www.quransearch.com/ntpoly.htm
What a judas bastard you are, Johnny boy! And completely shameless too!
You actually make use of an Islamic website to justify your position?
You should also read:
http://india30.tripod.com/beef.htm
http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/hinduism/hinduism_unveiled.html#Ramas%20wives
Supreme4007
What's the need for vituperative language over a discussion of facts ?
Instead, you should be grateful to someone who is sharing new information.
Is it a cultural matter too ? This ungrateful attitude and instead a slap in
the face with that ?
No matter how much you try, you cannot erase your past. The Europeans or
American 'Whites' are not about to welcome 'brown' people with open arms and
call them 'Europeans' or 'Americans' just becuase they are following the
'Christian' faith. The people of Indian origin are going to remain people of
Indian origin, no matter how much cosmetics they use to cover up the
appearance or how ardently and fervently they try to profess their
allegiance to 'Christianity' or 'Nationality' or any other object of
identity attachment.
Belittling or lashing out at people is not going to help either.
"M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3DC6293B...@yahoo.com...
Severn
aryanviking wrote:
> ---> yeah, it does exist in the mormom community to certain extent --
> thing is Man by nature is Polygamous -- the banishment of polygamy in
> Hinduism can be directly traced to the slavish mentality of Hindu idiots
> who have adopted it from Xians ---
You people are such effing hypocrites! After all the trash you wrote
about Muslim polygamy, now you are writing trash about Christian
monogamy? Make up your pathetic f**king minds, won't you?
M. Ranjit Mathews
Notwithstanding Jay's posturing, it is an interesting subject:
Polygamy is currently prohibited by almost all Jewish and Christian
groups. It was permitted in early Judaism, as can be seen from the
ancient Patriarchs and the Jewish Kings, although only a minority of
Jews practiced it. It was forbidden by Roman law, and by the time of
the rise of Christianity, nearly all Jews in the West had abandoned
the practice. Nevertheless, it was only in c.1000CE that Ashkenazic
Judaism at the behest of Rabbenu Gershom of Mainz formally banned the
practice.
There are few pronouncements of the early Christian church that
explicitly prohibit polygamy, since it was almost unheard of in
Graeco-Roman society. Early Christians desired to condemn polygamy,
because it conflicted with the prevailing mores of the Graeco-Roman
society in which they lived; yet at the same time they had to explain
the clear permission given for it in the Old Testament. Saint
Augustine demonstrates this conflict in his consideration of the
polygamy practiced in the time of the Old Testament patriarchs when he
writes "The Good of Marriage" (chapter 15, paragraph 17) that though
it "was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now
also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of
begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear
children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to
marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful." He
declines to judge the patriarchs, but he certainly makes the current
illegality clear. In another place, he wrote, "Now indeed in our time,
and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take
another wife, so as to have more than one wife living [emphasis
added]."
In the 5th century both Pope Innocent I and Pope Hilarus issued
explicit decrees against polygamy. As the Church spread into more
cultures that had previously allowed polygamy, the magisterium
continued to condemn the practice, though they also continued to
struggle with the theology of the prohibition. Pope Gregory the Great
advised Saint Augustine of Canturbury that breaking apart polygamous
families that converted to Christianity was a greater sin than the
polygamous relationship itself. Martin Luther wrote in De Wette, II,
p. 459, "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several
wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to
marry more than one wife, he should be asked whether he is satisfied
in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of
God. In such a case, the civil authority has nothing to do in such a
matter."
Kaffir Mohammad
Eeveryone *has to be proud* of one's evry part of history, independent of good
or bad side?
Just becuase some Germans had Jewish holocaust in their history do you think
Germans should be proud of that?
There are many things to be pround of in Indian history.
You are belittling them by showing your pride in sati and other mohammdan
concepts of paedophilia, polygamy etc.
Regards to Ranjit for exposing these sati-supporting bigots like "AV" on this
NG.
I never knew they had existed.
In article <KvHx9.46525$Mb3.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Supreme4007 says...
aryanviking
Severn wrote:
---> Brother -- ideals and ideas do change with age -- I am not an old
sage -- just an young guy -- I guess mormons are true Xians -- polygamy
is the natural path ---
Supreme4007
It is difficult to convey the right degree of emphasis in a few words.
I was not taking pride in sati or polygamy etc.
The particular social circumstances that lead to such practices are,
however, worth more than just a dismissive rejection. It is not a black and
white situation.
My point was that, government interference in social customs enforces an
artificial restraint on people which will lead to other weirder problems -
much more weird and damaging than the original one. < You might note that
some Christians also - Pope Gregory, Martin Luther, etc. (pl. see RM posting
in this thread) seem to be of the opinion that he should not interfere with
such matters (re: polygamy).>
For example, if you forbid sati, it leads to abuse and rape and such things
in the such communities. A degraded existence for the surviving woman. These
are practical matters that affect the whole society. Some other way must be
found.
Similarly, if you make laws forbidding polygamy, people will just ignore it
and continue with the way they like. It will just lead to degradation of the
women involved. A miserable existence as a non-person. It is far better not
to intervene in such issues in drastic ways like that.
The proof of failure of all such mechanisms is all the more clear in the
case of Polyandry (it is also called prostitution - to show contempt).
There are more imaginative ways of dealing with problems like this. Such as
allowing women to start cottage industries to be able to support themselves.
Of course, men are not exempt from this ! Whatever is true for women should
also be done for men equally.
Severn
aryanviking wrote:
>
>
> Severn wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> aryanviking wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ---> yeah, it does exist in the mormom community to certain extent --
>>> thing is Man by nature is Polygamous -- the banishment of polygamy in
>>> Hinduism can be directly traced to the slavish mentality of Hindu
>>> idiots who have adopted it from Xians ---
>>
>>
>>
>> You people are such effing hypocrites! After all the trash you wrote
>> about Muslim polygamy, now you are writing trash about Christian
>> monogamy? Make up your pathetic f**king minds, won't you?
>>
>
>
> ---> Brother -- ideals and ideas do change with age -- I am not an old
> sage -- just an young guy
Being young doesn't mean you have to be stupid and indecisive.
> -- I guess mormons are true Xians -- polygamy
> is the natural path ---
Then you must be in agreement with Muslims that they are on the right path?
Severn
M. Ranjit Mathews wrote:
> Severn <ser...@se.net> wrote in message news:<3DC63D44...@se.net>...
>
>><j...@mantra.com> "Dr.: Judas Maharaj wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Polygamy in the Christian bible:
>>>
>>>http://www.quransearch.com/ntpoly.htm
>>
>>What a judas bastard you are, Johnny boy! And completely shameless too!
>>You actually make use of an Islamic website to justify your position?
>>You should also read:
>>http://india30.tripod.com/beef.htm
>>http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/hinduism/hinduism_unveiled.html#Ramas%20wives
>
>
> Notwithstanding Jay's posturing, it is an interesting subject:
It is, but I'm not about to further Johnny's agenda by seriously
discussing/debating it here.
Kaffir Mohammad
Anyway, I have to completely disagree with you on this account.
You should realize just because there was a potential chance of *abuse* cannot
be a reason for burning a human to death against his/her will.
Yes, we all know the history of sati, coming all the way from Queen Padmini.
But what she did was volunterilly.
No one can be forced to do such thing.
And the government has the right to intervene such practises where violent acts
are committed on people against thier will.
Tomorrow, muslims will demand Jehad against infedals is their religious right.
It can't be tolerated in a civilized country.
For example, communal riots have become a standard in India.
People of different religious (caste??) communities kill each other on what some
stupid guy called Jerry fallwell says in the USA. Do you think government should
not interfere
here too?
About polygamy, the law should be enforced simply because of the way of
controlling population. Come on, we already have more than 1 billion.
That's why I somewhat not believer of democracy in India that much where
majority of the people lack disciplined lifestyle.
"Supreme4007" <user...@att.net> wrote in message
news:9i1y9.28715$VJ5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
> Polygamy in the Christian bible:
>
> http://www.quransearch.com/ntpoly.htm
>
> Jai Maharaj
> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> Om Shanti
>
> In article <3DC5E818...@europe.com>,
> aryanviking <aryan...@europe.com> posted:
> >
> >
> > Supreme4007 wrote:
> >
> > > Isn't polygamy forbidden by the US constitution ?
> > > It is certainly an Immigration criterion for exclusion from the country <
> > > even though some communities - eg. Mormons/Utah - have a past of Polygamy.
> > > Today
> > > they have laws forbidding it, I believe; though. it might still exist in
> > > practice ? >
> > ---> yeah, it does exist in the mormom community to certain extent --
> > thing is Man by nature is Polygamous -- the banishment of polygamy in
> > Hinduism can be directly traced to the slavish mentality of Hindu idiots
> > who have adopted it from Xians ---
> > > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message