Latest on MJJC

Do you think Michael was marriage material?

I agree with Andrea. I think he was pretty much conservative in his views on marriage and family and dreamt of having one in the traditional way. But at the same time it was also difficult for him to trust people, including women and when he did he often got betrayed. It was difficult for him to meet the right woman who didn't just see the star in him and who would not use and betray him, so at the end he gave it up and focused just on having kids.
 
I belive Michael would have made a great husband, but his heart was already taken. I always thought he had already lost his heart and couldn't therefor have any other woman to make him happy. Michael lost his heart at a very early age to Diana Ross. Age didn't bother him, but not having any change of getting her for himself he tried others, but was always failed by his own heart. Countless times he reminded us and the world where his love was.
After Diana there was only music.
 
Yes. I read Michael was very romantic during his marriage, always bring gifts, flowers, romantic dinner....to please/surprise his wife. Michael was the type loved to please others, always think others first. So imagine being the lady in his life and live with him everyday. lmp said when things going well, they were inseparable, they were one. He was like a drug... even bend over to please her... until he found out she didn't want to have his children. Debbie said several times in her different interviews how devastated Michael was when his first marriage falling apart. I think it's hard for Michael to trust and give his heart to someone, when he did, he always got hurt.
 
Last edited:
I agree. I think he was definitely going to be a good husband (and was), but he had difficulty trusting women and, to be frank, given his career and his personality and his past choices, it would have been really hard (if not nearly impossible) to meet the 'right' woman who would've treated him properly, no bullsh*t type of way.
 
Last edited:
Of course he is marriage material..........his dream was always to have his own family!!!!!


The only problem is that his wives were never marriage material.............


In the early 90's I always thought he would marry Brooke Shields...........
 
Oh yes. I know in my heart he was marriage material. He had alot of love in him. IMO, Michael's problem was his CHOICE in women. It seemed he wasn't to good in his pick of a woman.

I do not agree that Lisa Marie was the love of his life. I believe they did fall for each other BUT it was a total mismatch.Michael needed a strong woman, a GENUINELY strong woman. Not a woman who had the 'appearance' of strength: you know the typical confrontational, combative, brash, potty-mouth, controlling and domineering. But a woman who had the honesty, fierce protectiveness, and who would respect him as her husband and as a man and whom Michael would respect and who would want to be with. Not to mention a woman who was spiritual and who want him to be the father of her children and who had no doubt he was the one for her.

She also had to be strong enough to deal with the life that was involved in being with him. And she also had to know how to deal with Michael as a person. Michael was the type that didn't take to harshness and brashness NOR dominance not clingyness. He seemed like the type that would get stubborn the minute he sinced a person was trying to control him. That's one of the reasons why he and Lisa Marie got into arguements alot. Michael had a stubborn streak, and was used to being a single man and had to adjust to being married. Lisa was a spoiled, pampered, rebellious princess who was used to having her way and expected Michael to say "how high?" when she wanted him to 'jump' so to speak.Not to mention a mother who hated him.

Lisa Marie was not the one for Michael at all.
 
The more I see and learn about Michael, the more I think he would have made the perfect husband (if perfection exists). The only things that make him as a husband maybe imperfect was the life surrounding him, but that's not him, it's just what's been a constant in his life that complicates it all. Fame is not really the ideal medium for marriage, but that doesn't make it impossible, just an added dimension of difficulty. In other areas though, where many marriages struggle, it probably would have been no issue. I stay out of all the financial stuff regarding Michael but I have the impression that financial struggles to Michael have a different meaning than financial struggles to .. well.. me for example, and those can be a heavy burden in life which is also in marriage. He played and had a fun side to him. That would be wonderful in a marriage. You need that sense of play to keep things fresh and happy. He had such compassion. So I would imagine he would have compassion for a wife as well and that is important. He is such a hard worker and I would hope that any woman would be able to respect and appreciate that about him. He's just so cute, his whole personality. I know guys don't like being called cute but ah well. It just adds to every other part of him. I love when a man holds on to that boyish charm that make them irresistible. Oh shoot, now I'm missing men... lol. He also loves his children and all children so that he wouldn't feel jealous about a child if the wife were tucking them in or spending more time with them, in fact, he would probably be the first one there to give that attention to the kids. So it would really be a family unit. A whole and complete family unit. He sees (or seems to see, from what I can tell) us all as connected and so is not so selfish. So I think he would fall naturally into the husband and wife being one and looking at what is best for the family instead of what's best for the individual (which can lead to trouble in a marriage).

I wish there were more people like him. It baffles me that he didn't have a marriage that lasted forever. He just seems like someone who would grow old with the same woman forever in a loving relationship. Like this! ... [youtube]FcN08Tg3PWw[/youtube]
 
enlightenu said:
Oh yes. I know in my heart he was marriage material. He had alot of love in him. IMO, Michael's problem was his CHOICE in women. It seemed he wasn't to good in his pick of a woman.

I do not agree that Lisa Marie was the love of his life. I believe they did fall for each other BUT it was a total mismatch.Michael needed a strong woman, a GENUINELY strong woman. Not a woman who had the 'appearance' of strength: you know the typical confrontational, combative, brash, potty-mouth, controlling and domineering. But a woman who had the honesty, fierce protectiveness, and who would respect him as her husband and as a man and whom Michael would respect and who would want to be with. Not to mention a woman who was spiritual and who want him to be the father of her children and who had no doubt he was the one for her.

She also had to be strong enough to deal with the life that was involved in being with him. And she also had to know how to deal with Michael as a person. Michael was the type that didn't take to harshness and brashness NOR dominance not clingyness. He seemed like the type that would get stubborn the minute he sinced a person was trying to control him. That's one of the reasons why he and Lisa Marie got into arguements alot. Michael had a stubborn streak, and was used to being a single man and had to adjust to being married. Lisa was a spoiled, pampered, rebellious princess who was used to having her way and expected Michael to say "how high?" when she wanted him to 'jump' so to speak.Not to mention a mother who hated him.

Lisa Marie was not the one for Michael at all.
Click to expand...

:clapping:GREAT reply... For a moment, I yelled "Hey, that's totally ME" How :tease:See the 'BOLD part heehee...
Anyway, Though I see Michael as a family man and he would be very sweet as husband... There is indeed that BOLD part which is 'tough' and I also think that 'artists' LIVE for their PASSION and don't need a 'nagging wife' around their ears... It would 'distract' him too much...
FINDING the RIGHT person to live with is like winning the lotery... A one in Million chance...
 
Listening to Shmuley is like an insecure wife nagging you...lol.

Question is, did he consider himself marriage material? It's bound to be a tad tricky to be married to someone who says he's not 'easy to tie down'. And secondly, just imagining dealing with his entourage of people who see your husband as a walking ATM to be pushed into whatever direction of the day gives me stomach cramps.

I don't doubt Michael at all, but a number of outer circumstances were not exactly marriage fertile grounds, either. And maybe he just didn't meet his match, which I think as kind of crucial. Just because someone is loud and witty on the outside doesn't have to mean a creative match for example. He would have needed a female with similar 'attachment parenting' ideals, someone as equally open minded in that aspect in her views of children. Just 'tolerating' his love of children for the sake of the relationship doesn't work.

Being a lifelong bachelor also doesn't aid in smoothing the road in that aspect- what wife would have put up with Murray?
That alone leads me to believe that none of Michael's entourage would have truly left any potential wife and Michael 'alone'.
 
It's hard to know what kind of person is good for someone. Michael seemed to be someone that had problems having relationship with women. Watching the Bashir, Michael came across to me as a lonely person. The dolls in his room. The video games. The extensive shopping, which is a kind of comfort, as psychologists say. Someone who was genuinely shy. I don't think he was in love with Diana Ross, imo it was almost like a maternal bond he had with her. He adored her. And the pics of them together show that bond.
 
Don't hate me for saying this guys, but I think he was just not marriage material at all.

A) He was married to his work, I'm not saying it's not possible to have a balanced life but..

B) He was a perfectionist, anything less than perfect is garbage as far as he was concerned. He would have had to make a choice, a wife? or his music? And Michael without music is just... I can't even find a word to describe it.

It has nothing to do with children since he already has three beautiful kids.

Think of it this way, it's not about giving attention to a spouse, rather it's about taking away attention from his passion. That's what I think his problem was IMO.
 
I don't think of marriage as being anything more than merely a tool to advance one's political, social, and/or financial position (as history has proven throughout the ages--this idea of "love" having anything to do with it is so 20th century...)With that said, I know he wanted it, but he was one of those hopeless romantics, for better or for worse. In reality, these things don't really exist, and I think he had a difficult time realizing this. It's a shame, because he was a great person, and I think he would have made a suitable partner.

I think his marriages failed because of circumstances and events outside his control, as some have said, and general lack of compatibility between himself and the women he chose. Sharing similar values and holding a certain amount of respect, if not downright camaraderie, is essential for any two (or more) people living together (just ask college kids). Whenever disharmony exists between point A and point B, things will not work out, and this can be observed in Lisa Marie's attempts to use and control Michael, and later on in Debbie Rowe's entire nature (she's truly a vile woman, IMO). No matter what, if one of the two parties is seeking to profit from the other in a parasitic manner, conflict will inevitably ensue, and rightfully so.

With that said, I think Michael wanted to form a union with a woman very badly, but also very much on his own terms (he did have a certain stubbornness...), and I think a large part of his own vision of how this should be carried about was formed by the fantasy our current culture/society conditions us to believe in.

Ultimately, I think he missed nothing. He seemed a lot happier being a single dad than having to deal with the pettiness of marriage.
 
Severus Snape said:
I don't think of marriage as being anything more than merely a tool to advance one's political, social, and/or financial position (as history has proven throughout the ages--this idea of "love" having anything to do with it is so 20th century...)With that said, I know he wanted it, but he was one of those hopeless romantics, for better or for worse. In reality, these things don't really exist, and I think he had a difficult time realizing this. It's a shame, because he was a great person, and I think he would have made a suitable partner.

I think his marriages failed because of circumstances and events outside his control, as some have said, and general lack of compatibility between himself and the women he chose. Sharing similar values and holding a certain amount of respect, if not downright camaraderie, is essential for any two (or more) people living together (just ask college kids). Whenever disharmony exists between point A and point B, things will not work out, and this can be observed in Lisa Marie's attempts to use and control Michael, and later on in Debbie Rowe's entire nature (she's truly a vile woman, IMO). No matter what, if one of the two parties is seeking to profit from the other in a parasitic manner, conflict will inevitably ensue, and rightfully so.

With that said, I think Michael wanted to form a union with a woman very badly, but also very much on his own terms (he did have a certain stubbornness...), and I think a large part of his own vision of how this should be carried about was formed by the fantasy our current culture/society conditions us to believe in.

Ultimately, I think he missed nothing. He seemed a lot happier being a single dad than having to deal with the pettiness of marriage.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your analysis, maybe except for the last sentence. I agree with you that marriage isn't for everyone and often people only marry because that's what is expected from them by their families, society etc. [For example I'm not someone who wishes to marry.]

But I'm not sure if Michael was that kind of person. I think the reason why he spent so much time with families (eg. the Cascios and so on) because he was really longing for a family like that. I think he wasn't happy alone, but he felt very lonely. And had he found the right woman he was the kind of person who could have been a very happy married man.
 
respect77 said:
I think the reason why he spent so much time with families (eg. the Cascios and so on) because he was really longing for a family like that. I think he wasn't happy alone, but he felt very lonely. And had he found the right woman he was the kind of person who could have been a very happy married man.
Click to expand...

Michael's case was peculiar because what he wanted was to reconstruct the tattered pieces of his own childhood and family life, and he saw marriage as a way to possibly achieve that and reach the "wholeness" he was desperately looking for throughout his life (his penchant for spending time with families is a behavioural manifestation of this desire). However, that has nothing to do with a husband/wife relationship as modernly viewed. Although he was a hopeless romantic in some ways, his one true interest was to have a family--the marriage would then be a tool with which to achieve this, and in and of itself, I think it would be quite extraneous and irrelevant. However, he was not entirely immune to the modern cultural idealization of marriage as a union of "love" or whatever. Since monogamous lifetime union is quite deviant behaviour amongst mammals such as ourselves, I daresay none of us are really "marriage material," Michael included.

However, I think Michael was a perfect candidate for a family man. He had the right combination of tenderness and authority, which is why PPB are such outstanding children. He was what psychologists like to call an "authoritative" parent--a parent who is just, and rules with tenderness and a firm hand, establishing clear rules, rewards for adherence to these, and reasonable consequences for transgressions. As you can see, I consider marriage and family to be entirely distinct things, simply because of the existence of single-parent families ( and non-nuclear/adoptive families), and the absence of children in some marriages. Traditionalists like to combine the two, but reason and evidence tell us otherwise.

I never claimed being a single dad was his ideal (he was pretty clear on what he wanted), nor that he was entirely happy with his circumstances, however, I think he was happier raising his children as a single dad than he was in either of his marriages--you can see it in his face, those children were his life, they and they alone could give him a taste of that closeness neither Lisa Marie nor Debbie Rowe were willing/able to provide.

Edit: I hope this makes sense. I apologize in advance if I'm incoherent--I'm under the influence of my pain meds at the moment, so I keep forgetting the things I wanted to talk about.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, Pre HIStory, I don't think he was because he was so busy, recording, touring. Not enough time for a marriage, as Michael said to Oprah in 1991 'I'm married to my work' which we was, but as soon as he had Prince, i think that was the time he wanted to settle down and create a good happy family for his children to grow up with. Even though I thought Lisa and Michael suited a lot, and they were perfect, just a shame Lisa didn't want to give him kids yet.
 
Other people's rejection and views of marriage as 'new romantic construct devoid of reality' has absolutely nothing to do with Michael himself. In fact, all of us are speculating.

Marriage does not have to be a fruitless endeavor for people forcing themselves into an 'illusion of forced monogamy'- marriage is whatever you make it out to be and however YOU understand it to be. It is time we stopped condemning another's search for what makes them happy in life. And I really don't care if you're gay, swinging through the clubs or have been married for 30 years.

Other people's view on marriage has absolutely zero to do with Michael- who most obviously had his own understanding of marriage- as he more or less demonstrated.

Unless we all agree on what "marriage material" is, this is going to remain pretty shallow.

*happily married and very much understanding WHY Michael spent so much time with other families such as the Cascios*
 
Pace said:
Other people's rejection and views of marriage as 'new romantic construct devoid of reality' has absolutely nothing to do with Michael himself. In fact, all of us are speculating.

Marriage does not have to be a fruitless endeavor for people forcing themselves into an 'illusion of forced monogamy'- marriage is whatever you make it out to be and however YOU understand it to be. It is time we stopped condemning another's search for what makes them happy in life. And I really don't care if you're gay, swinging through the clubs or have been married for 30 years.

Other people's view on marriage has absolutely zero to do with Michael- who most obviously had his own understanding of marriage- as he more or less demonstrated.

Unless we all agree on what "marriage material" is, this is going to remain pretty shallow.

*happily married and very much understanding WHY Michael spent so much time with other families such as the Cascios*
Click to expand...

I disagree. People's views on the topic at hand are not extraneous, nor is bringing up the changing nature of what marriage should consist on throughout history (according to societal consensus at a given time/place). Like I said, the notion of marriage as romantic is fairly modern and against all biological principles of mammals, so we are already biologically disinclined towards it.

However, as you will notice, I went into detail on Michael's love for families and actually said it made absolutely perfect sense, especially when you consider the fact that we are social animals, thus interdependent upon each other to be healthy and function. His own broken childhood was what prompted him to seek this fulfillment with other people's families, something which I personally regard as perfectly healthy. I think I've expressed sufficient admiration for the way he raised his children, so in the child-raising aspects of family life, I think he was absolutely well suited for it, but what I think doesn't really matter because the evidence speaks for itself.

I only really wish more parents were like Michael. He was unique in that he came from a home where abuse was the norm, and he succeeded in completely breaking the pattern in his own experience. In most cases, the pattern successfully continues down the line, which is why it is not uncommon to see that an abusive parent was abused as a child, so on and so forth up the line of ancestry. Kind of sad, really.

However, you are ultimately right--all the posts in this thread, including yours and mine, are all speculation. I never claimed otherwise, so you pointing it out is kind of extraneous and redundant. That's why the thread includes the phrase "do you think..." in its title. We are all just giving our opinions on the matter.
 
Severus Snape said:
...
I only really wish more parents were like Michael. He was unique in that he came from a home where abuse was the norm, and he succeeded in completely breaking the pattern in his own experience. In most cases, the pattern successfully continues down the line, which is why it is not uncommon to see that an abusive parent was abused as a child, so on and so forth up the line of ancestry. Kind of sad, really.

...
Click to expand...

Actually, I think I need to add to this. YES, of course he is THE material- watch him explain to Bashir precisely those thoughts makes him even more 'marriage material'. (ignoring outside factors for a moment)
He didn't wallow in "what doesn't kill me makes you stronger, so all if fine with the way I was raised."

THAT is precisely the man whom you'd want to have a family with and be married to, if you see marriage as something you wish for. If you can understand the importance of loving a child that way, chances are you're capable of deep unions in general.
I personally understood a lot with the comment when he wanted to visit 2 kids accused of a horrendous crime etc- was it in London? Something LMP said about being an "idiot who rewards behavior". Nooooooooo, not at all. Just illustrates how views on children and their true nature is exactly what can help immensely in the way a can marriage work, or not.

And that is why he kept harping on loving the children. The way we treat our children is ultimately how we treat ourselves, one another. That's why it's not 'obsessive' to insist that the children of this planet be treated differently.

And of course 'union' of any kind always been a central topic in mankind. Always. "Union" of any kind is who we are. As children, as adults, as humans, no matter how we struggle with these things in our lives, union of some kind is always who we are as human beings. We can't even be born into this live without a union. We grow in symbiosis, we're in union by way of simply 'being'.
 
Marriage material? No. Family guy material? Yes, absolutely.

I believe he was a family-oriented guy, but he had a wild side in him as an artist and a celebrity.
Always on the go, on the move, both externally and internally.
I'm not saying he probably didn't want to settle down with someone and raise a family.
Maybe, it turned out to be his ideal living arrangement, but it remained just that, an idea in his head, not a reality.

Sometimes I do think "If only he'd had a devoted wife...maybe he would be here?", tho.
 
Severus Snape said:
Although he was a hopeless romantic in some ways, his one true interest was to have a family--the marriage would then be a tool with which to achieve this, and in and of itself, I think it would be quite extraneous and irrelevant. However, he was not entirely immune to the modern cultural idealization of marriage as a union of "love" or whatever. Since monogamous lifetime union is quite deviant behaviour amongst mammals such as ourselves, I daresay none of us are really "marriage material," Michael included.

Edit: I hope this makes sense. I apologize in advance if I'm incoherent--I'm under the influence of my pain meds at the moment, so I keep forgetting the things I wanted to talk about.
Click to expand...

Dang girlll, why you gotta be so scientific about every darn thing under the sun? LOL The way you phrased that thing sounded soooo funny to me, although i'm sure you meant it quite seriously.

On meds or not, you continue to make a lot of sense, as most times :) You should be doing better now considering how much time passed since you posted. Sure hope so. The Christian in me will have to disagree with the mammals 'such as ourselves' part, but i still gotta give ya props for all the interestin' thoughts.

Btw of 'mammals', the bad touch tune just came to mind :lol:


Do the kind of stuff only Prince would sing about - always loved that one line, allllways lol

I know birds aren't mammals, but as i said in another thread, Mandarin ducks and turtle doves are two exceptions to the animal kingdom, and to humanity as well, in the sense that they have ONLY ONE mate during their entire lifetime.

The helpless, cure less romantic in me kinda loves that vision. Because of Christian morality i used to think love, sex and marriage were three inseparable things. There are plenty of combinations out there with only one or two of those - plenty of sex without either love or marriage, lots of marriages without love, but i must admit that i haven't heard of that many marriages and love without sex, none actually.

I have a very good friend who turned 36 about a week ago. She has two beautiful daughters of 3 and 5 to whom she is greatly devoted and she has been married to her high school sweetheart for over ten years now. He was her first and only man. I think that is marvelous. Unfortunately, she is an extremely rare exception. While trying to buy a gift for her with another girlfriend i was talkin' about a book and she went 'well that's all fine and dandy, but don't you think we should get her something to make her a woman?' To which i replied - 'that is not our job, plus her husband already did that about two decades ago'. We told her about it when we met later on and we all laughed our behinds about it.


Severus Snape said:
However, you are ultimately right--all the posts in this thread, including yours and mine, are all speculation.We are all just giving our opinions on the matter.
Click to expand...

Amen. Usually i don't like to speculate, especially about things i got no knowledge of, such as the topic at hand, but if i had to guess, i'd say Michael would have made a good husband. I don't know if perfect though. He was human after all and, as such, he was bound to have his less than perfect features, not to mention all the special circumstances in his life - his dedication to his art (he did indeed say at one point that he was 'married to his music and to his fans'), the hurt he went throughout his life and the disappointments in the personal arena. All of those could prove to be pressures on a marriage, but i don't think they would have been obstacles that couldn't be overcome with enough understanding on the part of his partner and a bit of effort on his.

Who would want or expect perfection from a human being anyways? There is no such thing as perfect love or marriage since they are made of imperfect human beings. I suppose it all boils down to one fact - finding that one person that will appreciate the good in us and love us enough to overlook the bad.

ChocolatePie777 said:
this is such a weird conversation
Click to expand...

Indeed it is and i just made it weirder wit my little video insertion lol.
 
Last edited:
Shhaaaby said:
The helpless, cure less romantic in me kinda loves that vision. Because of Christian morality i used to think love, sex and marriage were three inseparable things.
Click to expand...

I always find it interesting when people attribute these ideas, and also monogamy to Christianity. In fact, if you read the Bible it doesn't say anywhere that marriage should be between one man and one woman or that it should be based on love and romance! In the Bible you see lots of people with several wives - eg. King Solomon had as many as 700 wives and 300 concubines! I bet that wasn't based on love and romance. Abraham, Jacob, David etc. etc. - they all had several wives and concubines. It wasn't about love and romance but about fertility. The more offspring a man had the better it was - and this was the most important thing, more important than such abstract ideas as romance. According to the Bible when Abraham's wife, Sarah couldn't give children to Abraham she gave him her female servant to sleep with him and have kids with him. There's no love and romance involved, just the need of having offspring. Also in Moses' law you will see things such as if a man dies and leaves behind a wife without offspring, his brother is required to marry her and make her babies. Again, where is the love and romance? It wasn't about that at all!

You might say the New Testament is different, but the New Testament does not forbid polygamy either - expect for the elders of the church. Otherwise it doesn't say anywhere it's forbidden to have several wives. Of course, by the time of the New Testament was written generally monogamy was more wide-spread in the world, so men had one wife in the NT too. But it wasn't because of religious rules and orders. It was probably more because of economical reasons (you had to be rich to provide a living for many wives and children).

So basically "Christian morality" is not monogamous at all. It's a modern misconception that it is. Also marriage isn't necessarily built on love and romance. The Bible talks about marriage more like a contract (in which women are not equal parties, by the way, they are required to be submissive).
 
Last edited:
^^^ Thanks for your input. You made some valid points there. You may not have noticed the past tense in my words. I purposefully said 'used to think'. I like to believe i have a good enough mastery of words and most of the time i know what i write. More important than anything i write or say though may actually be what i don't. Anyways....although still very much a Christian, i'm actually having a very difficult time believing in that love-marriage-sex indissoluble triangle, modern misconception or not.

Earlier today, as i was walkin' back home one tv series opening hit me and made me think of this thread


Mannn, i used to love that show back in the 90s. Them Bundys sure were a funny bunch. More than once people have compared me & my folks with them, don't know if that's anything to brag about though lol.

So yeah, according to none other than Blue Eyes himself - 'love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage'. Considerin' it was the 50s he didn't mention that third side to the triangle (the ex that i put the S in), but i bet that one element was not lost either in his mind and most definitely not in his life.

Btw of Frank and the love of his life Suzanne Vega had a realy cool song about it. She is quite right - it's not enough to be in love.


I could also add something....but it sure helps :cheeky:
 
Last edited:
respect77 said:
I always find it interesting when people attribute these ideas, and also monogamy to Christianity. In fact, if you read the Bible it doesn't say anywhere that marriage should be between one man and one woman or that it should be based on love and romance! In the Bible you see lots of people with several wives - eg. King Solomon had as many as 700 wives and 300 concubines! I bet that wasn't based on love and romance. Abraham, Jacob, David etc. etc. - they all had several wives and concubines. It wasn't about love and romance but about fertility. The more offspring a man had the better it was - and this was the most important thing, more important than such abstract ideas as romance. According to the Bible when Abraham's wife, Sarah couldn't give children to Abraham she gave him her female servant to sleep with him and have kids with him. There's no love and romance involved, just the need of having offspring. Also in Moses' law you will see things such as if a man dies and leaves behind a wife without offspring, his brother is required to marry her and make her babies. Again, where is the love and romance? It wasn't about that at all!

You might say the New Testament is different, but the New Testament does not forbid polygamy either - expect for the elders of the church. Otherwise it doesn't say anywhere it's forbidden to have several wives. Of course, by the time of the New Testament was written generally monogamy was more wide-spread in the world, so men had one wife in the NT too. But it wasn't because of religious rules and orders. It was probably more because of economical reasons (you had to be rich to provide a living for many wives and children).

So basically "Christian morality" is not monogamous at all. It's a modern misconception that it is. Also marriage isn't necessarily built on love and romance. The Bible talks about marriage more like a contract (in which women are not equal parties, by the way, they are required to be submissive).
Click to expand...

You're right.
Sadly for women, that conception of polygamy in the Bible only applies to men :D
So unfair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top