ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Mailvox: so the slope was slippery after all

MP is a little bit excited about the new court ruling that declared polygamy bans to be unconstitutional:
Having severed marriage from any cultural traditions and values over the last fifty years, I thought it would be at least five more years before the Feds took marriage to the next step: polygamy. Marry whoever and whatever you like. Marry as many as you want. 

As of now it is not “cheating” to fuck other women when you are already married.  You are merely looking for your next wife.  The courts will have to work out some of the kinks, such as not needing the permission of your existing wife to get married again.

After all, I can contract to buy a car from one car dealer and contract to buy another car from another car dealer without asking permission of the first car dealer, right? 

And since marriage is nothing more than a voluntary contract between two people, the wife should have no say-so in preventing me from getting Wife #2 … or #3, … or even #4!

What business is it of my old wife to oppress me and prevent me from marrying the (new) one you love?  After all, she has the right to control her body and abort my child, why should I not have the right to marry who I want?

And don’t you Evil Religious Freaks start quoting the Bible or the Koran. We got rid of the old oppressive Christian monogamous "’til death do us part” junk many, many years ago.

At this rate we will have pure marriage-by-contract within 10 years: “Marriage” will be divorced from those Evil Religious Freaks and we will be able to construct our marriage contracts however we see fit!

What a Brave New World we are entering!
Do you know, I can remember when all those homogamy advocates were assuring everyone that the only reason anyone opposed altering the equation Marriage = One Man + One Woman was bigotry and that there was no possible way that changing Woman to Man could lead to changing One to One or More.

"In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional."

American society is rapidly slip-sliding away, to the extent that it can even be said to exist at all anymore. One may not be able to legislate morality, but it is becoming eminently clear that one can legislate civilization. And barbarism, for that matter. But we may be past the point where civilization can be legislated; it may have to be imposed.

Labels: , ,

147 Comments:

Anonymous kh123 December 14, 2013 3:44 PM  

Have always figured that those who advocated that what they did in the bedroom was nobody else's business, and then turned around and did all they could to get Federal intervention to legitimize and regulate that business... Well, is better for all concerned that they don't reproduce naturally anyhow.

New financial device! MBS: Marriage Backed Security. Now everyone can enjoy multiple levels of ownership in some weird, nebulous way while simultaneously getting serviced. Win win.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 14, 2013 3:45 PM  

But we may be past the point where civilization can be legislated; it may have to be imposed.

Rule 223 instead of 303 this time perhaps. I have always liked pith helmets and Gin &Tonics. I could do without the Cricket though.

Blogger Bogey December 14, 2013 3:50 PM  

Slippery Slope is a non-fallacy, there's too much historical evidence riding against the notion that it is a fallacy.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother December 14, 2013 3:50 PM  

I think the Soviets experimented with this in the beginning of the USSR, then reinstated the rules when they saw what happened.

Anonymous Onefiver December 14, 2013 4:09 PM  

If you are GenX or older, it seems almost unfathomable that a former KGB officer would be doing the most to preserve civilization while virtually all of the West is doing what it can to tear it down. How quickly things change....

Anonymous MrGreenMan December 14, 2013 4:10 PM  

If it was possible to get through to people with the scientific method of repeated hypothesis-enforcing results, everybody would be a believer in the doctrine of total depravity.

Anonymous jack December 14, 2013 4:29 PM  

By all means slid the slippery slope. OneFiver, above, noted the 180 or so done where the Soviet Union may be taking up the mantle of civilization. If they were really smart they would go whole hog on religion [minus, perhaps, anything like islam] and get the whole kit and caboodle.

Yeah, grease that slope and roll! Before you do read Rabbi Cahn's 'The Harbinger'. You may not be moved by this or finish it full of fear for what was a pretty decent country; if you are not moved to repentance then I would suggest the nearest slippery slope. Just keep in mind that slopes obey the law of gravity and tend to put objects in motion; in a DOWNWARD direction.
Good luck with all that...

Anonymous LES December 14, 2013 4:33 PM  

I don't have a problem with adults voluntarily entering into any kind of "marriage" relationship they choose as long as the government does not force me to accept it.
I know I am being hypocritical by wanting the government to sanction "one man-one woman" marriage, but the benefits to women, children and society warrant it.

Blogger Tom Kratman December 14, 2013 4:38 PM  

It _is_ going to be about five more years, maybe longer or considerably longer. This is just a district court, while the suit has all the appearance of a collusive suit (see Para 21). Neither of those things is going to impress the Supreme Court when it (or some other case into which this one is folded) gets there.

Couple of observations:

When I was in Saudi I read a pamphlet that actually made some sense. To paraphase: When a Moslem here wants a second wife and family, and can reasonably well afford it, he makes the arrangements and gets the permissions, marries her, and she and her children get all the protections, which are not as insignificant as the non-moslem west believes, of any other wife. In the west, conversely, when a man, usually rich, decides he wants a second family, he acquires a mistress, who gets no protections whatsoever. That's probably not as true up here but down in Latin America it is very common indeed.

Liberalism has managed to create several generations of essentially feral black teenagers by now, raised by weak and foolish women in the absence of a strong and decent man (because of those several generations of ruin). Still, there are strong and decent black men out there, I served with them most of my adult life. It might well be the lesser of two evils to let those men marry several women and take charge of their children..the poor bastards (by which I mean the decent men),

And then there's that nagging voice in my head, the minarchist - almost libertarian - tendency, that asks, "And just what the fuck business is it of yours what people want to do in their private lives, Kratman?" "Shut up, bitch," answer I, but the bitch just won't shut up until I say, "We do not live in the world of Abraham or Mohammad or even Joseph Smith. We live in a world replete with bureaucrats whose every thought involves getting more people on the public dole. We're not talking primarily about a rich man taking multiple wives, having many children, and spreading his wealth out thereby. We talking about a set of marital nomads, moving from welfare supported wife to welfare supported wife, taking a cut of each, and living pretty well thereby. In short, in your ideal world I might have no principled objection, O minarchical tendency, but we don't live in that world AND CANNOT CREATE IT."

And then, on the whole, polygamy is sufficiently destabilizing, because young men deprived of the chance of acquiring a woman tend to go nuts, that I think the state has a strong interest in limiting it, if not necessarily outlawing it.

In short, I'm kinda torn. One thing I am not torn about, though: once gay marriage is a right (and the underlying column is not being quite honest; this wasn't decided on gay marriage grounds), there is no principled bar to polygamy, only policy ones. Why? Because a court can hardly help but reason that a) if man and woman are just sexes, then two is just a number, less significant in every way, while b) gays and lesbians must be allowed to marry as couples of couples, of they will either be denied the right to have and raise children or they will have to employ unknown and possibly unsuitable sperm donars.

Anonymous Logan December 14, 2013 4:40 PM  

Polygamy? Hell, that's nothing. A woman from Australia married a bridge.

I'm thinking of taking an inanimate object for a spouse, myself. At least I wouldn't have to worry about it divorcing me and taking half my shit.

Anonymous Ivan Poland December 14, 2013 4:44 PM  

Of course once feminists figure out they can marry many a manboob AND divorce them all getting 3, 4, 5 times as many alimony payments over just one payment, they will support this with gusto. Not to mention all the beta and deltas willing to agree.

Blogger pilgrim4life December 14, 2013 4:47 PM  

If America is not going to enforce laws against adultery or sodomy, then there is no reason not to allow polygamy as well. After all, men and woman can have as many partners as they want now and liberals think it's a great expression of sexual freedom (hence co-ed dorms at colleges).

If anything, polygamy could be viewed as a move away from promiscuity towards marriage. Monogamy is the biblical ideal, but God did permit polygamy in the Old Testament. And civilization suffers much due to the chaos of easy divorce and broken families. Polygamy does offer a degree of stability for the people involved.

I'm not saying its a good thing. But unless we are willing to go back to the days when adultery and sodomy laws were enforced, legalizing polygamy really doesn't matter.

Anonymous Schnoorky December 14, 2013 4:50 PM  

It's a good time to be a nationalist - one of the early adopters. The West is ripening up quite well for, shall we say, a "takeover". Just sit back, enjoy, and prepare to pounce when the time is right.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 14, 2013 4:52 PM  

Logan: "I'm thinking of taking an inanimate object for a spouse, myself. At least I wouldn't have to worry about it divorcing me and taking half my shit."

Why stop at one?

Blogger Random December 14, 2013 4:58 PM  

it seems almost unfathomable that a former KGB officer would be doing the most to preserve civilization while virtually all of the West is doing what it can to tear it down. How quickly things change....

Hundreds of thousands of daily prayers for the 'conversion of Russia' since 1917 might have something to do with it.

I don't think it's surprising at all for providence to select a former enemy as a means of protecting the faith!

Anonymous Too-Soon-ami December 14, 2013 5:03 PM  

So what's the over/under on when the angel Moroni appears in Salt Lake City, to tell everyone that God changed his mind again, and they can all resume polygamating?

Blogger Random December 14, 2013 5:07 PM  

He just has to tell the Mormon President, right? No worries about history, tradition, consistency, etc.

"our bad, here's what he really meant!"

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 14, 2013 5:10 PM  

Polygamy? Hell, that's nothing. A woman from Australia married a bridge.

I'm thinking of taking an inanimate object for a spouse, myself. At least I wouldn't have to worry about it divorcing me and taking half my shit.


...until the bridge *hires* an attorney...

Anonymous Seymour Butz December 14, 2013 5:15 PM  

‘And since marriage is nothing more than a voluntary contract between two people, the wife should have no say-so in preventing me from getting Wife #2 … or #3, … or even #4!’

Just as long as you don’t go over four. That’s where the Prophet drew the limit.

Anonymous VD December 14, 2013 5:17 PM  

One thing I am not torn about, though: once gay marriage is a right (and the underlying column is not being quite honest; this wasn't decided on gay marriage grounds), there is no principled bar to polygamy, only policy ones. Why? Because a court can hardly help but reason that a) if man and woman are just sexes, then two is just a number, less significant in every way, while b) gays and lesbians must be allowed to marry as couples of couples, of they will either be denied the right to have and raise children or they will have to employ unknown and possibly unsuitable sperm donars.

Precisely. I've been pointing this out occasionally for years. The homogamists pooh-poohed it, as you would expect. And, as one would also expect, they were wrong.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 14, 2013 5:18 PM  

And then, on the whole, polygamy is sufficiently destabilizing, because young men deprived of the chance of acquiring a woman tend to go nuts, that I think the state has a strong interest in limiting it, if not necessarily outlawing it.

*Federalize* Temple Prostitution!

Excellent, insightful comment, BTW

Blogger Random December 14, 2013 5:20 PM  

Are you forgetting the terrible history of oppression women have suffered at the hands of men? Why won't the courts continue to simply enslave men with alimony?

Anonymous TJ December 14, 2013 5:22 PM  

Gaming and 2 or more wives: Easier or harder?

Anonymous Ivan Poland December 14, 2013 5:24 PM  

So which would be after polygamy? If two siblings of the same sex want to get married what can the argument against it be? If they are brother & sister they can get genetically tested to make sure kids produced will be okay or one can agree to be sterilized. So then what?

The new same sex marriage law here in Hawai'i states that family cannot be married to each other but does not say why.

The slide it is very slippery.

Anonymous Too-Soon-ami December 14, 2013 5:39 PM  

The Hawaii law is probably to prevent the estate tax loophole, where a father could marry his son near death, to hand off his assets straight to his "spouse", tax-free. Once polyhomogamy becomes "law" -- and after those hateful, hateful anti-incest laws are stricken from the books -- you can marry all your kids. Although, it'll take all the shock value of those "taboo" prono movies.

Blogger tz December 14, 2013 5:40 PM  

You cannot legislate civilization. You can only try to impose whatever rules you can get a set of jackboots - and there are plenty of evil men who aren't smart enough to be the bureaucrat but can shoot, incinerate, and bludgeon people to death.

Singapore is the only non-christian example I can think of in recent years. You need the "state" to enforce things to make it sufficiently unpleasant for the 2-sigma and out outlaws - those that wish to defraud, cheat, vandalize, or do violence because they choose not to control themselves, or worse, are making a positive choice to do evil.

You quarantine (imprison), rehabilitate, or exile those who won't act civilized, but each individual must choose to be a proper citizen. The USA was formed because non-conformists could not be proper citizens under the King (or Lord Protector - was Cromwell civilized?), so they came here where they could be free citizens.

Freedom and citizenship occur together. You can always coerce slaves into some submission, but they will do things of both commission and omission which will see "civilization" destroyed.

If we were civilized, starting with Grizwold v.s. CT, and through Roe v. Wade, the judges that decided a holocaust was a right (somehow emanations and penumbras of "privacy" - but how can that be in our NSA world today?) should have been hung on a short drop just like those who committed other crimes against humanity at Nuremberg.

I'd add "no-fault" divorce.

I've pointed out before that if marriage was considered indissoluble (as Christ commanded in all 4 gospels), that would do more for the family than trying to fight these non-issues about polygamy and gay marriage.

Put differently, if you had 5% non-1man-1woman marriages, but only a 5% divorce rate, we would have civilization. Instead we are choosing a 50-80% divorce rate and to try to eliminate the 5% non-trads.

Put differently, marriages should be harder to dissolve than student loan debt.

Those fighting for "marriage" while it is a weak, temporary, children-optional institution - and want to keep it that way while going after the nonsense at the margins are stark, raving, lunatics, or incredibly stupid. Even worse, like Dalrock pointed out, Focus on the Family has focused on how to dissolve it recently.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 14, 2013 5:51 PM  

My Dad figured all this out (it seems) decades ago, with the Weekend Marriage License.....yep, you got it.....good till Monday morning. And won't it be great when you no longer have to take on the risk and burden of a long term commitment and simply RENT a wife for short term arrangements. (Hey....they are already short term.) No woman is bound by any long term commitment anyway. At least under a RENTAL AGREEMENT (or fixed-term lease), we take care of all those early termination problems and money deposit stipulations on the front end.

And while we are at it, maybe it is time to revisit the business of slavery (or INDENTURED SERVITUDE) for those cases where wifey really would be inappropriate. What is the harm of someone being provided for and supervised in return for their best efforts? I mean.....the primary labor market (and professional sports) has had this for decades.....and truthfully, so has the illegal alien trade too......so why not just open it up so everyone else can participate as well? After a few court decisions, we can get the contract down to a standard form, with appropriate enforcement and court oversight. Heck, even a paralegal could draw up the papers.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 14, 2013 6:02 PM  

Logan: "I'm thinking of taking an inanimate object for a spouse, myself. At least I wouldn't have to worry about it divorcing me and taking half my shit."

If I was going to be married to an inanimate object again (I have already had some of those brides), I would be careful to select one for which ammo is still available. That would definitely put a kink the all the proposed gun control laws.

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 14, 2013 6:02 PM  

If you are GenX or older, it seems almost unfathomable that a former KGB officer would be doing the most to preserve civilization while virtually all of the West is doing what it can to tear it down. How quickly things change....

If you were living in 2003 when Vox Pupae was started, and I came back from the future and told you what was happening in 2013, you would be like "get the fuck outta here, man."

Blogger Eric December 14, 2013 6:13 PM  

Do you know, I can remember when all those homogamy advocates were assuring everyone that the only reason anyone opposed altering the equation Marriage = One Man + One Woman was bigotry and that there was no possible way that changing Woman to Man could lead to changing One to One or More.

If you read the literature one of the reasons people worried about after Loving v. Virginia was by striking down anti-miscegenation laws the courts would unmoor the law from the culture, and that the logic of the ruling would eventually require them to force legal recognition of gay marriage, polygamy, and marriage between family members.

Turns out they were right on the money. Marriage was always a state thing and should have been left to the states to regulate.

Anonymous Stinkie Pie December 14, 2013 6:36 PM  

As a libertarian, I don't necessarily have a problem with polygamy. However, I feel compelled to make the point that unintended consequences have noting to do with whether the original intent was jut or not.

Anonymous Stinkie Pie December 14, 2013 6:37 PM  

And by jut I mean just

Anonymous The other skeptic December 14, 2013 6:38 PM  

Making distributed systems reliable is inherently impossible; we cling to Byzantine fault tolerance like Charlton Heston clings to his guns, hoping that a series of complex software protocols will somehow protect us from the oncoming storm of furious apes who have somehow learned how to wear pants and maliciously tamper with our network packets.

I liked the reference to Charlton Heston, but I wonder if the author realizes that the apes are in power now ...

Anonymous The other skeptic December 14, 2013 6:42 PM  

I was in B&N today and looked at the SF&F section.

They had a book on Zombies vs Robots. What shit.

However, I think the Zombies have a chance!

Anonymous Too-Soon-ami December 14, 2013 6:50 PM  

DonReynolds, the Taliban had that idea too. Before we invaded, the leaders handed out blank "marriage licenses" to their buddies, who could then go grab some woman and rape her til he was bored with her. And since he had a "license", with her name on it now, it was all legal.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza December 14, 2013 7:05 PM  

Ah, more post American times.

Suppose everyone starts polyrelationshits, where a set of friends and family including homogamy marry to combine weath or hide it. It could prove to be a danger to the gov't as so many men and women working have combined money, children, etc. Would the debate change at all? Some say the system was not supposed to be in the marriage business but in need of revenue, the polyandry, polygyny might be in the air along with the scent of pot.

Doubtful, the constitutionality takes legal and moral e precedence in a lawless land suffering from a severe economic contraction leading countless Americans to utter ruin.

Another diversion.

Anonymous kh123 December 14, 2013 7:21 PM  

"They had a book on Zombies vs Robots. What shit."

If it had illustrations, it's a damn sight more ambitious than the typical Scalzi fare for that alone; give it that.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 14, 2013 7:23 PM  

Too-Soon-ami......"DonReynolds, the Taliban had that idea too. Before we invaded, the leaders handed out blank "marriage licenses" to their buddies, who could then go grab some woman and rape her til he was bored with her. And since he had a "license", with her name on it now, it was all legal."

Long before that, the early days of the Soviet Union they abolished marriage in favor of "free love". They tried it for years, but it did not work well. (And you thought it was invented at Berkeley during the hippy days?)

Blogger Nate December 14, 2013 7:33 PM  

Simple point of fact:

divorce is far more destructive than polygamy.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 14, 2013 7:35 PM  

And then, on the whole, polygamy is sufficiently destabilizing, because young men deprived of the chance of acquiring a woman tend to go nuts

Polygamists make lousy neighbors because they always have a surplus of young men they need to drive out of the herd. There's a fair change those surplus guys join formal or informal brigand outfits.

Anonymous Stilicho December 14, 2013 7:35 PM  

but we don't live in that world AND CANNOT CREATE IT.

Ending the dole would be a good start, but we lack the will. At the moment.

As for polygamy, nothing is stopping a man and 2, 3, 4, or 24 women from cohabiting in a relationship exactly like a polygamous marriage, just without a piece of state-sanctioned paper. Well, nothing except the occasional ATF raid.

OpenID cailcorishev December 14, 2013 7:46 PM  

Hundreds of thousands of daily prayers for the 'conversion of Russia' since 1917 might have something to do with it.

I recently heard a priest say that it may not be long before the Russians are praying after Mass for the conversion of America.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother December 14, 2013 7:47 PM  

Off Topic: Pierson, the teenage shooter yesterday at Arapahoe High School in Colorado, was a diehard socialist.

I know, I know, you are just as shocked as I am.

Anonymous GG December 14, 2013 7:53 PM  

"..But we may be past the point where civilization can be legislated; it may have to be imposed..."

Okay, this may sound naïve of me, but civilization seems to come naturally. It's debauchery and barbarism that must be mandated, legislated, achieved by force and imposed.

"American society is rapidly slip-sliding away, to the extent that it can even be said to exist at all anymore."

The thing is, I see the exact opposite happening. Sure on the news and out of the mouths of our leaders, you feel like you're on another planet, but here on the ground, there's a cultural backlash brewing. I see kids rebelling against public school indoctrination, young couples returning to churches, baby boomers starting to wonder WTH they were thinking.

Blogger Eric December 14, 2013 8:11 PM  

divorce is far more destructive than polygamy.

I doubt it, at least not the way the welfare state is currently constituted. Look at the way actual polygamists live - a hand full of late middle-aged me marrying their daughters off to each other. Dozens of children and every last one of them supported by the taxpayer. That kind of thing would destroy the US within two generations.

Blogger Tom Kratman December 14, 2013 8:17 PM  

Both arise more or less spontaneously, GG, but barbarism is by far the more normal.

Blogger Pamela Kokores December 14, 2013 8:23 PM  

Long-time lurker here with not much to contribute to the conversations that others don't already cover. I work in debt collections and might have an undiscussed point of view: how will the feminazis collect their child support payments if this sticks? As it stands right now, the government can garnish wages for up to 25% of a man's wages to pay child support. How are they going to work this through the court system and figure out how much each man owes if he has more than one wife? What do they do if multiple men have the same wife?

Anonymous The other skeptic December 14, 2013 8:29 PM  

I recently heard a priest say that it may not be long before the Russians are praying after Mass for the conversion of America.

I think it is clear that Russia sees itself as the Anti-America. Thus, while the US has embraced anti-Christian values, Russia seems to have moved back to Christianity (or, at least, the Eastern strain of it.) And while America has become the home of homos, Russia is happy to be nasty to them.

Blogger Nate December 14, 2013 8:41 PM  

"
I doubt it, at least not the way the welfare state is currently constituted. Look at the way actual polygamists live - a hand full of late middle-aged me marrying their daughters off to each other. Dozens of children and every last one of them supported by the taxpayer. That kind of thing would destroy the US within two generations."

See... this is the kind of thing that people conclude that have some facts... but not all.

What you fail to realize is that they live that way to deliberately try to destroy the government which they view as evil.

Libertarians refuse to accept federal funds for anything... which actually ends up helping the government they hate because it lowers the burden.

These cats are smarter about it.

Blogger Nate December 14, 2013 8:43 PM  

"Polygamists make lousy neighbors because they always have a surplus of young men they need to drive out of the herd. There's a fair change those surplus guys join formal or informal brigand outfits. "

You're confusing mormons with polygamists.

You realize there is a history of polygamy that is unrelated to mormons right?

OpenID errhead December 14, 2013 8:44 PM  

how will the feminazis collect their child support payments if this sticks?

They same way they do now, determine who the father is and bill him.
There's only one blank for father on the birth certificate.
Matrimony is not patrimony.
Though a custom polygamous marriage contract may have other specifications on support obligations once legalized.

Blogger D. Lane December 14, 2013 8:46 PM  

This is not (nor has it ever been) a slippery slope. A "slippery slope" implies at least some form of meaningful pushback. After all, it's slippery, not frictionless. What we're seeing here is the logical course of a controlled glide. Morality naturally alienates anyone with a strong enough desire or incentive to defy it, creating an opportunity for the powers that be. They pitch the nose down just enough to capitalize on that opportunity, then level off before the drop is significant enough to cause a ruckus in the cabin. Someone else comes along, rinse, repeat.

The problem is, no matter how minor these "adjustments" are, your altitude eventually reaches zero. Moreover, you can't exactly "pitch up" and correct the problem beyond a certain point because whatever fuel (see: culture) was used to bring the civilization to its peak no longer exists in sufficient quantity. I typically attribute this to a combination of Murphy's law and the fallen nature of man (if the two are at all distinguishable). Simply, whenever we put together something that works (esp. if it works well), we're going to find a way to goof it up.

That said, I can't help but feel that any time or energy set aside to seriously discuss the issue is purely academic. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but I feel we've already passed the point of no return. My position is that everyone should simply sit back and enjoy the show. The time to actually step in and tell these clowns "I told you so" is after the plane crashes into the ground and its bewildered occupants ask what the hell just happened.

Blogger Tom Kratman December 14, 2013 8:48 PM  

"And, as one would also expect, they were wrong."

Thing is, the liberal instinct for societal destruction is unerring. Their devotion to that destruction is unwavering. And their energy in bringing about that destruction is inexhaustible. This is why the mere fact that they want something is, in itself, sufficient reason to oppose that something. If they came out in favor of a flat tax? Trust me, they've figured some way to use that to ruin society. If they ever were so judgmental as to proclaim the wickedness of little boy bunging? I can assure you, in that case there would be a benefit to it we've all been missing. Note that they haven't generally come out against it, except insofar as it may involve a Catholic priest. That ought to tell you something.

Blogger Nate December 14, 2013 8:55 PM  

I really don't get this hate for polygamy. Honestly people... you think this is a step down from Homosexual marriage?

This is like fretting because a nation of cannibles decided maybe it was ok to wear white before easter.

Anonymous GG December 14, 2013 9:01 PM  

"..Both arise more or less spontaneously, GG, but barbarism is by far the more normal..."

I suppose you're right, but it's all very complicated since the ones currently defining the "normal" tend to act like barbarians.

"One may not be able to legislate morality, but it is becoming eminently clear that one can legislate civilization."

I still disagree with this. I think an argument could be made that what leads to civilization (at least in the West) is freedom, a lack of legislation, a lack of interference in our lives.

Another problem is how we define "civilization." Educated, out of a savage state? The thing is, gay marriage, polygamy legislation, would not even exist if it weren't for education, technology, affluence, and people with enough time on their hands to start dinking around with the nature of creation. Most of humankind has been too busy simply trying to feed themselves to bother with trying to define or redefine marriage.

Blogger James Dixon December 14, 2013 9:02 PM  

> nstead we are choosing a 50-80% divorce rate

Do I really need to point out that the generation with those divorce rates was the boomers?

OpenID whoresoftheinternet December 14, 2013 9:03 PM  

I've said ti before and I'll say it again:

Gay "marriage" ad polygamous "marriage" remind me of when that Roman emperor "married' his horse. Everyone nodded their heads dutifully because he could take their lives, but inwardly they were either aghast or laughing.

It's a pure lol issue, boys.

Anonymous Equestrian025 December 14, 2013 9:06 PM  

I strongly doubt the left/ secular right was ever making a good faith argument about the so-called “The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage.”

Anonymous Godfrey December 14, 2013 9:08 PM  

This is interesting. I expect the elites to squelch this. Polygamy is procreative. I think the cultural elites promote sodomy to prevent procreation. If this plays out, this will prove me wrong.

Anonymous Dingus December 14, 2013 9:12 PM  

Godfrey, you expects the elites to do something? Fascinating...

Drink!!!

OpenID whoresoftheinternet December 14, 2013 9:13 PM  

It's pure lol because marriage is determined by religion, not the state; no matter how many times the fairies and the polygamists try to make themselves seem normal and godfearing and upright, deep inside they know it isn't so. That drives their anger.
Laughter and mockery of the clearly insane ideas of the left are incredibly powerful. use it, boys, use it.

Anonymous zen0 December 14, 2013 9:37 PM  

@ James Dixon: Do I really need to point out that the generation with those divorce rates was the boomers?

That may be true, but the the rot started in the late fifties and early sixties. The state of marriage was already anathema to many of the young men of that era (like me) because of the divorce rate stats and the Kinsey Report propaganda.

There was also a general lack of effective and committed parental guidance to counteract the marketing of evil.

They tried, but the devil kung fu was too strong.

Blogger Nate December 14, 2013 9:39 PM  

"It's pure lol because marriage is determined by religion, not the state; no matter how many times the fairies and the polygamists try to make themselves seem normal and godfearing and upright, deep inside they know it isn't so. "

So you actually haven't bother reading the Bible then right?

Dude just stop. You don't have a clue. There is nothing anti polygamy in the Bible. In fact... God's prophet outright admonishes David for not availing himself of it.

Anonymous tiredofitall December 14, 2013 9:43 PM  

how will the feminazis collect their child support payments if this sticks?
They same way they do now, determine who the father is and bill him. There's only one blank for father on the birth certificate. Matrimony is not patrimony. - errhead

Sure...tell that one to my cousin Travis who married a single mom and got stuck with child support payments after the divorce cause he was the "daddy" for five years.

Blogger The Pharisee December 14, 2013 9:52 PM  

Who is "MP?"

Anonymous zen0 December 14, 2013 9:59 PM  

@ Nate

"God's prophet outright admonishes David for not availing himself of it."

That must have been early on, because he ended up with 18.

Now, how many famous polygamists of the Bible got away without any trouble because of it?

Blogger Whiskey December 14, 2013 10:05 PM  

Nate that's Old Testament. Christs message supercedes Moses. If you are a Christian. If you are a Jew, Talmudic law says only one wife at a time.

Blogger rycamor December 14, 2013 10:08 PM  

zen0 December 14, 2013 9:59 PM

@ Nate

"God's prophet outright admonishes David for not availing himself of it."

That must have been early on, because he ended up with 18.

Now, how many famous polygamists of the Bible got away without any trouble because of it?


Gideon, for starters. There's no record of trouble for his "many wives" and many children. I don't recall David having any trouble expressly from having multiple wives, although obviously there are troubles with his children. The Bible doesn't tell us the trouble with the children is caused by polygamy, however. Solomon's troubles only came after he ignored God's ruling in two areas: a) resisting the urge to "multiply many wives" (God's admonition to Israel's kings not to go overboard), and b) marrying pagan wives who led him astray.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2013 December 14, 2013 10:10 PM  

Vox, suggest you hit that much harder. Marriage isn't just a contract between entity A and entity B, it is necessarily between entity A, entity B and "The State".

Or just sit down and watch a charming old musical called, Brigadoon - and muse over the quaint idea of a common law marriage where there was no clergyman to declare it to the community.

The metaphor behind the movie - pockets of resistance in ethereal kingdoms.

Would you give up the 20th/21st century to live one day in a hundred years according to ancient integrity? One good day in a life time is all it takes. And Jesus thanked God because none God had given Him, had he lost!

Which begets a deeper question. The boundary conditions of an idea. From where does the river flow, from what station has that train departed.

Blogger Eric December 14, 2013 10:12 PM  

The time to actually step in and tell these clowns "I told you so" is after the plane crashes into the ground and its bewildered occupants ask what the hell just happened.

They will never, ever admit to themselves the whole atheist multi-culti I just gotta be me stuff was a mistake. Somehow when the end comes they'll blame you and me.

Anonymous zen0 December 14, 2013 10:15 PM  

@ rycamor

Gideon, for starters. There's no record of trouble for his "many wives" and many children.

Honorable in many ways, Gideon revealed the worst side of his character in the polygamous practice he emulated (Judges 10:4; 12:9). He had forgotten the Mosaic law concerning the marital life of a king or ruler: “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself ... neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold” (Deuteronomy 17:17).

Gideon had many wives, how many and who they were are not known. From these unknown wives there came 70 sons, all of whom were slain by another son (Judges 9:56).


One big happy family, right?

Blogger Eric December 14, 2013 10:17 PM  

Gay "marriage" ad polygamous "marriage" remind me of when that Roman emperor "married' his horse.

Never happened. Caligula made his horse Incitatus a senator, and planned to make it a consul, but he never married it.

And really, you could replace half our Senators with horses today and end up with a better Senate as a result. I think Caligula was on to something.

Anonymous zen0 December 14, 2013 10:21 PM  

@ rycamor

I don't recall David having any trouble expressly from having multiple wives, although obviously there are troubles with his children.

Have you forgotten the Bathsheba business?
Or the trouble with Michal?

(Sounds like the trouble Obama had with Michele)

Anonymous Luke December 14, 2013 10:38 PM  

Jack Amok December 14, 2013 7:35 PM

"And then, on the whole, polygamy is sufficiently destabilizing, because young men deprived of the chance of acquiring a woman tend to go nuts

Polygamists make lousy neighbors because they always have a surplus of young men they need to drive out of the herd. There's a fair change those surplus guys join formal or informal brigand outfits."


True enough (the early Mormons were lousy neighbors because their fringes were commonly rustlers and petty thieves). However, courtesy of modern science, there is now a solution that didn't exist historically. For those polygamist patriarchs not in poverty, why not use in vitro fertilization to produce a gross disproportion of female offspring, like >80% females? It wouldn't require entire towns/states/nations agreeing to this, either. All it would take is 2-4 such "families" to do so, if they had an agreement to trade nubile 13-YOs amongst each other. There are polygamist groupings in Utah larger than this, right now.

Blogger Nate December 14, 2013 10:46 PM  

"Now, how many famous polygamists of the Bible got away without any trouble because of it?"

So... we note that God Himself actually gave multiple wives as gifts to Solomon... and we know that God's prophet told David.. when he was chastizing him after the bethsheba incident that "if you'd wanted more wives you should've asked God for them. He would've given them to you."

And we have multiple occasions in both testaments where rules are made and discussed concerning polygamy... Paul for example noting that deacons should only have 1 wife. Note that Paul did not say that others should only have 1 wife.

We also have the whole history of the apostolic church where Polygamy was in fact practiced... and we should ignore all of that... because... Drama?

I'm sorry are you arguing that something is a bad idea or are you arguing that it is sin? Because it seems God is quite clear about what is offensive to Him and what is not. No where does God communicate such about polygamy.

Monogamy is a political phenomenon friends. It was not in the church's tradition until a king put it there. And that King? was Constantine.

but hey... far be it from me to upset your nice little view of Churchianity. God Forbid history actually get involved.

Blogger Nate December 14, 2013 10:48 PM  

"Have you forgotten the Bathsheba business?"

/facepalm

Polygamy had nothing to do with that. That was coveting another man's wife. Straight up adultery.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 14, 2013 10:53 PM  

And really, you could replace half our Senators with horses today and end up with a better Senate as a result.

Secretariat, Traveller, Lucy Long, Man O' War or Loki's paramour (even in their current state) would be infinitely preferable to Lindsey Graham.

Blogger Nate December 14, 2013 10:53 PM  

"That must have been early on, because he ended up with 18."

I don't think this number is correct. 18 was considered the legal limit at the time... but I believe David only had 8.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2013 December 14, 2013 11:04 PM  

Nate. gadfly, antipodean, contrarian, Devil's advocate.

Monogamy is a political phenomenon friends. It was not in the church's tradition until a king put it there. And that King? was Constantine.

do you actually believe that everyone who read that is a friend? Do you believe that politics and religion are a definite dichotomy/ a polarity/ mutually exclusive? Can you prove secularism exists? Is a King a politician?

I've seen so many disinformation posters at Alex Jones' website your post makes me think, Hmmmmmmmm.

Are you here to protect the church from reaching any consensus then that could threaten or limit a state's right to do anything?

Nate, Nate, Nate. How blurry.

Anonymous Too-Soon-ami December 14, 2013 11:10 PM  

Whiskey: Nate that's Old Testament. Christs message supercedes Moses. If you are a Christian. If you are a Jew, Talmudic law says only one wife at a time.

The Christ didn't promote monogamy over polygamy; if anyone did, it was Paul who recommended it, and did not "command" it. Jesus also had a parable of the bridegroom and his ten brides; if he wanted to address polygamy, that would've been the time to do so.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2013 December 14, 2013 11:10 PM  

facepalm came from the maker's of "conspiracy theory" didn't it Nate?

facepalm, cloud cuckoo land,clown alert, roll the eyes, backing away slowly,

come on Nate, a few protips, what else have you got for us?

Blogger rycamor December 14, 2013 11:12 PM  

zen0 December 14, 2013 10:15 PM

@ rycamor

Gideon, for starters. There's no record of trouble for his "many wives" and many children.

Honorable in many ways, Gideon revealed the worst side of his character in the polygamous practice he emulated (Judges 10:4; 12:9). He had forgotten the Mosaic law concerning the marital life of a king or ruler: “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself ... neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold” (Deuteronomy 17:17).


Given in context, it was obviously meant as an admonition of self-restraint, not abstinence. Or do you think the king was supposed to only have one gold coin, and one silver coin? The old Testament had clear instructions on responsibilities of the man who had multiple wives, so why would such be forbidden a king?

Gideon had many wives, how many and who they were are not known. From these unknown wives there came 70 sons, all of whom were slain by another son (Judges 9:56).

One big happy family, right?


Yes, people do horrible things all through the Old Testament. But generally when an Old Testament story is given to make a moral point, the point is made. The story of Gideon's son makes no connection with polygamy. In fact, we are told in Judges 8:27 what the real problem was: "27 And Gideon made an [u]Ephod thereof, and put it in Ophrah his city: and all Israel went a whoring there after it, which was the destruction of Gideon and his house." Also note that Abimelech, the bad son, was not even a son of one of Gideon's wives, but a concubine.

Blogger Tracy Coyle December 14, 2013 11:13 PM  

Like almost every other right leaning site, the decision is NOT voiding bigamy. The Utah law says that if a married person gets married OR co-habitates with someone OTHER than their spouse, it is bigamy. The case struck down the 'co-habitates with someone other than their spouse it's bigamy' portion but left the 'no two times married' portion. Under the Utah law, a man that is married but shacks up with a mistress is guilty of bigamy even if neither makes any attempt at creating a second marriage. He is guilty of adultry, but not bigamy.

So, while all the comments are interesting, it doesn't actual deal with the decision rendered....

Anonymous zen0 December 14, 2013 11:14 PM  

@ Nate:

/facepalm

Its too bad this comment system does not support avatars so that you would not have to write that out all the time.




I'm sorry are you arguing that something is a bad idea or are you arguing that it is sin? Because it seems God is quite clear about what is offensive to Him and what is not. No where does God communicate such about polygamy.

Deuteronomy 17:17 “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself ... neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold”
Speaking specifically of Kings of Israel.


It sounds to me like it is considered a bad idea, and the historical examples seem to bear that out.

Chalk another one up to free will, I guess.

Blogger rycamor December 14, 2013 11:20 PM  

Notice how the naysayers are now mocking Nate's facepalm, rather than dealing with the substance of the argument.

Honestly, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I can't stand to see the Bible read so carelessly and emotionally. If I were God, I think I would have come up with some other way of dealing with man's lusts and acquisitiveness, but then, I'm not God.

It sure seems like the way the Christian church of the past century has tried to deal with these issues has failed...completely.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 14, 2013 11:28 PM  

Texas law has already avoided the problem of polygamy under common law marriage.......the most recent is presumed to be valid.

Anonymous zen0 December 14, 2013 11:29 PM  

I am willing to concede that there is an inordinate amount of ambiguity around the polygamy issue.

So if you are a Patriarch, or King or Judge of Israel, go right ahead. Just be aware of the obvious pitfalls.

Blogger rycamor December 14, 2013 11:34 PM  

Anyway, back to Nate's original point: divorce (especially the frivolous feelings-driven sort) has been far more destructive to society than polygamy has ever proven to be.

I note that Vox is talking about the slippery slope as factual, not making a moral judgement. Yes, those who tried to say homogamy would never lead to polygamy were of course idiots. That doesn't deal with the moral question, though. In fact, Vox himself has discussed the Christian moral question in the past. In fact, several times.

Anonymous zen0 December 14, 2013 11:36 PM  

@ Nate

Polygamy had nothing to do with that. That was coveting another man's wife. Straight up adultery.

Not straight up, but with a twist. Nevertheless, the acceptance of polygamy invited the taking of the opportunity.

@ rycamor

Notice how the naysayers are now mocking Nate's facepalm, rather than dealing with the substance of the argument.

Happy? (rolls eyes)

Anonymous Luke December 14, 2013 11:50 PM  

rycamor December 14, 2013 11:34 PM

"Anyway, back to Nate's original point: divorce (especially the frivolous feelings-driven sort) has been far more destructive to society than polygamy has ever proven to be."

Disagreeing bigtime here. Are you familiar with 1) the ratio of Jewish to Muslim science Nobel Prize winners, 2) the low # of books translated into Arabic each year, 3) the GNP of the Arab world being (if oil is removed) less than that of Belgium? You surely are aware of their propensity for violence and unrest. This is a region is which there is SOME polygamy, with all its motivation of left-out men to turn from peaceful productivity to idleness, theft, and violence, even insurrection. Anyway, I believe that our delayed marriage/half-hearted state of being married on the part of most American women now/high willingness to frivorce is more than anything part of a transition to de jure polygamy (especially the former).


Blogger rycamor December 14, 2013 11:59 PM  

Oy vey, the arguments grow desperate. I really don't understand why modern Christians get so worked up over this. Polygamy was a fact in Biblical times. God did not condemn it. Deal with it. And the argument about literacy is bogus, since we have quite an excellent written history of the Jews themselves. BTW, searching Vox's blog on the topic brought up this interesting post: Crunching Marriage Numbers.

Anonymous map December 15, 2013 12:05 AM  

It's not the husband who will be shopping for a another wife. It is the wife that will be shopping for another husband.

Anonymous map December 15, 2013 12:08 AM  

Btw, the goal is not to legalize polygamy. The goal is to legalize cuckoldry.

Anonymous paradox December 15, 2013 12:09 AM  

Polygamy can produce good things e.g. John Moses Browning.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 15, 2013 12:21 AM  

Being keen on freedom, I honestly do not give a flip what consenting adults choose to do in the bedroom, provided it does not unwillingly include other adults or any small children. This seems to conflict with some Christians who believe that the government must prohibit things that violate their religious beliefs. And so we have discussions here, with some obvious stress, around the idea of Christian Libertarianism.

Blogger Eric December 15, 2013 12:38 AM  

For those polygamist patriarchs not in poverty, why not use in vitro fertilization to produce a gross disproportion of female offspring, like >80% females?

I like the way you think.

Anonymous Luke December 15, 2013 1:05 AM  

DonReynolds December 15, 2013 12:21 AM

"Being keen on freedom, I honestly do not give a flip what consenting adults choose to do in the bedroom, provided it does not unwillingly include other adults or any small children."

So, you're unconcerned about the spread of incurable, often fatal STDs, incest resulting in offspring with many more birth defects (20 IQ lower I think is common for productive father-daughter dalliances), adultery, cuckoldry, bastardy (latter reliably effective at septupling criminal propensity in male offspring)? That's seriously short-term thinking; wouldn't you be more compatible with the way life is live in Haiti or the like?

Anonymous jack December 15, 2013 1:10 AM  

I'm going to marry my motorcycle, and I don't want any of you hateful bigots standing in my way.

Anonymous p-dawg December 15, 2013 1:14 AM  

Polygamy is a social status in Scripture, fully provided for (although not necessarily recommended). Are things devolving, or are we seeing at least a partial return to the past? Or both?

Anonymous Luke December 15, 2013 1:20 AM  

jack December 15, 2013 1:10 AM

"I'm going to marry my motorcycle, and I don't want any of you hateful bigots standing in my way."

Let me guess... On the wedding night, once alone in the hotel, you're going to take the seat off, correct?

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2013 December 15, 2013 1:22 AM  

One knows a dissembler by the fruits they bear in a [cough cough] dialogue.

Prevaricators, filibusterers, dissemblers all have one common thread: they share an unremitting propensity to pursue the minutiae of the utterly irrelevant.

To divide opinion based on tangential issues.

Fault free divorce, serial polygamy, aren't the bone on the table. To discombobulate, this topic is

Man marries man in Holy Matrimony - to the exclusion of all others.

If any ship could be sunk with one Exocet it should be this topic with that sentence. If elaboration is required it is because "you" are the problem, not the solution.

You are the swimmer not the rescue boat. You are the confusion, not the clarity. You are the divider, not the unifier.

Clarity of vision is a gift from God. Ignoring gifts is a peril all of its own.

Blogger Unknown December 15, 2013 1:51 AM  

First, marriage was between one man and one woman.
Then, it was between two people.
Now, it's among n people, where n presumably is an integer.
Next, it might include any number of living things.

Anonymous Noah B. December 15, 2013 1:55 AM  

Hopefully, seeing the mess that government has made of things will get more people to realize how ludicrous it is for government to have any involvement in marriage. Marriage should be recognized as a religious practice and nothing else.

Blogger Outlaw X December 15, 2013 1:56 AM  

State sponsored marriage is a joke. The State didn't invent it I could care less what they call marriage. It is not theirs, it is Gods. If you belong to a church that obliges these perversions of the the definition, I suggest you find another. Move on and let the liars tromp about in the septic tank.

Blogger Outlaw X December 15, 2013 2:00 AM  

Anyone who thinks that Christianity is immoral like one of the commenters I suggest you read Matthew Chapter 5-7.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 15, 2013 2:10 AM  

The state is involved in the marriage business unless it disclaims any interest in the state of the next generation, particularly in case of divorce (which is itself largely a state created problem, but now it's here it's a mass social reality), and unless it has no interest in whether contracts should be enforced by courts rather than by small arms fire. Again, it's the state under malign influence that has done the most to destroy marriage as a valid contract, but whether its influence is for good or bad the state is necessarily involved.

Anonymous Toby Temple December 15, 2013 2:18 AM  

Well its about time!

Harems will be common place in America soon.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2013 December 15, 2013 2:51 AM  

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Titus, I think Adam and Eve kept the forbidden fruit prohibition longer than Congress kept that amendment. The orthodox Jews have a saying I believe; if Israel could keep one Sabbath, Meshiach would come.

Given family law has crippled the USA, I suggest it as a place to start to "return".

But there will be no turning back will there! It's hard to argue with a survivalist - they have passed judgment. The one nation indivisible under God, left; without turning the lights off or closing the door. It left the impression someone was still home, and now the back door is just blowing in the breeze. The liberty bell has been broken longer than any living soul. It's the Leviticus inscription that is the problem I suspect. George Washington having dedicated the Nation, unto God, hasn't really been honored by subsequent office bearers.

Anonymous Discard December 15, 2013 3:37 AM  

It is my firm belief that any intelligent female offspring of leftists should be distributed to intelligent anti-leftists as concubines. Justice and eugenics in one package.

Blogger Some dude December 15, 2013 3:55 AM  

Yeah, but I think everyone missed something very interesting.

As much as our predecessors in 1896 may have been against polygamy, absolutely no one thought to make an amendment or federal law banning it.

But this is a generation of cowards and bullies. Where a black robed sociopath has the right to put a man in a cage if he doesn't participate in a "wedding" for degenerates. So of course the first thing the black robed sociopath thinks to do is to impose his vision, whatever it is, on the entire country.

Our predecessors had so much respect for the rights of States that they wouldn't even meddle when it came to practices they were disgusted by. The petty little communists and fascists we have today can't wait to rip that wall apart. Unfortunately, we have a lot of both

I myself have no problem with polygamy on ethical level. So I am not saying this because I have a problem with the practice. But what was done by that rotten corrupt judge was treasonous.

Blogger Tom Kratman December 15, 2013 5:40 AM  

For those polygamist patriarchs not in poverty, why not use in vitro fertilization to produce a gross disproportion of female offspring, like >80% females?

Because, if widespread enough, at any given time it makes you unfit to fight an existential war.

Anonymous Anonymous December 15, 2013 6:00 AM  

old white guy says........... I guess I could say I told you so but someone else probably has.

Anonymous Anonymous December 15, 2013 6:01 AM  

Would this be a potential solution to the plummeting birth rates amoung whites and blondes? Those willing to actually procreate and save their race getting multiple wives and doing it like rabbits?

The main downside on the polygyny is the surplus men tooling around. But don't we already have that now with so many beta's being passed up for marriage? And it seems video games, porn, etc are suitable for dealing with their pent up needs.

Anonymous plainsman December 15, 2013 6:03 AM  

Would this be a potential solution to the plummeting birth rates amoung whites and blondes? Those willing to actually procreate and save their race getting multiple wives and doing it like rabbits?

The main downside on the polygyny is the surplus men tooling around. But don't we already have that now with so many beta's being passed up for marriage? And it seems video games, porn, etc are suitable for dealing with their pent up needs.

sorry on the anon common.

Anonymous A December 15, 2013 6:15 AM  

What makes you think only whites will be polygamists? My immediate thought is that legalized polygamy is likely to result in hordes of mixed-race children.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza December 15, 2013 6:50 AM  

Nate stated a major; divorce is more destructive than countless other martial issues. When I was thinking of the govt revenue/costs of marriage, divorce didn't enter the calculation.

Once again a small minority is forcing the system to further interfere with marriage. The predictive programming is already out in tv shows and pimping the coolness of polygamy.

Either way its doom for a society in decline.

Anonymous Steveo December 15, 2013 9:51 AM  

Sorry Nate,
Internal coherence is important in scripture...

God's perfect plan for our lives starts in Genesis (Adam & Eve), and we know what happens to that when people are involved - it's why we need a Savior.

Anyway, here's a short version on several important thoughts regarding polygamy & God's teaching.

Or if that's too far to go: Here's some of the relevant part... It's Hank Hannegraf's take on the matter. I don't think it leaves room for reasoned argument for polygamy in the Christian worldview.

"God’s disdain for polygamy is clear in its consequences. The Old Testament reveals the strife and the temptations that accompany this kind of practice. Of course Solomon is the quintessential example. His legacy of faithfulness was compromised because of his polygamous behavior. Despite world-renowned wisdom his peaceful, prosperous rule ended in scandal and civil strife. Why? The Bible is emphatic. It’s because his wives turned his heart after other gods.
There is no standard in civilization, there is no context in the canon of God’s Word, that gives any out for this kind of behavior. It simply is not sanctioned in Scripture. The fact that the Bible gives examples of people who defied His will is simply a way of saying that the Bible is not airbrushed. It provides reality in its naked deformity, with all its warts and moles and wrinkles. It tells it like it is. But the fact that the Bible has a narrative about something doesn’t mean that the Bible sanctions it. You go to the didactic, the teaching portions of Scripture, you see very clearly that this is a behavior that leads to all kinds of problems."

And as others have said, divorce is not good, but we're given a way to do it...
Kings are not good, but we wanted kings...

The consequences for disobedience are enormous and long suffered - because they are ours to chew on.and so on we chew.

When pursuing God's will instead of our own, I don't think you can wind up on the side of polygamy.

Blogger Nate December 15, 2013 10:28 AM  

Steveo... the amusing thing here is that you apparently really believe that is a case.

It isn't.

Sighting God's perfect plan looks really good until I tell you eating meat is a sin doesn't it?

What you have is a lot of handwaving where people are desperately trying to build a case that doesn't exist. Polygamy was not limited to kings nor was it limited to the times of the Old Testament. Polygamy was practiced in the Apostolic Christian Church for centuries.

Was it common?

No.

Was it accepted?

Yes.

Did Jesus ever say one negative thing about it?

No.

What you've done is what so many other churchians have done before you. You've got a pre-concieved notion about things and you have rationalized a case for it. I recognize it because I once did the same thing.

Anonymous MRR December 15, 2013 11:07 AM  

Luke,

I am curious about documentation for your claim: (the early Mormons were lousy neighbors because their fringes were commonly rustlers and petty thieves)

It is my understanding that they were 'lousy neighbors' for entirely different reasons (mainly political, but there were personal issues as well - although 'rustling' and 'petty thieving' were not among them as far as I know) but I would welcome some further information.

Thank you in advance.

MRR

Anonymous Porky December 15, 2013 11:27 AM  

But we may be past the point where civilization can be legislated; it may have to be imposed.

♫ To dream... the libertarian dream....♫

OpenID whoresoftheinternet December 15, 2013 11:56 AM  

Poor Nate thinks that he can replace argument with put-downs. It's a very Scalzi-esque, ignorant way of arguing. Completely ignores the New Testament on polygamy.

Sigh. Nate's clearly a true-blue believer in fascism--and no amount of facts will dissuade him from his uncritical belief in the left-ish talking points.

Can't wait to hear him next defend having sex with goats and children. Well, he won't really defend, he'll just yell an ad hominem and shout ignorant slogans and declare is low-I.Q. ass the victor. lol.

Rape!

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 15, 2013 12:04 PM  

@ whoresoftheinternet


Pro-Christian agnostic here, with a working knowledge of the Bible. Please give some examples of where the New Testament parts from the Old, vis a vis polygamy.

Anonymous Sojourner December 15, 2013 12:31 PM  

So when Jesus cites that two shall become one (quoting Genesis) that isn't clear enough to state that THAT'S the proper model for marriage? So he basically has to spell it out? The most you can argue for is that polygamy is accepted as something to be tolerated (like divorce in certain cases) because of our fallen nature. It stated as one man and one wife and Paul fortifies this. Are you free to marry more? Sure, but beware the consequences.

Anonymous Steveo December 15, 2013 12:32 PM  

Sorry Nate, we'll have to disagree...

Genesis teaches God's plan for our lives with regard to marriage - it is referred to in scripture as a Marriage Covenant later in scripture. (I’m ignoring the meat red herring).
Also, you're not even trying to suggest that the early Apostolic church was perfect, because you can't be, so I'll let that go too. That it was practiced makes it ok with scripture? Really?

I didn't say that the practice was limited to kings, but that is the problem writ large with Solomon isn't it? So, Hank's correct in using that example for his reasons; examples of bad outcomes - it's perfectly coherent.

The Bible is coherent and the tapestry that Scripture weaves is elegant. As we reach for our studies as the Boreans did... that becomes more apparent doesn't it?

So God's way:

Gen 2:24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

That's from the source, at Creation.

Mat 19:3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
Mat 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Jesus clearly ratifies that teaching no? He does not say wives or endorse polygamy does He? Notice in that vein, He does not ratify the Sabbath (10 Commandments) when given the chance either... do you need to keep Sabbath or do you find your Sabbath rest in Him?

Back to the point, not wives but wife.

Or again, Jesus ratifies the teaching...

Luk 18:29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God

Not wives but wife. So does Jesus ever endorse polygamy? No.

But Paul clearly ratifies that teaching of monogamy as Jesus did as well... no?

Eph 5:31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”
Eph 5:32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Ti 3:12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well.
and
Tts 1:6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

I won't even bother with Rev 21:9

Back to Malachi - is this coherent?

Mal 2:16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”fn says the LORD Almighty. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful.
Mal 2:17 You have wearied the LORD with your words. “How have we wearied him?” you ask. By saying, “All who do evil are good in the eyes of the LORD, and he is pleased with them” or “Where is the God

of justice?”

It's not hand-waving, it's coherence in God's Word. Or do you find scriptural support for polygamy that I don't? I suggest you are still doing the same thing, what you want to do, for your own reasons. We are to pursue His Righteous and I believe the weight is on this side of the argument I've outlined; so I'm content to stand here, that I believe to be better ground in avoiding Malachi's admonishing in 2:17.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni December 15, 2013 1:09 PM  

Practically speaking, does anyone think that the majority of Americans, and especially American women, want polygamy to be legal? What does democracy mean if this majority sentiment can be ignored?

OpenID whoresoftheinternet December 15, 2013 1:19 PM  

Nice work, Steveo, but it won't matter-- do not cast pearls before swine. Nate will only skim your post and say something glib to the effect as "none of those refute anything I said" and run safely back to his female-run warren.

Poor little leftwing bitch. lol

Rape!

Anonymous Jack Amok December 15, 2013 2:07 PM  

You realize there is a history of polygamy that is unrelated to mormons right?

No... you're kidding, right?

Hell Nate, the Mormons were probably the lest troublesome practitioners.

Blogger Eric December 15, 2013 3:23 PM  

What makes you think only whites will be polygamists? My immediate thought is that legalized polygamy is likely to result in hordes of mixed-race children.

Lower class blacks are already polygamists, if not officially.

Blogger rycamor December 15, 2013 3:44 PM  

@Steveo: all the exegetical dances and gushing about tapestries don't cancel out the facts that are presented, nor the lack of an actual injunction on the topic. Yes, It appears that God prefers monogamy (or at least considers it the default), but we don't even have a clear statement to that effect. It also appears that at least in some cases God prefers celibacy, although we don't have a clear statement to that effect either.

Anyway, a serious theological discussion is not the topic of this thread. I would be happy to participate in that elsewhere (hopefully with Nate also), and Team Monogamy might be happy to learn I don't have a Theology to defend, and am quite willing to be convinced by an actual argument.

OpenID artisanaltoadshall December 15, 2013 4:05 PM  

@Steveo

I think you left out a salient point, which is in 1st Corinthians 6. "Do you not know that when you join yourself to a whore you become one flesh with her?" If you were trying to make the point that a man can only become one flesh with one woman, you're sorrowfully mistaken.

Next, in all the instances in which you cite the word "wife" being used in the singular tense, keep in mind that using the word "wife" in inclusive of all wives, whether they were in monogamous or polygynous marriages. There is no issue here, you're creating a strawman.

Likewise the command that an elder be "the husband of one wife." It doesn't mean what you think it means. The reason is that the instruction for widows is the exact same phrase and translated as "the wife of one man." In both cases these are moral character points and a much better translation would be for the elders "not a ladies man" and for the widows "not a flirt."

Malachi 2 is an even better example of not understanding the dynamic. The men had the right to take another wife if their first wife displeased them, but they were required to keep the wife of their youth, honor her, provide for her and treat her with dignity. Instead, the men were kicking them to the curb and taking a younger and more compliant wife to replace their first one. God said "I hate divorce!"

OpenID artisanaltoadshall December 15, 2013 4:10 PM  

@Steveo, continued

Another problem with your reasoning is that you look only at the problems that occurred in polygynous marriages and say "See- it's bad!" Shall we look at all the problems that resulted from monogamous marriages, starting with the first one? Cain killed Abel! The very first murder came from a monogamous marriage! Do you really want to go there?

Yes, the king was instructed not to multiply wives. What does the word multiply mean? 2 Samuel 8:12 is where God took credit for giving David multiple wives within the context of calling it a good thing. How many wives did David have? 18? I guess that's not a version of "multiply" that falls within the prohibition, is it? Solomon, OTOH, had 700 wives and 300 concubines (before Viagra!). They led his heart astray, so I guess the line is somewhere between 18 and 1000, but I don't know where it is and Scripture isn't clear on that.

The problem most have is they don't understand the Bible from a covenant model. God created three covenant entities: the family, the state and the church. To the family was given the command to "be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it." The state bears the power of the sword to punish the evil-doer and are described as ministers of righteousness (Romans 13). The church was given the command to go forth and make disciples of all men. In Genesis 2:24 God gave the authority to initiate marriage to the man. Nowhere in there is a command to seek the permission of either state or church, because as Ephesians 5:22-24 clearly states: "Wives, submit to your husbands as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church."

Just as most would agree that the State has no right to dictate the liturgy of the church, or the organization, administration, discipline, rights, duties or literally anything about the church, within the context of God's law, the church has no authority to meddle in the affairs of the family. Three separate covenant entities, established by God. Just as the church exists within the State, the family exists within the church. Each entity has it's own mission to fulfill.

I've written elsewhere on this subject, repeatedly. All who blather about the social impact of excess males are purposefully ignoring the unmarriageable females in our society today. The carousel riders (high-N sluts) who have preselected to share a man and are now wholly unsuitable for monogamous marriage. Many of them with thuglets in tow. Shall we line them up and shoot them and their offspring in the head? No. Have them get together in groups of 4 or 5, move in together and settle their household. When things have settled down they can go husband hunting.

Individually, they're unsuitable for monogamous marriage. However, as a group, they represent a strong structure that can't get the guy dragged into divorce court. with 4 or 5 incomes coming into the household they'll have a far higher standard of living than they'd have otherwise. The children would have a Male head of household whose authority was undisputed. The women would be disempowered because their favorite weapon (withholding sex) would be useless. In fact, the women would need to compete with one another at some point be adhering to a basic standard in order to get the husband's attention. The husband would get a good supply of sex within a durable structure that would be all but impossible to nuke in a divorce court. The women would get a dominant husband to give them the tingles and emotional support from the other women. The children would grow up under far better conditions than they look forward to today. All incentives are arranged to keep the group together as long as the husband leads and manages well.

Anonymous TroperA December 15, 2013 4:19 PM  

@Maximo Macaroni

American women have a strong incentive to become polygamous, if that means they can each get their own Alpha male. There are many women out there who'd prefer sharing an Alpha with other women over having a simpering Beta male all to themselves.

OpenID artisanaltoadshall December 15, 2013 4:27 PM  

Records from the 1800's indicated that Mormon women were strongly predisposed to join a family with 3 to 5 wives, expressing objection to "niggering it with a one-wife man." Given the living conditions back then and the amount of work a wife had to do, that was an understandable sentiment. The scenario I outlined above is analogous in the sense that a husband with 4 wives, three of whom work outside the home is a 4 income family. No way can the vast, vast majority of them get that kind of standard of living in a monogamous marriage.

With the advent of Marriage 2.0, monogamous marriage is dead in the water because it's stacked so much against the men. Between no fault divorce, DV laws like VAWA and the 66% matching fund from the Feds on child support collected by the states, monogamy is just dead. There is no going back, only going forward. I suspect that things will be different for the US after the civil war, but I don't see any substantive changes until then.

Blogger rycamor December 15, 2013 4:39 PM  

Every woman that I've ever had a discussion with about this topic (including my own mother and my own wife) has come out with something on the order of

"Polygamy is so [socially correct negative sentiment]... I can't believe [something negative about men]...

But, [some form of expression of interest, or thoughtfulness on how it could be worked out, IF such a thing were necessary... WHICH of course it isn't because...]"

Heh.

Who watches the show "Sister Wive" more: men or women?

Anonymous Anonymous December 15, 2013 5:46 PM  

Two words; Family reunification. Four brides imported from Pakistan or Africa legally by a non-Western immigrant instead of only one. Then there would be Nigerian marriage scams. . .

LURKER

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate December 15, 2013 9:00 PM  

Samuel 12:7--And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

Samuel 12:8--And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. "

You mean God did not know that David had already married Michal by then, and Ahinoam and Abigail, too? Why was David never stoned to death for adultery since everybody knew he married many wives and had sex with them?

How thick the veil is over one’s eyes. I wonder who put that veil there that they cannot see God's words clearly?

Long live polygamy!

Anonymous Big Bill December 15, 2013 10:41 PM  

"My Dad figured all this out (it seems) decades ago, with the Weekend Marriage License.....yep, you got it.....good till Monday morning."

The Shiites already have temporary marriage. All the woman has to say is "I marry you for an [hour] for [$50]" and the marriage automatically terminates after an hour.

If she is a virgin you need her father's permission but if she is in care of the state or has a father that abandoned her you don't need his permission.

You can search the internet for "Ask the Ayatollah"-type web sites and find many questions like this answered by the imam of the week. There are plenty of Muslim men living in the West who get this kind of advice. You see, they want to be Good Muslims (tm) and obey the Prophet (pbuh) but they also want to get their weekend nookie as well.

The Holy City of Qom is full of Ayatollahs who frequent whorehouses--but not really whorehouses since they all get a temporary Shiite marriage before servicing their favorite whore.

The chilling letters were those from Muslim men living in England who "Asked theAyatollah" how they could fsck their 13 year old English girl legally under Muslim law.

It was only when I read their letters that I realized the Muslim men who were whoring out 13 year old English girls were doing it all legally with The Prophet's permission since they were getting temporary marriages.

I expect we will ultimately treat marriage the way the Ottomans and the Israelis do: each confessional community has its own laws and each community can enforce them as they see fit, including child support, custody, divorce, and forms of marriage. It is the only true diversity-celebrating caring-n-sharing way to do it.

It will start with permitting marriages to be ruled on and enforced by different faith communities. It will start first with Jews and Muslims, and then the seculars will demand the same right to take their marriages and divorces and alimony settlements out of the hands of the secular authorities as well. In fact, the Jews have been trying for years to get US courts to enforce Jewish law in Jewish marriages. Pretty soon there will be a critical mass of alien religions and people and the US courts will be compelled to bow to their pressure.

Anonymous Steveo December 16, 2013 12:13 AM  

@rycamour
Sorry rycamour, it's not gushing & dancing to take the whole of Scripture in consideration. Proper exegesis will not allow you to contradict the whole of who God is or His Holiness - it's either consistent and coherent or not. Like I said, IMO your interpretation will weave that tapestry tighter and not cause it to unravel - otherwise there are problems with your conclusions. So God may prefer celibacy... taken to the logical conclusion one wonders "who" he may desire to be the God of - so clearly that's ridiculous. I don't see Creation as God's default position on anything as if it is all a casual & offhand thing; but rather as perfect purpose - which renders Adam & Eve's condition and status in Creation perfectly relevant to His design. If you read Hank's take on the matter in discussion (link provided earlier), I think it's clear enough to note that the original design for man & woman clearly posited in Genesis.

If you want the Bible to clearly enjoin all activities you may find necessary to weigh, in order to be authoritative, then you'll be sorely disappointed in your search for His Righteousness. Jesus didn't find the need to spell out the Encyclopedia of "do this don't do that" and it's important to know why.

Did Christ ratify God's original design for man & wife together or not? Or is He just as likely returning for multiple brides?

@artisanaltoadshall
When the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus with the question of divorce, Jesus easily deals with the problem... here's a great take on it: "He makes it clear that certain Old Testament commandments were to be understood as concessions to the hardness of the human heart rather than as expressions of God’s holy character. He goes on to reference how this was not the state of affairs in the beginning—that is, before the fall." L.T. Jeyachandran RZIM Singapore

Clearly, God made one man & one woman by design. Shortly thereafter, things went wrong. The murderer Lamech was the first polygamist was he not? So what? As I clearly stated, the consequences of Solomons polygamy are illustrative to the argument exactly as Hank presented, nothing you've suggested refutes that. Did you bother to read the article? In Deu 17:17 the Kings are prohibited from having many wives. How many is that? IMO, two is too many, but that's not important here, what did God have in mind? Abraham fell once in this regard, how did that work out?

Here's the relevant piece from Hank's article - "Finally, God’s disdain for polygamy is seen in its consequences. The Old Testament clearly reveals the familial strife and temptations that accompany the practice. Solomon is the quintessential example of one whose legacy of faithfulness was compromised because of his polygamous behavior. Despite his world-renowned wisdom, Solomon’s peaceful and prosperous rule ended in idolatrous scandal and civil strife, for “his wives turned his heart after other gods” (1Kings11:4).

Did something I wrote suggest that I said polygamy (or even extra/pre-marital sex) wasn't possible? Irrelevant. Likewise, you go to great lengths with unimportant hypotheticals that are irrelevant to my point, and Hanks. Additionally, I'll reference the NIV which translation are you referencing?

Again, the important point is... Did Christ ratify God's original design for man & woman & marriage or not? Or is He just as likely returning for multiple brides? You may think He did not, I'll disagree.

Anonymous Scintan December 16, 2013 3:37 AM  

The case itself is just the nose of the camel. In effect, the case decides that only state recognized marriages are actual marriages, and that adultery must be prosecuted on a par with a faux marriage, which is what any marriage not done with state blessing would be.


Naturally, that brings out the anti-polygamy crowd with their abusing of the bible, as if that's got something to do with this particular state action.

Anonymous Steveo December 16, 2013 7:14 AM  

Dang Scintan,
You should've jumped in here earlier... cleared all that up.

OpenID artisanaltoadshall December 16, 2013 8:43 AM  

@Steveo
I use the NASB for general reading, but I'm capable of drilling down to the Greek text if needs be. For that I use the LSJ Lexicon. Matthew 19 was on the subject of divorce, not monogamy v polygyny. The question was the judgment of Moses concerning divorce, which was not part of God's law. I wrote this article to explain what was actually happening in that exchange:

http://wp.me/p3Hat9-o

I must ask if it's you that has a problem with reading comprehension. You said:

Clearly, God made one man & one woman by design. Shortly thereafter, things went wrong. The murderer Lamech was the first polygamist was he not? So what? As I clearly stated, the consequences of Solomons polygamy are illustrative to the argument exactly as Hank presented, nothing you've suggested refutes that. Did you bother to read the article? In Deu 17:17 the Kings are prohibited from having many wives. How many is that? IMO, two is too many, but that's not important here, what did God have in mind? Abraham fell once in this regard, how did that work out?

I already pointed out that trying to claim polygyny is somehow wrong because we see problems is irrelevant, because the first murder was Cain killing Abel, the children of the first monogamous marriage. I pointed out that since God was OK with the number of wives that David had (~18) then that wasn't enough to be considered a multiplication of wives. Solomon, OTOH, had 1000 and that was obviously too many. Your idea that more than one wife is "multiplying wives" obviously does not agree with God's position.

Ultimately, you need to look at it this way: Instead of looking at it as multiple wives, you need to look at being a farmer. God did not prohibit a man from being a farmer, but if a man chooses to be a farmer God gave His instruction (no mixing seed, don't bind the mouth of the ox that treads the grain, don't plow with an ox and ass yoked together, Sabbath rest for the land every seven years, etc.). We have examples of good farmers and bad farmers. Can you argue that God's design is that we should not be farmers? Surely it's better to be a pastor, a missionary or an elder of the church, is it not?

@Scintan
I read the decision somewhat differently, because it must be taken in understanding of the ruling for Meister v. Moore (1878) in which the SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and laws requiring a marriage license are "merely directory." A common-law marriage is a perfectly valid marriage even in states in which such marriages are outlawed because marriage is a fundamental right and the command to get a marriage license is nothing more than a polite suggestion. That holding has never been overturned and is still very much current law on the subject.

OpenID artisanaltoadshall December 16, 2013 8:52 AM  

@Steveo
One other thing... With respect to Christ's Bride... If you check the seven Epistles of Christ (Revelation 1-3), given your emphasis on the word "wife" and your claim that it can mean only one, check out how many times He says "He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." If the church is the body of Christ and the bride of Christ, how do you explain Christ's constant references to multiple churches?

Anonymous Steveo December 16, 2013 11:34 AM  

@artisantoadshall

Sorry artisantoadsall, you are wrong... again, you miss the point of reference in the first article - here: “his wives turned his heart after other gods” (1Kings11:4).

So I'll grab it for you: 1Ki 11:4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

This was Solomon's dismal failure, was it not - as pointed out clearly in scripture? Scripture points DIRECTLY to the problem here. Now, where do you see scriptural endorsement of polygamy? Can't find it? And there's no way you can claim the initial ground; God planned it as He planned it. One man, one woman. One God.

I believe the coherence in that argument mirrors the relationships in the Godhead (oh no, the Trinity), as God intended.

Now, exactly the argument Hank makes and the one I agree with, is standing. How many wives turned his heart? I don't believe it matters, one, or 18 or 700. The problem is clear. Tie that to the key point which is, what was God's design? Monogamy. Agree with that or don't.

Additionally, it does not follow that the monogamous relationship of Adam & Eve caused Cain's actions. But scripture points out that polygamy lead to Solomon's failure. That's what makes it relevant. Did scripture point out that monogamy lead to Cain's actions? Surely you can glean the point.

Because polygamy happened, that does not mean scripture condones it. That means that some things happen & were allowed due to hardened hearts of men, it did not mean it was God's design, it's the exact same point made with regard to divorce.

You don't have that ground to stand on with scripture do you? So you must look elsewhere to discern God's way as best you can. Does God's original creation have any weight with you or not, because that's the crux of the biscuit. I understand that. If God's Word said Adam - Eve - and Susie, hey brother... we'd be having a different conversation wouldn't we? I believe you want Scripture to support your polygamous position. I believe that I see Scripture pointing to monogamy.

Your argument with regard to semantics of plurals doesn't sway me either as the parallel He is making with regard to the Bride is clearly one of Man - Woman - Marriage. That goes to the point. The parallel does not follow polygamous marriage does it? Man-Women-Marriages (churches in your example). Again, with regard to the relationships, that same context provides Man - Women - Gods; clearly a non-starter.

No, I don't need to look at farming... I can appreciate the underlying principles taught by the references. We do not fail Christ because we are not all teaching fishing. And again I refer you to my (Hanks) previous position, which I do not believe you have refuted.
It is my sincere hope to delve into the Scripture as the Boreans did... and to hold fast to that which is true. I will not pursue the Pharisees approach... as I believe the problems were made apparent quite awhile ago.

Anonymous Scintan December 16, 2013 2:27 PM  

I read the decision somewhat differently, because it must be taken in understanding of the ruling for Meister v. Moore (1878) in which the SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and laws requiring a marriage license are "merely directory."

This case specifically avoided making it illegal for the state to bar polygamy as a state-sanctioned marital option. What you may think this case will lead to is one thing, but what it actually allowed is another. The judge specifically noted that there is no fundamental right to practice polygamy.

Anonymous Scintan December 16, 2013 2:30 PM  

Dang Scintan,
You should've jumped in here earlier... cleared all that up.


There wasn't anything to clear up. It's was obvious that those using the bible in the anti-polygamy arguments being used in this thread were warping meaning, ignoring context and the like. It's not as it my words were about a close call here.

I'll leave it at that, because this case wasn't about the bible's take on polygamy.

Anonymous duckman December 18, 2013 5:49 PM  

And don’t you Evil Religious Freaks start quoting the Bible or the Koran.

Quoting the Koran while opposing polygamy? I'll believe it when I see it.

Blogger vabna islam December 26, 2013 5:56 AM  

This is such an interesting blog. You are very knowledgeable about this subject. Please check out my site.
Utah attorney

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts