
Elusive Wapiti has a post up this week about the dangers of polygamy for men. Although some men will cheer on polygamists (including our modern promiscuous types) as being particularly “manly men”, a society-wide habit of such behavior is actually to the detriment of the majority of men. We can see this by looking at what polygamist societies actually look like, including our own informal one:
- Rampant ephebophilia. Hey, that sounds great! Except it isn’t, unless you’re the one having sex with her. In polygamous societies, men who have daughters are pressured into giving their daughters up early for sex, or the girls are simply taken without their permission. This means that the daughter’s and grandchildren’s health is compromised, their education is compromised, and the ensuing youth-cult means that their societal worth (and family status) declines at a breakneck speed. Early childbearing is associated with poverty for a reason.
- Impoverished widows. The general pattern is that the older the man gets, the younger his brides get, and fathers have to suffer their 14 year-old daughters getting shagged by 70-year-old men. Once the old codger dies, the young wife is left to scramble for the economic scraps left behind from his other wives. Or she could just throw herself on the funeral pyre, and do her daddy proud.
- The death of romantic love. Very young brides are more likely to be maltreated and unloved because their much-older mates often cannot relate to them as anything other than sex objects or house pets, once the honeymoon is over. Because each wife knows that she will likely be replaced once he’s tired of her, she has less interest in sacrificing for her husband’s sake. This leads to a harsh, pump-n-dump culture among men, which limits their ability to experience the full range of their emotions as they sink into machismo. The entire sex ends up emotionally-stunted — the unmarried because they have no one to love at all and are estranged from their fathers, and the married because they have so many wives that they fail to bond deeply with any one of them.
- Men are demonized by other men. Young men are stymied in their romantic interests, and are often “sent off” or “killed off” to prevent cuckoldry. Rather than raise and train their sons, polygamists pick a favorite or two, and toss the rest out to isolate them from all of the women in the house. Some just toss them all out. On the upside, polygamously-married men tend to live longer than monogamously-married men. Unmarried men, as we know, don’t matter.
- Involuntary celibacy. Unmated men are seen as society’s worst enemy, so they are left to their own sexual devices, which leaves them unproductive, disinterested in the fate of the wider society, and more prone to the anti-social behavior which shortens their lives. Women, as well, are often sexually frustrated because the few sexually active men are often too busy to attend to them.
- Low fertility. Male infertility (both natural and contraceptive) is a reproductive risk that is greatly exacerbated by polygamy. The more women one man has, the more women are impacted by his infertility. Also, women ovulate in synch when they interact closely, so the chances of impregnating one is rather low, as he’s probably not having sex with all of them every day (if he did, he’d eventually start shooting blanks, anyway). That is one reason why, the more women a man has sex with, the fewer children each woman will have, even if he isn’t using contraception. A man with five wives and 1.5 children each (typical rate for polygamists), is not more reproductively successful than one with one wife and eight children, and he’s had to take care of all of those squabbling wives.
- Inbreeding. As we’ve seen with the sperm-donor fiasco, limiting the number of biological fathers increases the chance of accidental inbreeding among the next generation. This is already the case in highly-promiscuous societies, but we seem determined to take this to the next level now.
- Poor child-raising. The women in polygamous societies are all busy bonding with each other, fighting over their mate, and crying alone in their rooms, which leaves children unattended. Polygamous families tend to be poor and a drain on welfare systems, and the children tend to be uneducated and malnourished. The men largely ignore their children, of course, just as they tend to ignore their wives.
Posted in: Relationships

terri
October 7, 2011
I was watching a documentary once about the life in a polygamist compound. Not sure if it was the one from the headlines or just some random sect.
Anyway, I was shocked at the way the teenage boys were treated. It was clear that these boys, children of this place, were viewed as the enemy. Many of them were thrown out promptly after reaching puberty if it was even suspected that they were spending time with or getting close to any of the girls there.
I have heard a few people (Christian men) claim that God endorsed polygamy in the Bible. The truth is that He did no such thing. Tolerated? yes. Condoned? No. I hope to pop in later where I can provide Scriptural proof of my assertion, because I can.
If ever there was a man who could have used more than one wife to fulfill his call to be fruitful and multiply it was Adam, lol. And yet we read that God gave him one wife, Eve.
Alte
October 7, 2011
They use the same method to say that the Bible endorsed slavery, but that is not the case. It just says that if you are a slave, this is how you should behave. It does not say that slavery is a good. Likewise, it says that if you have multiple wives, this is how you should treat them. It does not say that polygamy is a good.
There were some polygamists who entered the Early Church through conversion, but polygamy was discouraged among the members. More here.
joanna
October 7, 2011
Totally agree.
Morticia
October 7, 2011
We watch the show Sister Wives and they do seem to break the mold when it comes to polygamous families. Their kids seem well cared for and they are pretty mainstream. Kody’s newest wife (the 4th) was 30 and had 3 children from a previous marriage when they met.
I don’t think his motives are sexual. I think he is genuine in his religious convictions which makes a significant difference in how their family operates. I do think that a lot of men are attracted to polygamy as a away to excuse their sexually exploitative desires for a variety of young women.
I also agree that wide use of polygamy is bad for society because it leaves many men without the possibility to marry.
I don’t think polgyamy should be illegal in any official capacity besides limiting each man and woman to one civil marriage. I do take issue with them exploiting the welfare system. In the case of the Sister Wives they don’t accept welfare and several of the wives have jobs outside the home.
Will S.
October 7, 2011
Everyone loses with polygamy. Genesis 2:24 (“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”) shows what is God’s ideal for humanity.
Svar
October 7, 2011
I have another point to add to your anti-polygamy screed: Monogamy is the way of civilized people. The Romans and the Greeks were monogamous. Were they superior in every way to all other peoples? Hell yes. My Aryan ancestors were fairly polygamous and they were nowhere near as civilized as either the Romans or the Greeks. The Greeks and Romans would talk about the (mostly polygamous)Northern Europeans with disdain. As a bunch of stupid, cowards. They would talk about the (polygamous)peoples of the East as a bunch of slimey, effeminate people and called their “leaders” Oriental despots.
Look we don’t want our society to degrade into Sub-Saharan Africa or the Islamic World. We don’t even want it to degrade into 1000 AD Scandinavia.
Chels
October 7, 2011
There’s no way that polygamous marriages are nearly as good as monogamous ones. I can’t even imagine how women must feel sharing their husband with 1 or more women. Men in Islam are allowed to have 4 wives, but their wives aren’t happy about it, and the men that want to practice polygamy do so without even telling their wives (hey honey, my work requires me to travel 3 days a week every week from now on!). I’ve read some blogs written by Muslim women who stated that the wife’s opinion is not even considered as she’s considered his property, she has to submit to him, and the Quran gives him permission to do it, so her opinion is irrelevant.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“There’s no way that polygamous marriages are nearly as good as monogamous ones.”
I agree. It’s called “pair-bonding” for a reason.
Hey Will, do remember all those articles by Roissy saying that women actually like if you’re spinning multiple plates? I think he’s just bullshitting like the time he said women like it when you cheat on them.
The Deuce
October 7, 2011
I’ve seen guys in the Manosphere argue for state-supported polygamy, from a “Biblical” perspective or not. My response to that is, okay, I can be down with the state supporting your mate-hoarding, as long as you’re down with taking this to its logical conclusion, and having the state ignore it when other men kill you and take your women. Deal?
joanna
October 7, 2011
“mate-hoarding”
HA! Good one.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Ha ha, Deuce. Good point. You mean the “lesser” (i.e. non-polygamous men) don’t have a duty to protect his harem for him? What is the world coming to, when people are so darned selfish? Why can’t they all volunteer to kill, banish, or castrate themselves, in the name of The Brotherhood?
Why should they want a wife, just because I have four of them? It’s so unfair!
It’s essentially sexual gluttony; the male version of “trading up”.
Alte
October 7, 2011
I do think that
a lot ofall men are attracted to polygamy as a away to excuse their sexually exploitative desires for a variety of young women.Fixed it for ya. You don’t really buy into that religious clap-trap, do you? They just made that up so that they had an excuse for accessing something tighter. Next thing ya know, they’ll invent a theology of fellatio, and demand that each wife bow down and worship.
I mean… give me a break. If anything, there’s a Christian argument for a preference for celibacy, but zero argument for polygamy. Christ did not come to provide men with fresh pussy. It’s like taking sin and trying to turn it into a virtue, and then inventing your own cult to back up the morality of it. And then they put the women in prairie dresses and smile for the camera, and we’re all suppose to forget that they’re a bunch of sexual deviants.
Look at us, we’re so cute! Please don’t mind that we’re having an orgy.
the cottage child
October 7, 2011
The prairie dresses freak me out.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Next thing ya know, they’ll invent a theology of fellatio, and demand that each wife bow down and worship.”
Hey, what’s wrong with blowjobs(better than cupcakes)? This “theology of fellatio”…. sounds great. Bow down and worship is a euphemism for get down on her knees and blow, right? Hahaha, these cults are starting to look good. Do we get to be pretend-pagans and pillage other peoples and take their wimminz? All your wimminz belong to us, bitchez.
Höllenhund
October 7, 2011
Accurate article, but you ignored the fact that polygyny (whether institutionalized or not) is much more in harmony with female hypergamy than monogamy. Hypergamy drives polygyny just as much or more as the male desire for sexual variety.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Look at us, we’re so cute! Please don’t mind that we’re having an orgy.”
They get to have orgies too?! That’s so unfair! Why do they get to have all the fun and bitchez?
Höllenhund
October 7, 2011
@Chels
“I can’t even imagine how women must feel sharing their husband with 1 or more women.”
When your choices as a woman are having the 1/4th of a wealthy, prestigious Big Man or the 100% of an average poor schmuck, trust me, polgyamy will appear to be very attractive.
joanna
October 7, 2011
“The prairie dresses freak me out.”
Oh! Come on, CC. Those dresses are cute.
terri
October 7, 2011
It’s like taking sin and trying to turn it into a virtue, and then inventing your own cult to back up the morality of it. And then they put the women in prairie dresses and smile for the camera, and we’re all suppose to forget that they’re a bunch of sexual deviants.
Amen! You know, I posted about this a couple of years ago after we learned that a family close to us was in a church about to boil over because some of the men there had concluded that there is absolutely nothing Biblically wrong with polygamy. How these brothers thought that ever in a million years they were going to get the women in that church to sit back and listen to that nonsense without revolt is beyond me. All talk of multiple wives has since ceased.
Anyway, after I heard about that I started doing some poking around and found that there are Christian sects (not LDS) that were beginning to embrace the lifestyle. Lo and behold, I heard via email from a woman who was desperately trying to help her friend see how erroneous this theology is and from one whose family was beginning to consider it.
Here was a site I found where the authors make a comprehensive defense for Christian polygamy and one of the defenses is that some men have too big a sexual appetite to be satisfied by one woman. Therefore polygamy can keep that man from sexual temptation and sin. I was floored given the Bible’s clear admonition to exercise self-control.
But like you said, Alte, it’s a full court press toward trying to turn a sin into a virtue. Never mind that the Bible says a man will cleave unto his wife (singular) and the two shall become one flesh. Or that in the qualifications for ministry in the NT, Paul writes that a leader can be the husband of one wife. And the kicker? In Deuteronomy 17 where the Lord lays out instructions for any future kings of Israel Verse 17 reads thus: “He must not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away…”
Even when there was polygamy among God’s chosen men, it brought nothing but trouble. In the case of Abraham, Jacob, and Samuel’s mother Hannah, it spurred contentious, strife-filled homes. In the case of David, there were so many children from so many women that he was rendered impotent as a father when one of his sons raped his daughter. One could argue that David didn’t discipline because of his own sin, but either way, he did nothing. In the case of Solomon, his wives seduced him to idolatry.
One more thing. No matter how happy and idyllic they make this setup look on Sister Wives, Morticia (I’ve never seen the show), I have a seriously hard time believing that there isn’t a lot of insecurity and jealousy going on behind the scenes. If this husband isn’t deliberately going after young teenage girls, that’s something I guess. But one of the things I love about the Bible is that it peels back the layers and exposes human nature. Very few women who are honest with themselves can tolerate knowing their husband is sleeping with another woman while she is laying in bed alone.
And I submit that it’s because God never intended for marriage to be done that way.
Alte
October 7, 2011
They get to have orgies too?
They live in an orgy, Svar. That’s the point. Christians are only supposed to get married if they “burn”, i.e. if they really can’t do without. They’re not supposed to collect spouses like baseball cards.
And Höllenhund is right: the women are just as pro-polygamy as the alpha males because it means that all those lower-quality women still get to get banged by someone hot. And notice how these Nice Girls don’t give a damn that young and beta men are being treated like garbage. So the higher-quality women get to be first wife, and then the quality declines as you go along (as the later a woman is added, the lower her status, so only women of relatively low status will agree to be a “later wife”).
Chels
October 7, 2011
When your choices as a woman are having the 1/4th of a wealthy, prestigious Big Man or the 100% of an average poor schmuck, trust me, polgyamy will appear to be very attractive.
BS. Most women would take a “schmuck” over sharing her husband with another woman.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“BS. Most women would take a “schmuck” over sharing her husband with another woman.”
Doubt it. Five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Chels,
The reality of the dating market says otherwise. Most women prefer to be pumped-and-dumped by alphas than marry a beta… when they are young. These polygamist women usually marry young, when they are most conducive to this lifestyle. They’re still in thug-chaser mode then, and when they wake up 10 years on, with their beauty fading, and he’s added another three wives… oh well. It’s the institutionalization of groupies.
Each woman who is added gets to be a Special Snowflake… until the next woman is added, and he’s done pumping her and dumps her.
CL
October 7, 2011
Hey Will, do remember all those articles by Roissy saying that women actually like if you’re spinning multiple plates? I think he’s just bullshitting like the time he said women like it when you cheat on them.
What complete rubbish. Roissy gets a lot right but he also goes off the deep end.
Hey, what’s wrong with blowjobs(better than cupcakes)?
I see you’ve read my post today.
When your choices as a woman are having the 1/4th of a wealthy, prestigious Big Man or the 100% of an average poor schmuck, trust me, polgyamy will appear to be very attractive.
Uh, no. It depends what you mean by “poor schmuck”. If you mean that he doesn’t have much money (as it seems to be what you’re saying) but is otherwise a good guy to have, then my “uh, no” stands.
Chels
October 7, 2011
Doubt it. Five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.
Ughh, that’s just a sign of the decay in values. Same as the increase in acceptability of swinging, polyamory and alternative lifestyles.
Höllenhund
October 7, 2011
I have to agree with Alte and Svar, Chels. You’re just bullshitting us.
CL
October 7, 2011
Also, it depends on your reasons for marrying. I can’t imagine there’s be enough sex to go around between 4 women, not for me anyway. Maybe that works for some people, but to draw a sharp like between alpha and beta determined by worldly success is the only way to make that point stand. There are lots of lower earning men who are not squishy betas and I’d take one of those all to myself over 1/4 of some big shot alpha twat who thinks everyone has a price.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“They live in an orgy, Svar.”
Wait… not only do they get to have orgies, they get to LIVE in them? That’s awesome!
“They’re not supposed to collect spouses like baseball cards.”
But what if you’re a man?
Chels
October 7, 2011
I have to agree with Alte and Svar, Chels. You’re just bullshitting us.
No, I am definitely not. I agree with CL, I’d take a guy that was unemployed but that loyal and loving to me alone, over sharing a rich guy.
The only acceptable case of polygamy is for example, war, when there’s a shortage of men (and this is how it was practiced in the past).
As well, there’s also polyandry, how do you explain that?
Alte
October 7, 2011
Oh, yeah sure, Svar. It’s different for men.
I can’t imagine there’s be enough sex to go around between 4 women, not for me anyway.
That’s actually probably why these men are considered hot. The fact that they don’t sexually satisfy their women drives up the competition for them between the women, which raises their status and makes them less considerate to each one. So the women spend more time desiring him than having him, so they think he’s hot stuff.
In other words, polygamy is proof that women can be really stupid and are often completely incapable of introspection.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“I see you’ve read my post today.
”
Haha, actually no, I just went over to read it. It seems that great minds think alike, CL. Blowjobs > Cupcakes. Cupcakes don’t even taste that great.
CL
October 7, 2011
Oh, and I didn’t even mention the hell of having to live with 3 other women! Nightmare! Money is just not a big motivation for me, whether you choose to believe that or not. So long as I have a roof over my head and I’m not starving, and I get a good root regularly, my requirements are few and not complicated. Like minds and hearts bound is more important and that isn’t possible with so many people in the picture. Plus as an introvert, having that many people around all the time would drive me nuts. I’d rather just be single.
Alte
October 7, 2011
As well, there’s also polyandry, how do you explain that?
There’s also pedophilia and bestiality, and men who fall in love with plastic dolls, so I’d explain it by saying that people are into some crazy shit. Luckily for us, our religion outlines what forms of sexuality are normal (heterosexual monogamy) and that happens to be the only form of it that is also completely sane.
No, I am definitely not. I agree with CL, I’d take a guy that was unemployed but that loyal and loving to me alone, over sharing a rich guy.
Yeah, me too. But we’re not necessarily representative.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“As well, there’s also polyandry, how do you explain that?”
LOL. Chels, you’re funny. Polyandry is completely unnatural and makes no logical sense. One man can impregnate a bazillion women, but what sense does it make to have two pokers in the fire?
CL
October 7, 2011
That’s actually probably why these men are considered hot. The fact that they don’t sexually satisfy their women drives up the competition for them between the women, which raises their status and makes them less considerate to each one. So the women spend more time desiring him than having him, so they think he’s hot stuff.
That is pretty stupid isn’t it. Who needs that kind of constant drama? I already have enough drama with two daughters, thanks. That just sounds messed up.
In other words, polygamy is proof that women can be really stupid and are often completely incapable of introspection.
Yup. And where is the soft place to fall at the end of the day? The whole arrangement sounds emotionally disturbed. More power to them if it makes them happy, but to say that all women would like this is ludicrous.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“There’s also pedophilia and bestiality, and men who fall in love with plastic dolls, so I’d explain it by saying that people are into some crazy shit.”
Don’t forget gay secks. It used to be a traditional hobby of the Greeks. In modern-day Afghanistan, pedophilia and homosexual rape are the national pastimes, the same way how we like to drink beer, watch football, and bang sluts.
CL
October 7, 2011
Blowjobs > Cupcakes. Cupcakes don’t even taste that great.
I don’t have a sweet tooth. I prefer savoury snacks.
Ingemar
October 7, 2011
Alte, you forgot to mention forced castration and polygamous societies go hand-in-hand.
Will S.
October 7, 2011
@ Svar: “Hey Will, do remember all those articles by Roissy saying that women actually like if you’re spinning multiple plates? I think he’s just bullshitting like the time he said women like it when you cheat on them.”
Of course he’s bullshitting. Now, I can agree with the Gamers’ contention that female preselection means they like it when a guy has options – but then chooses them. They don’t actually want a guy to be choosing others AND them, because that’s no good. Similarly, they might not mind a guy’s history, as long as they’re the LAST. They don’t want to be last among others…
terri
October 7, 2011
No, I am definitely not. I agree with CL, I’d take a guy that was unemployed but that loyal and loving to me alone, over sharing a rich guy.
Yeah, me too. But we’re not necessarily representative.
I agree with Alte, CL and Chels on this point. And I also agree that we’re not necessarily representative. With the exception of Chels (no offense dear) each of us has been consistently emphatic about our lack of concern for status and material wealth.
In a world where there is food a plenty, shelter and a reasonable degree of safety, there’s no reason I would ever subject myself to a house full of other women (ugh!) and sex once a week if I’m lucky enough to get into the rotation. And there are no guarantees that I would if there’s a newer younger wife or if he’s crushing on one in particular at a given time.
Chels
October 7, 2011
I don’t have a sweet tooth. I prefer savoury snacks.
CL, have you read this?
http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2010/06/sexy-move-pineapple-juice-for-better.html
the cottage child
October 7, 2011
Plus as an introvert, having that many people around all the time would drive me nuts.
I KNOW – lol, that’s the first thing I thought of. It’s like “sheesh, who do I have to marry to get some peace and quiet around here”?.
Chels
October 7, 2011
polyandry is completely unnatural and makes no logical sense.
Polyandry makes perfect sense, she can get both the alpha and the beta, and there goes your hypergamy problem.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Alte, you forgot to mention forced castration and polygamous societies go hand-in-hand.
And war, of course. Raping your neighbors’ women solves the “leftover man” problem. Or just send them off to die, which is an even quicker fix.
CL
October 7, 2011
Yes Chels, I saw that. I don’t know that I’d worry about it that much, lol.
CC, we had visitors this week and I just find it exhausting after a couple of days – I think 2 days is kind of my limit. I need some solitude or I start to lose my mind.
terri
October 7, 2011
polyandry is completely unnatural and makes no logical sense.
I could say the same about polygyny. After all, Alte just wrote a whole post outlining the problems with it.
.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Polyandry makes perfect sense”
You’re retarded. I can not name a single group of people ancient or modern who commit polyandry, besides radical feminist SPWLs.
Polyandry makes no sense. Why would women want the beta when they can just have the alpha?
Now, if you’re talking about beta orbiters, that’s not polyandry. She has to be fucking the beta orbiters for it to be polyandry and something tells me that’s not the case.
In accordance to Nature, polyandry makes no sense, unlike polygamy. Nature doesn’t care about whether or not women get both alpha aaaaand beta, she cares about more stronger, smarter, and better offspring.
Chels
October 7, 2011
I can not name a single group of people ancient or modern who commit polyandry, besides radical feminist SPWLs.
Then you should brush up on your knowledge, here’s a link to help you with that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Yes Chels, I saw that. I don’t know that I’d worry about it that much, lol.”
Yep. Roman Papist women don’t swallow.
CL
October 7, 2011
Yep. Roman Papist women don’t swallow.
LOL Don’t forget I’ve been a heathen most of my life.
Svar
October 7, 2011
Danke, Miss Wikipedia. Polyandry still doesn’t make any natural sense unlike polygamy. It takes a woman nine months to have kids. In that time a man can inseminate loads of women.
Stuki
October 7, 2011
As there are 6 or so billion people on this planet, I’d be very surprised if polygamy isn’t preferable to monogamy for some fraction of them. If it wasn’t, resource competition would have cleaned the institution out by now.
Obviously, the fairly equal number of men and women being born, puts pretty hard limits on how widespread the practice can be. Too much of it, and the nongynysts will overpower the polygamists.
The idea that there is “one true way”, and that “we”, whoever “we” might be, should sit down and figure out what is the best way to live; and then force it upon others, is the biggest detriment to both civilization and happiness ever dreamed up. God arranged it so, that healthy people living proper lives and raising their children accordingly, grow exponentially in numbers. Which guarantee they’ll come into resource competition with those living differently. Over a few generations, things sort themselves out, as long as everyone is simply left alone.
As for Prairie dresses, they’re no more freaky now, than they were on the Prairie. They are easy to sow at home, comfortable across a rage of temperatures and climates, while allowing women to keep modest and downplaying possible class differences between them. And it’s not as if tight fitting polyester miniskirts, brought over by the container load from China, is somehow less freaky.
And the Greeks and Roman’s could look at others with disdain all they wanted, all the while dieing out. Great achievement! Sounds a bit like New York liberals to me, whining about how unsophisticated the rest of the country is, while they themselves can’t even feed themselves, without transfer payments, preferential legislation and bailouts. There are probably many modes of living that reasonable people could debate the merits of, but what is not up to debate is that all cultures capable of at least surviving, rank above all those who cannot even accomplish that.
the cottage child
October 7, 2011
Swallow what? Cupcakes?
Svar
October 7, 2011
“LOL Don’t forget I’ve been a heathen most of my life.”
Haha, true. Well, either way, you’re not one now. That’s good.
Chels
October 7, 2011
Swallow what? Cupcakes?
Sure, I heard they make that flavor
A Lady
October 7, 2011
Polyandry, where it occurs, is usually a resource stabilizer. Women marry brothers or other related males typically, not two or more unrelated men. And it still gets pretty messy and jealousy-laden in practice.
The mediocre chick “marrying” two omegas (the SWPL version) is basically just stupid urban-dweller kinkiness.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“The idea that there is “one true way”, and that “we”, whoever “we” might be, should sit down and figure out what is the best way to live; and then force it upon others, is the biggest detriment to both civilization and happiness ever dreamed up. God arranged it so, that healthy people living proper lives and raising their children accordingly, grow exponentially in numbers. Which guarantee they’ll come into resource competition with those living differently. Over a few generations, things sort themselves out, as long as everyone is simply left alone.”
You deny that there is one true way and at the same time believe in God. Cognitive dissonance, much?
“And the Greeks and Roman’s could look at others with disdain all they wanted, all the while dieing out. Great achievement! Sounds a bit like New York liberals to me, whining about how unsophisticated the rest of the country is, while they themselves can’t even feed themselves, without transfer payments, preferential legislation and bailouts. There are probably many modes of living that reasonable people could debate the merits of, but what is not up to debate is that all cultures capable of at least surviving, rank above all those who cannot even accomplish that.”
You’re a fucking moron if you think the Greeks and the Romans were like New York (Jewish)liberals. Unlike liberals and whatever you are, the Greeks and the Romans actually built a civilization. They were objectively superior. They were also ethnocentric, non-egalitarian, and patriarchal. And monogamous.
Wait a minute, are you referring to the modern day Greeks? This makes you even more of a moron because the Romans no longer exist as a separate ethnic group: they been absorbed into the other Italian tribes. That alone should have clued you in that I was talking about the Ancient Greeks and the Ancient Romans, but I guess logic is a gift not bestowed to many.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Sure, I heard they make that flavor
”
Cum-flavored cupcakes? Is that what you Canadians eat? That sounds worse than rocky mountain oysters.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Swallow what? Cupcakes?”
No, frosting.
CL
October 7, 2011
Cum-flavored cupcakes? Is that what you Canadians eat? That sounds worse than rocky mountain oysters.
They go great with sauerkraut milkshakes.
the cottage child
October 7, 2011
Stuki, you seriously just defended the prairie dress in all it’s anachronistic glory? lol.
the cottage child
October 7, 2011
And it’s not as if tight fitting polyester miniskirts, brought over by the container load from China, is somehow less freaky.
No, those are equally freaky.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“They go great with sauerkraut milkshakes.”
Probably. Everytime I think of sauerkraut milkshakes, I think of Terri, hahaha.
Svar
October 7, 2011
What’s wrong with mini-skirts? They’re hawt. And btw, what’s a prairie dress?
terri
October 7, 2011
I’m no fan of prairie dresses but I get where Suki is coming from on the issue. I guess they are no more freaky than the other end of the spectrum. I prefer to find a “middle way” myself. For me the question is whether or not this is what a husband wants his wife to wear. If he likes, more power to them both.
The issue is not the prairie dresses per se, but rather the presentation of a repressed, modest life when you’re basically living a sexually deviant lifestyle, one where the “patriarch” is living a swinger life while purporting to be pious.
My thoughts on the ultra-”modest” look is that it is in many ways, not modest at all. It draws attention to the woman in ways that don’t always point to the Savior she wants to represent. Also, there is the issue of living in a culture in a way that makes it possible to draw others.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“but I get where Suki is coming from on the issue.”
AHAHAHAHA! You do realize what “suki” means, right?
CL
October 7, 2011
It’s Stuki, not Suki. Details!
David Alexander
October 7, 2011
As we’ve seen with the sperm-donor fiasco, limiting the number of biological fathers increases the chance of accidental inbreeding among the next generation.
I’ve had a personal theory for years that there may end up being some weird inbreeding within certain segments of the black community due to fatherless children having little connection and relations with their paternal family being unaware that some of their potential sex partners are related to them. With nearly three generations or so of social dysfunction in some areas, it’s increasingly more likely to occur.
That is one reason why, the more women a man has sex with, the fewer children each woman will have, even if he isn’t using contraception.
I suspect that this may explain why some alphas are more likely to engage in risky, condomless sex as they feel that their odds are good and that they’ll always get away with shooting blanks or at the right time. Of course, this doesn’t preclude the risk of being infected with an STD.
Involuntary celibacy
As I like to point out, under the current status quo, I can at least have some female dinner companions whether they be single mothers, carousel riders, overly picky women, or unlucky women. With polygamy, all of these women are locked up in marriage by an older man with enough power to ensure that there are solid reinforcements to keep women away from men like myself. While I have admittedly dropped out of the metaphorical market, I still benefit from having an ample supply of women to keep me company. Even the lonely loser men under a traditional regime have little benefit to defending polygamy.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Anyway, I was shocked at the way the teenage boys were treated. It was clear that these boys, children of this place, were viewed as the enemy. Many of them were thrown out promptly after reaching puberty
A smart military recuiter would set up an office in the heart of the polygamist region.
it’s not as if tight fitting polyester miniskirts, brought over by the container load from China, is somehow less freaky
So wrong. Miniskirts should be made out of leather. No other material is acceptable.
I can not name a single group of people ancient or modern who commit polyandry, besides radical feminist SPWLs.
There are a few. Generally where the men are too poor to afford a wife on their own (or, perhaps, women are too scarce?). However, in all cases I know of, the wife is shared among several brothers – not among unrelated men. This is sort of stable since, no matter who the father is, all the husbands are related to the child (those who aren’t the father, are uncles), and therefore have a genetic stake in caring for it.
But since most men have much stronger sex drives than most women, the shared wife of several brothers is very, very busy. A few Western women think that sounds hot but the women who actually live that way apparently don’t like it much — or, at least, they don’t admit it to anthropologists.
The ancient Picts and Caledonians of Scotland are reported to have lived in clans who shared their women in common — all of the men of the clan being brothers or cousins, the child was part of the tribe regardless of which one was actually the father. Eventually they were absorbed by colonists from Ireland (who brought tartan, bagpipes, Gaelic language, etc, to Scotland as well), and between that and conversion to Christianty, the ancient custom eventually vanished.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
I ain’t gonna click on these at work, but I fear the worst:
http://www.polyandry.org/
http://www.christianpolygamy.info/polyandry/
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=697
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
I have heard a few people (Christian men) claim that God endorsed polygamy in the Bible. The truth is that He did no such thing. Tolerated? yes. Condoned? No
Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more! Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight?
Old covenant, granted. But still…
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Also… consider the levirate marriage. If a man’s brother died without heirs, he was REQURIED to marry the widow, and the first born was to inherit his brother’s estate, thus keeping the land in the family. This requirement held EVEN IF the man was already married — he STILL had to take his brother’s wife.
Thus, the law, in some circumstances, required polygyny (although never polyandry.) Lie still and think of Israel.
It was never to be the norm. But it was not just “permitted”, in this one situation it was mandatory.
Again, old covenant
the cottage child
October 7, 2011
the ultra-”modest” look is that it is in many ways, not modest at all.
This. And I agree, wear what your husband wants you to, but seriously, these women are dressing for “success” with each other. Staunch conformity, like never ending high school. I sincerely doubt the majority of men +1 their wives in hopsack hijab. The average deviant likely doesn’t care what his wife(ves) wears on the basis of appearance, anyway (except DA).
Svar
October 7, 2011
Those links are messed up, van Rooinek. Especially the first one. Apparently, monogamy is not endorsed by the Bible and seen as extreme and Paul didn’t expect priests to monogamous let alone celibate. Sounds like a load of shit to me.
The other links are a bit more sane in that they promote only polygamy, not polyandry, but polygamy is not Christian or Western(Greco-Roman).
Mormonism… Amerika’s greatest contribution to human civilization after same-sex “marriages”, feminism, pegging, fenises, the Purple Saguaro, “diversity is strength”, and the $outhern Poverty Law Center.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“So wrong. Miniskirts should be made out of leather. No other material is acceptable.”
Heh heh, yeaah. Short skirts are great.
“The ancient Picts and Caledonians of Scotland are reported to have lived in clans who shared their women in common — all of the men of the clan being brothers or cousins, the child was part of the tribe regardless of which one was actually the father. Eventually they were absorbed by colonists from Ireland (who brought tartan, bagpipes, Gaelic language, etc, to Scotland as well), and between that and conversion to Christianty, the ancient custom eventually vanished.”
Weird.
Svar
October 7, 2011
However, in the context of brothers and cousins, polyandry does make some sense. Whatever.
Alte
October 7, 2011
It takes a woman nine months to have kids. In that time a man can inseminate loads of women.
Assuming that there are loads of women to inseminate. It might be that the population is skewed heavily toward men, like in China. Under those conditions, some men might be willing to share.
We have a soft form of it now, with men impregnating women and then other men marrying them.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Prairie dress (these women are monogamous):

This. My point exactly. False advertising ++.
wifey
October 7, 2011
i think the people here who are so avidly against polyandry (not saying i’m for it) vs. polygamy are willfully ignoring the fact that, in the “natural state of soft polygamy” rarely are the women monogamous. in other words, just because it isn’t sanctioned, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
i’m pretty sure that the men in relationships will let you in on this little secret: when a woman gets the guy she wants, her sex drive is usually higher than that of her partner’s.
–
but yeah, polygamy actually does not make natural sense. there are many clues that we, as a race, are not even close to as polygamous as some people seem to think. these include lack of sexual dimorphism (yes, it is there, but it’s not there like it is in many species), strong paternal involvement in children (in a polygamous species the father has little or nothing to do with the children), and, of course, the natural sex ratio (in a polygamous species the sex ratio is…obviously…not 1:1). take a look at the most successful societies/countries — their sex ratio is closest to the natural ratio…why is this…hmm…weird…
Alte
October 7, 2011
The average deviant likely doesn’t care what his wife(ves) wears on the basis of appearance, anyway (except DA).
My general impression is polygamous men have an incentive to make their women as unattractive as possible to other men, and the prairie dresses are part of that. I guess it’s also a mental thing to make the women feel more virtuous in spite of being swingers.
CL
October 7, 2011
I guess it’s also a mental thing to make the women feel more virtuous in spite of being swingers.
LOL I imagine it also reduces competition between the women if they all look frumpy and have no unique style.
Alte
October 7, 2011
i’m pretty sure that the men in relationships will let you in on this little secret: when a woman gets the guy she wants, her sex drive is usually higher than that of her partner’s.
This. Unless she’s on the rag, usually. The idea that one man won’t get enough sex from one woman is a total joke. Unless he needs sex more than two times a day, without any days off, she’ll probably be enough. And if he’s willing to degrade his wife just to have sex more often than that, she needs to call a lawyer. Like… right now. Cause he hates her.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“And if he’s willing to degrade his wife just to have sex more often than that, she needs to call a lawyer. Like… right now. Cause he hates her.”
I don’t follow your logic. Having sex with your wife more than twice is degrading and it means you hate her?
“i’m pretty sure that the men in relationships will let you in on this little secret: when a woman gets the guy she wants, her sex drive is usually higher than that of her partner’s.”
van Rooinek’s married. I’m pretty sure he already knew that.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Stuki came onto Traditional Christianity and complained that we’re being judgmental about the Prairie Swingers. LOL You’ve got to be kidding me. These people belong to a heretical cult.
Svar
October 7, 2011
So that’s what a prairie dress is. Yep, I still prefer miniskirts.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
y general impression is polygamous men have an incentive to make their women as unattractive as possible to other men, and the prairie dresses are part of that.
I think it’s more of a case of arrested cultural evolution. That’s how they dressed 130 years ago and they didn’t change — the rest of us changed. (Then again, I wear Levi’s 501 button fly jeans — patented 1873 — nearly every day, so perhaps I’m not much different!)
I guess it’s also a mental thing to make the women feel more virtuous in spite of being swingers
Except that I don’t think the women are doing the swinging. It’s the men who bedhop.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“take a look at the most successful societies/countries — their sex ratio is closest to the natural ratio…why is this…hmm…weird…”
I already made that argument for monogamy. Reading comprehension is your friend.
CL
October 7, 2011
Thing is too, most men are actually capable of going a day or two without sex. But I agree with Wifey and Alte here that if a woman is with a man she really wants, it’s unlikely to be a big problem. More often than not it’s men who get squicked out by having sex during menstruation. Unless you have Niagara Falls periods, that shouldn’t really matter much either.
/ Like, eww, gross.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Van,
A lot of swinging relationships are asymmetrical.
I don’t follow your logic. Having sex with your wife more than twice is degrading and it means you hate her?
No, I mean “adding a wife” in order to get more sex means you hate her. Obviously. Why else would you treat her like that? Show your love by not being a total ass, seriously.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“More often than not it’s men who get squicked out by having sex during menstruation.”
Yeah, that grosses me out too.
“No, I mean “adding a wife” in order to get more sex means you hate her. Obviously.”
Hahaha, it just means that you’re a fucking stud. Duhh.
Alte
October 7, 2011
How many people were against homosexual marriage until the gays started appearing on talk shows in dowdy clothes, holding hands, and saying tearfully, “We just want to be a family. We love God and we love each other, and we just feel called to do this.” Awww…. well, it’s all okay then. Since you’re not dressed up like a Love Parade freak, that changes everything.
Will S.
October 7, 2011
Yeah, that’s icky; time for BJs and HJs, surely. Athol said so, and I believe it!
Svar
October 7, 2011
Some relevant Roissy linkage: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/why-women-get-cheated-on/
Better than the time he said that cheating turns girls on haha.
Will S.
October 7, 2011
(Oh, and intermammary… You know.)
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Wifey: i’m pretty sure that the men in relationships will let you in on this little secret: when a woman gets the guy she wants, her sex drive is usually higher than that of her partner’s.
Alte: The idea that one man won’t get enough sex from one woman is a total joke.
Very, very large numbers of married men strongly dispute this. From what I’ve read, plenty of women only want it for about 3-5 days midcycle (around ovulation) and are just uninterested, indeed unpersuadable, the rest of the time. During that 3-5 days they are insaitable “multis”, the rest of the time, nothing.
I guess by Wifey’s logic, these women didn’t really get the men they wanted. Despite the fact that the sexual peak activity (or only activity) is right around the fertile phase, when “dissatisfied” women supposedly cheat with the men they “really wanted.”
Van,A lot of swinging relationships are asymmetrical.
Yes, I know this. Although in Calif. it seems it’s more often the opposite direction. Among the extremely small sample size of my acquaintances, 50% allowed both to swing and 50% allowed only the wife to swing. (And 100% are now divorced.)
But my point was, that the prairie polygamist women, aren’t swinging (unless there is much we don’t know about them.) It’s the men who have multiple women, the prairie dress women are confined to one man.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“How many people were against homosexual marriage until the gays started appearing on talk shows in dowdy clothes, holding hands, and saying tearfully, “We just want to be a family. We love God and we love each other, and we just feel called to do this.” Awww…. well, it’s all okay then. Since you’re not dressed up like a Love Parade freak, that changes everything.”
I’m pretty sure that the vast majority are against fag “marriage”. It’s just the small vocal minority.
The reason why we have gay “marriage” is because of this: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/06/28/the-conservative-movement-raises-the-white-flag-again/
I can’t wait until the GOP dies.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Yeah, that’s icky; time for BJs and HJs, surely. Athol said so, and I believe it!”
Handjobs, eh. You know the best kind of handjob, ever? When she uses her mouth.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Nope. A majority of Americans are now supportive of gay marriage. True story. Proganda worked for them, and the polygamists know it will work for them. As no one type of marriage is best. We can’t be so rigid. Everyone should just go with what works best for them.
And all that jazz.
Alte
October 7, 2011
This thread has sort of slided into total smut, Svar. We know, we know, you like fellatio, like every other man. Can we move on now, please?
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Alte: Svar….you like f*****o like every other man. Can we move on now, please?
I don’t like it. I prefer the real thing.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Well, a lot of men prefer the real thing, but they all enjoy it. At least according to anecdotal data.
I guess by Wifey’s logic, these women didn’t really get the men they wanted.
Women who truly love their husbands don’t deny them sex on a regular basis, even if they’re not in the mood. They might have the man they wanted, but they’re shit-testing him now.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“I don’t like it. I prefer the real thing.”
Not even as a lead-up?
Alte
October 7, 2011
That’s how they dressed 130 years ago and they didn’t change — the rest of us changed.
That’s generally not the case. They’re adopting this style of dress as part of their new culture, the same way I adopted a headcovering.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Nope. A majority of Americans are now supportive of gay marriage. True story. Proganda worked for them, and the polygamists know it will work for them.”
LOL. This is why democracy is stupid.
“As no one type of marriage is best. We can’t be so rigid. Everyone should just go with what works best for them.”
The Crowd is Untruth – Kierkegaard.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Not even as a lead-up?
Catholic-style, LOL
Okay, I’m done being smutty for now. Till later!
Will S.
October 7, 2011
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Alte
October 7, 2011
LOL
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Why else would you treat her like that? Show your love by not being a total ass, seriously.”
Jokes aside, I agree. I don’t like polygamy.
Svar
October 7, 2011
http://samsonsjawbone.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/742/
They’re now pushing to take pedophilia off as a mental illness-the same way they did with taking homosexuality. Hmm…. what happened after the APA took homosexuality off the list… what did they do afterwards?
Alte
October 7, 2011
Baby, I love you so much that I’ve decided to go sleep with someone else, and put you and your children on the backburner. But it’ll be great cause you’ll have a live-in BFF that I’ll pick out for you, and you won’t have to worry about having sex with me every night. It’ll be so great for both of us. This is all for you, baby! I’m just giving this to God, out of my love for you. Just pouring out Jesus love, baby. You know this is true love, baby.
Uh huh. I can feel the love right through the interwebs.
Alte
October 7, 2011
fornication… adultery… homosexuality… polygamy… pedophilia. Next up: everyone grab a goat!
And we laughed at the Taliban.
Svar
October 7, 2011
I wonder if the Crowd is stupid and gullible enough to allow old, skeevy perverts ass-rape their children?
Everyday that passes, I realize three things: 1776 was a mistake, 1789 was a joke, and 1917 was a horror.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Forget 1917. 1517.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Everyday that passes, I realize three things: 1776 was a mistake
That being the case, you owe the British Crown 235 years of back taxes with interest.
Alte
October 7, 2011
I wonder if the Crowd is stupid and gullible enough to allow old, skeevy perverts ass-rape their children?
Well, they’ve already made the important step of separating men from their biological children.
Will S.
October 7, 2011
“That being the case, you owe the British Crown 235 years of back taxes with interest.”
Not just Svar, though; all of America does. It can be paid to me, a British North American (Canadian), in lieu of the Crown: I promise, I’ll be sure to pass it all on, minus a processing fee, naturally.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
I’ve decided on the polygamy issue. Amanda Knox will be my second wife. She’s got a real killer bod.
Will S.
October 7, 2011
BTW, Alte, the pic you chose, is that an African family? After all, they don’t look Mormon, somehow.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“That being the case, you owe the British Crown 235 years of back taxes with interest.”
You do realize that the colonists had to pay far, far less than what we pay now, right?
“Forget 1917. 1517.”
Yep. That was a movement away from Classical Civilization. Kind of like how the “Enlightenment” was a movement away from God.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Not just Svar, though; all of America does. It can be paid to me, a British North American (Canadian), in lieu of the Crown
Payable in hot lead ingots. Preferably copper jacketed. Supersonic delivery.
CL
October 7, 2011
Forget 1917. 1517.
That’s kinda what I was thinking too.
As for the back taxes, I’m a British Citizen so I’ll take good care of that money.
Will S.
October 7, 2011
CL, you have Brit citizenship?! Howdja manage that?
Will S.
October 7, 2011
@ VR: Sure; just make sure it’s aimed at Queen’s Park, in Toronto; I’ll pick it up later.
Alte
October 7, 2011
It’s African immigrants. The rising acceptability of polygamy is largely due to its association with immigrant “culture”. Africans and Middle Easterners, mostly.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Svar, you need to read this before you reject 1776:
The Light and the Glory
Svar
October 7, 2011
“I’ve decided on the polygamy issue. Amanda Knox will be my second wife. She’s got a real killer bod.”
True. She has a rack to die for.
Alte
October 7, 2011
http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/bacha-bazi-pedophilia-and-child-trafficking-justified-by-the-tradition-afghanistan
Precisely. The Taliban didn’t care about their pedophile “culture”. They just pushed a brick wall on top of anyone who got caught. Problem solved. We call that “integration”.
I don’t care if these people like polygamy. I don’t care if it’s their polygamist culture. It isn’t our culture, so if they don’t want to conform to the rules here, they can take the next plane out. Problem solved.
Nicole
October 7, 2011
Wow, excellent topic!
Last year I took a human sexuality anthropology class, and we looked into several cultures that practice polygamy. We studied cultures where men have multiple wives, women have multiple husbands, and sometimes both spouses have multiple partners– and sometimes, they don’t have set “partners” at all. One that stuck out to me was a culture– I can’t quite remember where this one was located, but I can get back with that– where when a woman married a man, she became the bride of all of his brothers, as well. Pretty odd.
I was suprised to learn how much of a rise for it there is in Western culture. Where I live, there’s a group/club that advocates for it. Some pleade the case of the “selfish gene” theory, and others just claim the right for multiple partners.
For my own part, I’m not at all a fan of the idea. Aside from being gross and a risk for disease, it seems to me that it would kill the emotional attachment in a relationship. Sex was made to be between two mates to build attachment. Aside from that, the woman or man (whoever was one of many spouses) would likely experience a lot of sexual frustration, I imagine. PLUS I just hate the idea of my guy with anyone else. xP
Svar
October 7, 2011
van Rooinek, I’ll go check it out, and I raise you this: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/12/29/establishing-christian-america/
“We Americans like to think of our country as the most religious, the most Christian nation on the face of the earth. In an irritating article I wrote for the Spectator (“America: Not A Christian Country,” August 27, 2005), I demonstrated the hollowness of this claim. Whatever Americans may say they believe, they do not act like Christians. In a comparison of America’s rates of divorce, teenage pregnancy, and abortion with those of E.U. countries, America’s reputation for Puritanism takes a beating. Some of our rates are skewed by the somewhat different sexual mores of African- and Mexican-Americans, but they are, after all, Americans, and even discounting those minorities will not produce a statistical profile of the model citizens of the City on a Hill. We do attend church services more frequently than Europeans do, but here, too, the numbers are skewed by the high number of churchgoing Christians who are elderly, Southern, and female.
Despite the number of religious fanatics who landed on our shores early on, America has never been a Christian nation. Conservative evangelicals are fond of saying that the Founding Fathers were all pious Christians, but few of the men who led the Revolution or drafted the Constitution could be described as pious or even orthodox.”
If God has a plan for America like Peter Marshall Manuel thinks, it’s most likely as the Whore of Babylon.
CL
October 7, 2011
Will, my parents are British – I’m the first Canadian in the family, came here 3 months before I was born, heh heh. And if they aim that money at Queen’s Park, I’ll get there before you!
A Lady
October 7, 2011
The women in the photo are pretty, but they don’t look cheered to be co-wives.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“I don’t care if these people like polygamy. I don’t care if it’s their polygamist culture. It isn’t our culture, so if they don’t want to conform to the rules here, they can take the next plane out. Problem solved.”
Says Miss I-hate-WASPs-and-Chronicles-because-they’re-raaaaaycist-and-mass-immigration-of-Mooooslims-and-Crapsicans-is-awesome.
Feeling a little VDarish, now?
Alte
October 7, 2011
I’ve never been a proponent of mass immigration, Svar. You don’t have to be for mass immigration to not want to read VDare. I am capable of holding the same opinion as people I dislike. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/nyregion/23polygamy.html?pagewanted=all
At any rate, I’m against Christo-polygamist cultures, as well. These people are trying to get us to adopt a deviant, foreign practice through the Prairie Dress method. Unlike a lot of other people, I’m not actually that stupid.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
“We Americans like to think of our country as the most religious, the most Christian nation on the face of the earth…..Whatever Americans may say they believe, they do not act like Christians. In a comparison of America’s rates of divorce, teenage pregnancy, and abortion with those of E.U. countries, America’s reputation for Puritanism takes a beating.
Well. YES…of course…. TODAY. Changing worldviews have consequences:
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/131-a-biblical-worldview-has-a-radical-effect-on-a-persons-life
Didn’t used to be that way though.
Conservative evangelicals are fond of saying that the Founding Fathers were all pious Christians, but few of the men who led the Revolution or drafted the Constitution could be described as pious or even orthodox
There were some Deists and freethinkers among the Founders, yes, but the majority of them were Christians. This is well documented.
wifey
October 7, 2011
er…yeah. there is a reason i didn’t necessarily say “married men.” women in relationships (and by “in” i mean actually in — not halfway in or in it for the money or in it because she’s lazy and doesn’t want to go find another guy or in it and cheating) are often insatiable.
Alte
October 7, 2011
This stuff gives Christianity a bad name, too. Once this becomes more widespread — which it will, and quickly — people will associate traditional Christianity with polygamy — i.e. with “boys gone wild”. Just like they associate it with women in Christian hijab, families with 20 kids, and girls who can’t read.
Great.
Keoni Galt
October 7, 2011
Having some extended family members who converted to mormonism, I asked them about their infamy for polygamy. It was explained that the reason why the mormon pioneers practiced polygamy was due to the fact that while they were traversing across the Great Plains to eventually settle in Utah, many men died along the way. This lead to a severe gender imbalance amongst the pioneers, so the men started marrying the young widows.
In those days, before “equality,” men and women had specific gender roles to serve in surviving the harsh frontier. Men and women needed each other, and polygamy was the best way to deal with a gender imbalance that left many young widows with children husband-less.
I guess the circumstances would dictate whether or not polygamy would be desirable in any given community.
Alte
October 7, 2011
I guess the circumstances would dictate whether or not polygamy would be desirable in any given community.
Totally. I’m with you there. The circumstances change everything. So if a man is sent to prison for life, or becomes impotent or disabled, his wife should divorce him and remarry, since it’s like… you gotta live, right?
And just cause you swear fidelity for life doesn’t mean you can’t change things later and add a wife out of charity, or whatnot. You couldn’t just… offer to feed the widows without banging them. I mean, you’re not a fool. You’re not going to give them something for nothing, just because they belong to your church and are the widows of your fallen brothers.
It’s all relative, if you think about it.
As if Christians have never dealt with a severe shortage of men.
Keoni Galt
October 7, 2011
Are you saying context for which it occurs meaningless? I, like most people, had an aversion to the idea of polygamy. Curious about the mormon rationale, I asked.
I found the explanation logical and reasonable in that particular context.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
You couldn’t just… offer to feed the widows without banging them
What fun is that?
Besides, Why do you assume the impetus for polygyny would come from the men? They might have been insatiable wives (per Wifey) and now suddenly find their steady source of relief, suddenly taken away. Having read Biblical examples of polygyny, they just might do good job of talking themselves (and the men, and perhaps even the overworked first wives) into believing it’s okay.
Alte
October 7, 2011
It always sounds logical and reasonable in a particular context, Keoni. That’s the whole point of rejecting moral relativity. To make it clear that it is never allowed, even when it sounds logical and reasonable. The rules are the rules for a reason.
Alte
October 7, 2011
I’ve already pointed out that polygamy is driven by the alpha males and the second wives. It’s just another variation of our modern system. High-status men and low-status women ruling the world. These two groups always end up on top because men aren’t that picky and women are that picky.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
It always sounds logical and reasonable in a particular context, Keoni. That’s the whole point of rejecting moral relativity
True… but…. God actually ALLOWED it at one time. It’s a lot easier to convince yourself something is okay today, if it geniunely USED to be okay. It’s not that big a stretch, not compared with, say, homosexuality which was always forbidden, for all persons, at all times.
Alte
October 7, 2011
God also allowed blood sacrifice, slavery, and mass slaughter. Let’s not read too much into Old Testament lifestyles. We’re not Kosher like that anymore.
Keoni Galt
October 7, 2011
Heh. Not really knowledgeable on this topic, I google. I find a blog where a feminist did research on mormon polygamy. Her initial view was that it was largely the practice of the “alpha” men hoarding the women of the community.
No, that’s a common misconception. Polygamy didn’t originate because of numerical imbalance. In fact, many young men felt bitter that young women often chose to marry older, established and already married men.
Why did women make this choice?
Throughout history women seem to have been very calculating about whom they marry. They often choose rich and older men. In the same way Mormon girls often married the prominent local bishops rather than the fuzzy-faced young farmers their own age.
LOL
A topic such as this will always have multiple variables…nothing is at it first seems.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Keoni,
The whole point of my post was that it’s anti-male.
Keoni Galt
October 7, 2011
Wow…even more amusing:
Today’s concept didn’t exist for them. Yet many were involved feminists. One reason women got the vote in Utah as early as 1870 was because the church hierarchy wanted to show the U.S. that Mormons weren’t suppressing women in spite of polygamy. Brigham Young also encouraged feminism because he needed women to build the state. He once said the church wanted women to run the stores as well as sweep the houses.
Were prominent Mormon women among the activists?
Many were, including Brigham Young’s daughter, Zina Young Williams, who attended the 1879 National Woman Suffrage Association meeting in Washington and asked Congress to legitimize the children of polygamous marriages. And Susa Young Gates, Brigham Young’s 41st child, was a friend of the suffragette Susan B. Anthony, who journeyed to Utah in 1896 to attend the statehood ceremonies.
No wonder the Mormon people I know of generally are usually in the average married chump mode. They were the original Christian feminists! LOL
Keoni Galt
October 7, 2011
The whole point of my post was that it’s anti-male.I get it Alte. I’m not even disagreeing with you. Just thought I’d way in with the “Devil’s advocate” view on the topic, as the few moments of contemplation I’ve bothered on this topic was basically in conversation with mormons about it.
I find it funny that a feminist went into the study determined to show how it was bad for women…and actually found that it was the MEN who suffered the most under the system.
A Lady
October 7, 2011
Keoni, the reason given for Mormon polygamy is false. It’s simply a plausible lie told to both converts and Mormons by birth. The actual reason for polygamy was the classic one.
Keoni Galt
October 7, 2011
I see that now. Until this post here, I never questioned (or bothered to look any further) the reasons given by my mormon family members.
Not that I’m going to tell them they’re wrong or anything. Present day Mormon’s are as anti-Polygamist as anyone else AFAICT.
Nicole
October 7, 2011
I don’t think it’s reasonable to generalize ALL cases as either being anti-male or anti-female. My instinct is to say that most cases would be BOTH (I have a hard time thinking it would be pleasing for a man to support multiple women, or for a woman to share her husband, to reference the most common form of polygamy). Some cases are probably either/or and it’s also possible that some are neither… as someone else mentioned, culture has to be taken into perspective.
Typically, I don’t really care what other people do so long as it’s not in violation of human rights and I’m not excected to care about/condone it. However, regardless of any factor, I can’t support, condone or turn a blind eye to ANY form of polygamy that allows pedophilia. Like in manyother issues, once kids are at risk, I tend to dig in my heels… at one point, I’d have to say the cultural lens doesn’t matter.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Present day Mormon’s are as anti-Polygamist as anyone else AFAICT.
And… let us note… that the Mormon organic growth rates have completely EXPLODED since they wisely renounced polygamy. Mormon women are now some of the most fecund in the country, in comparison to the paltry rates under polygamy.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
God also allowed blood sacrifice, slavery, and mass slaughter. Let’s not read too much into Old Testament lifestyles.
A lot of the OT that we today perceive as barbaric, actually represented humanizing limitations on earlier, preexisting practices that were far more brutal. The long term trajectory with a lot of this stuff, was to eliminate it completely (“from the beginiing it was not so”) but God had to start somewhere. To wit —
Slavery was for debt or alien POWs only – kidnapping someone for slavery was a capital crime, and escaped slaves could not be returned to their masters (this fueled Christian resistance and jury nullification of the Fugitive Slave Law millenia later.) Corporal punishment of slaves was limited.
Divorce had to be in writing. Because in preindustrial times, most women depended on men for survival, so a divorcee had to either remarry or become a hooker to eat — and sometimes a cruel exhusband would then accuse her of adultery to have her killed. Written proof of divorce prevented this.
Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth vengeance, meant: ONLY an eye for an eye, you couldn’t kill him. Only a tooth for a tooth, you couldn’t knock out all his teeth. And property only crimes were punished by restitution (which might include temporary slavery… banksters take note.)
Polygyny was allowed, but limited. You had to give your wife the same food, clothing, and “duty of marriage” as before you took the additional wife. In practice this meant few men could handle more than 2 or 3, financially or sexually — vast harems like Solomon’s were sinful. Also, you could not take 2 sisters as wives.
Criminal convictions, although the penalties were harsh, required 2 or 3 witnesses for conviction. And false witnesses who got exposed, were given the same punishment as the falsely accused party would have gotten. (False rape society, take note.)
A rape victim, having had her marital value destroyed, could command lifetime support from the rapist. The obligation was not on her or her father — the union could be refused — and it only applied to an Israelite as marrying a pagan was forbidden. But if Mitzi Goldschauffler got raped by Josh Goldstein at a fraternity party, Mr. Goldstein was on the hook to marry her.
If a woman was taken in the countryside, it was PRESUMED that she was victimized, that she called for help and nobody heard. “Unto the woman thou shalt do nothing” — in stark contrast to Muslims who perform honor killings of rape victims (!!!!) to this very day.
Blood sacrifice was allowed for animals only. Human sacrifice abolished in the time of Abraham.
Exterminating the Canaanites was allowed… as an infection control measure. Recent archaelogical findings indicate bestiality and child molestation were part and parcel of the Canaanite worship. This is why, though the Israelites were allowed to take livestock and women in other wars, with the Canaanites and the other 6 nations of that area, they had to kill “every man, woman, child, and beast”, because of all the SEXUAL DISEASES that would have entered Israelite people and Israel’s livestock herds otherwise.
This is a major pet peeve of mine. My Creator is not brutal, and I’m tired of that accusation.
terri
October 7, 2011
The whole point of my post was that it’s anti-male.
This is an important point that shouldn’t get lost. The man who is not a man of status or wealth will find himself without a wife.
I do want note to Van that a careful reading of the Scriptures makes it clear that God was not a proponent of polygamy. Even in the OT. A glancing read will leave one thinking it was blessed or endorsed by God but when I read the Scriptures that’s not what I see.
Whenever the subject of OT polygamy is raised I often think about David and Bathsheba and Uriah who is often overlooked in the story even though he lost his one and only wife-and life- when David who had many wives decided to take his for himself.
terri
October 7, 2011
Van, I’m curious what your thoughts are on my old post on this subject:
http://terrybreathinggrace.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/polygamy-apparently-its-making-comeback/
I ask because my take on it is a little different from yours.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“I’ve never been a proponent of mass immigration, Svar. You don’t have to be for mass immigration to not want to read VDare. I am capable of holding the same opinion as people I dislike. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/nyregion/23polygamy.html?pagewanted=all”
I see. I personally would rather read VDare than in the words of Roissy, The New York Beta Times or in the words of Taki Theoracoupolos, The New York Holocaust Times.
It did seem that on that other thread it seemed that you were pro-Muslim and pro-Mexican. Muslims are only useful when they are attacking Leftists, but they have no use here. Mexicans want their Atzlan and their Affirmative Action, but they can go kiss Davey Crockett’s maggot-ridden, decomposing ass.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“But if Mitzi Goldschauffler got raped by Josh Goldstein at a fraternity party, Mr. Goldstein was on the hook to marry her. ”
The Khazars are not the descendants of the Hebrews in either blood or spirit.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Typically, I don’t really care what other people do so long as it’s not in violation of human rights and I’m not excected to care about/condone it.”
What are human rights?
terri
October 7, 2011
You had to give your wife the same food, clothing, and “duty of marriage” as before you took the additional wife.
This may be true, but in almost every instance in the Bible where a man had 2 wives, he clearly loved one more than the other and the unloved wife suffered.
Look at the case of Hannah and Peninnah. Hannah was the prophet Samuel’s mother. Hannah was loved more than Penniah and she lorded the fact that she had children over Hannah while Hannah was barren. Elkanah (the husband) tried to reassure Hannah of how much he loved her more than the other one.
What kind of a marriage is that? And I think God gives us this glimpse into the dynamics of these marriages to reiterate His true design for marriage.
joanna
October 7, 2011
“A glancing read will leave one thinking it was blessed or endorsed by God but when I read the Scriptures that’s not what I see.”
I’m with you, Terry. I’ve been drive-by reading and thinking the same thing, but not having time to type it.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Van, I’m curious what your thoughts are on my old post on this subject:
Well it’s plain that God **gave** David multiple wives — it says so.
Also the OT Law specifically makes provision for polygyny with certain limitations — eg, wife #1 had to get the same food, clothing, and sexual rights as before you took #2. The law also forbids simultaneous marriage of 2 sisters. These limitations clearly indicate that polygyny was permitted. You don’t make rules for something that’s flat out banned –eg, there are no rules whatseover for homosexuality, the scripture just says don’t.
Finally, as I noted, the levirate marriage requirement, that a man whose brother died childless, was REQUIRED to take the brother’s widow, and the firstborn would inherit the dead brothers land — this was NOT waived if the surviving brother was himself married. In other words, here and there the law FORCED a man into polygyny. A man who refused to do this duty — Onan — was struck dead for it. (Contrary to popular belief, Onan’s sin was contraception not masturbation. He was required by the Law to impregnate his brother’s widow.)
However distasteful we may find it today, the plain fact is that at one time God did allow polygyny, and even directly caused it in a few situations (eg, giving David his enemies’ wives, or the levirate requirement.)
If we instituted it today, however, “Alphas” would hog all the chicks for themselves, and the position of Betas would be even more hopeless than it now is.
David Alexander
October 7, 2011
Women who truly love their husbands don’t deny them sex on a regular basis, even if they’re not in the mood. They might have the man they wanted, but they’re shit-testing him now.
Somebody is making the presumption that most women are capable of loving their husbands.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“No wonder the Mormon people I know of generally are usually in the average married chump mode. They were the original Christian feminists! LOL”
Mormonism = ideological carrier for Bolshevism and liberalism?
It also proves that feminism is a useful tool for alpha-types: http://solomonreborn.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/proverb-3-the-bright-side-of-feminism/
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2010/07/26/the-sunny-side-of-civilizational-decline/
There’s always a silver-lining. On the other hand, there’s always a turd on a silver platter as well.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Somebody is making the presumption that most women are capable of loving their husbands.”
Need another pity-fix? Ask Roissy.
terri
October 7, 2011
Somebody is making the presumption that most women are capable of loving their husbands.
Right on cue. I was wondering when you’d chime in with one of your DA-isms.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Look at the case of Hannah and Peninnah. Hannah was the prophet Samuel’s mother. Hannah was loved more than Penniah and she lorded the fact that she had children over Hannah while Hannah was barren. Elkanah (the husband) tried to reassure Hannah of how much he loved her more than the other one. What kind of a marriage is that
A God ordained institution (at its time), inhabited by fallen people. Just like monogamy and celibacy today.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Svar: The Khazars are not the descendants of the Hebrews in either blood or spirit.
DNA research says otherwise.
As for Mitzi.. I got the last name wrong. It’s supposed to be Goldgräber.
Nicole
October 7, 2011
To Svar: (if there’s a way to quote you, I don’t know it yet– I’m not sure if people are just copying and pasting or if there’s something you do… well, anyway, we’ll just hope you see this).
To sum up what I was referring to when I said human rights, basically as long as no one is being forced or pressured into something against their will… or killed. So, in application to polygamy, my basic rule of thumb is that I don’t really care what other people do so long as none of the parties are forced into it. Which is only one of the reasons turning a blind eye flies out the window when children are involved– they can’t consent to something like that.
That being said, though, I’m not eager to see it becomee a larger part of western culture, and if allowing it in America was brought to the vote, I’d vote against it.
David Alexander
October 7, 2011
It isn’t our culture, so if they don’t want to conform to the rules here, they can take the next plane out. Problem solved.
The German woman speaks truth. Even as a dirty liberal statist, I can agree with her on this. Soyez blancs au pays blanc.
Will S.
October 7, 2011
@ CL: Ah.
The reason why I said Queen’s Park, was because of how VR said he’d deliver it. “Payable in hot lead ingots. Preferably copper jacketed. Supersonic delivery.” Not that I’d want to see anything bad happen to the Ontario government, of course, heh heh.
David Alexander
October 7, 2011
Not that I’d want to see anything bad happen to the Ontario government, of course, heh heh.
Now with the Liberal minority government, do I get my Ottawa light rail and TTC improvements to justify my tourism dollars.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Not that I’d want to see anything bad happen to the Ontario government
Me neither. But if they start charging taxes in California, then they are in trouble!
Alte
October 7, 2011
Nicole,
We’re using HTML tags.
Alte
October 7, 2011
A lot of the OT that we today perceive as barbaric, actually represented humanizing limitations on earlier, preexisting practices that were far more brutal.
I’m aware of that. Doesn’t change my argument that we are not to emulate OT lifestyles as if they were God’s design for human life.
Nicole
October 7, 2011
Thank you, Alte!
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Doesn’t change my argument that we are not to emulate OT lifestyles as if they were God’s design for human life
I wasn’t arguing that. I agree with you there. I’m merely arguing that polygyny, at one time, was allowed — that a man could be a fully faithful servant of God and yet still practice it. Some folks have such a strong emotional revulsion to polygyny that they seem desperate to find grounds to believe that it was always wrong. No, it wasn’t. It wasn’t the ideal, but at one time it was permitted.
This argument reminds me of the anti-alcohol radicals who simply cannot mentally embrace the idea that a person could have a glass of wine at dinner, yet still be a faithful Christian. Their own issues and/or familial history with alcohol are so negative to them, that the idea of a blessed or simply innocent use of alcohol is just unthinkable — they’ll grasp at the most desperate arguments to try to prove otherwise. (No, Jesus did not make Welch’s pasteurized grape juice at Cana!)
Svar
October 7, 2011
“To sum up what I was referring to when I said human rights, basically as long as no one is being forced or pressured into something against their will… or killed. So, in application to polygamy, my basic rule of thumb is that I don’t really care what other people do so long as none of the parties are forced into it. Which is only one of the reasons turning a blind eye flies out the window when children are involved– they can’t consent to something like that.”
That’s all that matters? Not the cultural supremacy and hegemony of Middle America over alternative/defective/degenerate/untermensch lifestyles?
Also, who’s to say that children can’t consent? That could all change with the APA’s revolutionary stances.
Now I personally don’t care whatever you do, whether it’s drugs, necro-boar ass-rape or going around trying to get an Anally Injected Death Sentence as long as you stay the fuck away from civilized people.
“That being said, though, I’m not eager to see it becomee a larger part of western culture, and if allowing it in America was brought to the vote, I’d vote against it.”
You say that as if Western Culture still exists.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Svar: You say that as if Western Culture still exists.
“I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia”
— Puddleglum, The Silver Chair, CS Lewis.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“I wasn’t arguing that. I agree with you there. I’m merely arguing that polygyny, at one time, was allowed — that a man could be a fully faithful servant of God and yet still practice it. Some folks have such a strong emotional revulsion to polygyny that they seem desperate to find grounds to believe that it was always wrong. No, it wasn’t. It wasn’t the ideal, but at one time it was permitted.”
van Rooinek is right. Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee were slaveowners and they were better Christians than about 90% of modern Americans. It’s true.
But, neither polygyny nor slavery was God’s ideal. He just tolerated it from time to time.
“This argument reminds me of the anti-alcohol radicals who simply cannot mentally embrace the idea that a person could have a glass of wine at dinner, yet still be a faithful Christian.”
Looks like the entire Roman Catholic Church is damned to hell. Especially me.
Svar
October 7, 2011
““I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia”
— Puddleglum, The Silver Chair, CS Lewis.”
Good point and very true.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Svar — van Rooinek is right. Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee were slaveowners and they were better Christians than about 90% of modern Americans. It’s true.
Perhaps. But i do not believe that slavery can be squared with New Testament faith at all. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is a clear New Testament command that rules out slavery. Unless you have no choice at all, because you yourself are the slave (as was the case with many early believers).
I side with the Republican Evangelical Radicals. Slavery is a sin.
“This argument reminds me of the anti-alcohol radicals who simply cannot mentally embrace the idea that a person could have a glass of wine at dinner, yet still be a faithful Christian.”
Svar: Looks like the entire Roman Catholic Church is damned to hell. Especially me.
Well… Svar, you need to get baptized anyway!
The interplay of polygamy and alcohol compels me to post this link:
http://menageatroiswines.com/red.php
Alte
October 7, 2011
But, neither polygyny nor slavery was God’s ideal. He just tolerated it from time to time.
The point being that He tolerated them before, but they were clearly denounced after, Jesus’ death and resurrection. We’re Christians, not Jews, so you can’t just cherry-pick stuff out of the OT and suggest that we return to such policies. They were rejected for good reason.
This is my core beef with “Old Testament Christians”. These people are not Christian traditionalists (as those hark back to the Early Church for guidance), but radicals and sometimes heretics. If you are a Christian, you know that the OT does not override the NT and the traditions of the Church.
Nicole
October 7, 2011
Svar: Yes, to me, that’s all that matters. Though I find some cultural practices to be appalling, I still appreciate the diversity of cultures that the world is graced with. I think cultural practices are fine so long as they’re not imposed on to other cultures, destructive to non-participants, or forced on any of the practicing individuals. But, again, that’s just my standard there.
A child can’t consent because he/she is still too young or naive to understand. What child actually knows about the implications of marriage and the total commitment of spending your entire life with one person? Even if a child grew up in a culture where they were treated no different than an adult and fully educated on every aspect of these matters, the brain doesn’t even fully develop until you get into your 20′s… for that reason, I don’t trust myself to marry until I’m closer to 30 (no, I’m not saying that no one should be allowed to give consent until their brain develops fully, but I think waiting until someone has taken on an adult role in life is reasonable), and I sure wouldn’t assume that a child as young as 12 (or even younger, as horrid as it is) is ready to make that choice… just because they say yes doesn’t mean they’re actually capable of giving consent.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is a clear New Testament command that rules out slavery.
Rules out polygamy too. Or would you really like to share your spouse with someone else, even if you were a woman? Trust me on this: it’s not the first wives pushing for polygamy — it’s the ankle biters.
We have a similar situation today, here in Americana culture, with the first wives constantly having to deal with ankle-biters who aren’t valuable enough to get their own high-status husband. Now… what do you think would happen if their husbands lived in a polygamous culture? They already have to deal with the threat of divorce, but what if he could have his cake and eat it too, with polygamy?
Then he could sleep around and still show his face at Mass on Sunday. Great… we wouldn’t even have a moral foot to stand on. We’d be like the women in these cults: smiling blandly at the camera and pretending that it’s all really okay.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
We’re Christians, not Jews, so you can’t just cherry-pick stuff out of the OT and suggest that we return to such policies
True.
Nevertheless, God does give different laws at different times. Once it was wrong to eat pork, now it’s not. Once it was permitted to have 2 wives, now it’s not. Some things got stricter, some got LESS strict. All in His will and plan.
You can’t look backward in time at OT people and say they were somehow “less than” us, because they had different laws. They read the Book, polygyny was okay, so no bad thing can be said about them because some of them actually did it. They could in theory look “forward” to us, and say, how dare we eat pork! And they could argue, that although it’s tolerated in our time, a true believer really wouldn’t.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Svar: The Khazars are not the descendants of the Hebrews in either blood or spirit.
DNA research says otherwise. ”
So a bunch of turko-mongol types from the Caucasian region are the descendants of the Old Semitic Hebrews? I looked up the Khazars and they practiced Tengriism like most Turkics but then I saw that they converted in some cases to Slavonic Paganism(!). And of course, Judaism and Islam.
The Hebrews just disappeared as a people just like the Romans.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
I don’t trust myself to marry until I’m closer to 30
Totally off topic… but…. delaying marriage til the 30s is almost a guarantee of widespread societal fornication. Most people cannot handle extended celibacy, and marrying a lot younger (especially for men) is just about only way that chastity will be maintained for the majority. This has been discussed on other threads at this site… go look.
Stadt-Land-Fluss
October 7, 2011
“Forget 1917. 1517”
Es gibt katholische Apologetik und dann gibt es ahistorischen Unfug.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“I side with the Republican Evangelical Radicals. Slavery is a sin.”
I, OTOH, side with the Confederacy and Pope Pius IX. Yes, slavery is a sin, but I don’t think the secular North led by “Honest” Abe really cared about slavery or blacks. You should read Abraham Lincoln’s opinions on blacks and compare them to that of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.
van Rooinek
October 7, 2011
Svar: The Hebrews just disappeared as a people just like the Romans
If that’s the case, then the Bible is full of false promises. In which case: Hola, Odin.
Google Khazar DNA… that theory has been debunked. Israel is still around. Some East-Euro Jews are part Khazar but there is still a definite Jewish genetic link.
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html
Nicole
October 7, 2011
Van Rooinek:
I don’t want to derail the thread, so I’ll just say thanks for the advice/input– when there’s an open topic where we can justify it (or if there’s some other discussion board her something, forgive me for ignorance– still fairly new), I’d love to discuss it later on.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Svar,
The Hebrews can’t have “just disappeared” genetically, as most of the Early Christians came from the Hebrews, and they multiplied like rabbits after adopting the faith (and enforcing monogamy — hint, hint).
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Though I find some cultural practices to be appalling, I still appreciate the diversity of cultures that the world is graced with. I think cultural practices are fine so long as they’re not imposed on to other cultures, destructive to non-participants, or forced on any of the practicing individuals. But, again, that’s just my standard there.”
Then don’t you think that people with different cultures should either stay in their home countries or assimilate? If you respected the diversity of cultures throughout the world, you’d respect the right Middle America has to cultural supremacy in America.
That being said, not all cultures are created equal. Some are just superior. We are objectively superior to some obscure naked tribe that commits cannibalism. Equality doesn’t exist.
“the brain doesn’t even fully develop until you get into your 20′s… for that reason, I don’t trust myself to marry until I’m closer to 30 (no, I’m not saying that no one should be allowed to give consent until their brain develops fully, but I think waiting until someone has taken on an adult role in life is reasonable)”
I’m 18. If I were to get married at 21-23 I would be making a stupid mistake? Your standards don’t make any sense because they are not based in anything concrete.
Stadt-Land-Fluss
October 7, 2011
“The Hebrews can’t have “just disappeared” genetically, as most of the Christians came from the Hebrews,”
The Heathens outnumbered the Jews in the Church soon
Svar
October 7, 2011
“In which case: Hola, Odin.”
Hola, Odin? You mean “Heil Oden!!”, right?
“Google Khazar DNA… that theory has been debunked. Israel is still around. Some East-Euro Jews are part Khazar but there is still a definite Jewish genetic link.”
I don’t know. I looked at the link but it seemed strange. Kurds and Armenians are Aryans and the Lebanese, Syrians, and Arabs are Semetic like the Old Hebrews. All I see is that North African and Kurdish Jews are the true descendants of the Hebrews. I seriously doubt that Eastern European Jews are the descendants of the Hebrews, maybe from some random middle-eastern tribe. But not the Hebrews. I doubt the ancestors of the Hebrews would commit 1917(Trotsky) or found the Frankfurt School. If they are the descendants of the Hebrews by blood, they certainly aren’t in spirit. The Old Hebrews didn’t strike me as nebbish.
Israel is definitely around. Just go look in the mirror: http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2011/01/catholic-church-is-israel.html
“Svar,
The Hebrews can’t have “just disappeared” genetically, as most of the Early Christians came from the Hebrews, and they multiplied like rabbits after adopting the faith (and enforcing monogamy — hint, hint).”
They disappeared as an ethnic group like the Romans. I do realize that some went to Europe and some to India and the rest in between.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Yes, but they often intermarried after joining the Church.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“(and enforcing monogamy — hint, hint)”
You’re preaching to the choir here. I plan on getting married to a girl(key word being “a”) and staying faithful.
terri
October 7, 2011
But, neither polygyny nor slavery was God’s ideal. He just tolerated it from time to time.
My point exactly.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Their ethnicity didn’t disappear, it just got flooded with DNA from other ethnicities. Even if the DNA changes, the ethnicity can be passed on through language, religion, traditions, etc.
Consider the ethnic changes to the Slavs and Germans over the centuries. We still trace ourselves back to those roots, even if our genetic heritage is more mixed now.
David Alexander
October 7, 2011
Then he could sleep around and still show his face at Mass on Sunday.
How dare you expose the rent seeking tendencies of these men. They’re true believers unlike you! Now submit to your husband and make room for your new Spanish sister wife.
Alte
October 7, 2011
LOL. Yeah, Christianity’s new phallocentric cult. Yippee. Just what we need right now, as we’re trying to reclaim traditional Christian marriage.
Stadt-Land-Fluss
October 7, 2011
“the ethnicity can be passed on through language, religion, traditions, etc”
None of whom were particularly Jewish in the case of the Church.
Or how many Jewish Christians do you know(And I don’t mean something like messianic Jews)?
Alte
October 7, 2011
You got my argument backward. I meant that European Jews were still Jews, even if they were genetically distant from the ancient Hebrews. Intermarriage doesn’t stop your offspring from being Jewish, if they are raised as Jews. Otherwise, some of the OT patriarchs would have children who didn’t belong to their own ethnicity.
Nicole
October 7, 2011
Svar: (I feel stupid, I thought you were female until now Dx)
I CERTAINLY agree that people should stay within their own countries if they don’t plan to adopt the culture they move into. I said I value the diversity in the world–I do not value the invasion and disruption of cultures, including our own.
No,I don’t think you would be making a stupid mistake– in fact, I said that so I wouldn’t be misunderstood, but apparently I failed, so I’ll reword. The brain does not fully develop until mid twenties– for that reason coupled with a few others, I’ve made the decision for MYSELF to hold off wedlock until I’m closer to thirty. Perhaps the confusion is where I added my personal information in there– I apologize. However, once a person has “grown up” physically, and to a point mentally where no more huge changes are going to occur, and a person has assumed an adult role in society, marriage can be a logical choice. In our culture, that’s typically around 18– that’s when we start assuming real responsibility. But it varies persn to person. I know that at 18 I was NOT ready for marriage– I know that I’m still not, though I know that even since then I’ve matured through life experience.
My point was, children are not mature enough to understand the implications of ANY marriage, let alone polygamy. In any case, there is something wrong with anyone who would view a young child as a potential mate.
terri
October 7, 2011
You can’t look backward in time at OT people and say they were somehow “less than” us, because they had different laws. They read the Book, polygyny was okay, so no bad thing can be said about them because some of them actually did it.
By the way, I agree with this too. Just noting that when you read the Scriptures (yes OT scriptures) you don’t come away with the impression that God actively encouraged polygamy.
Stadt-Land-Fluss
October 7, 2011
O:K: in this case I simply misunderstood you.
David Alexander
October 7, 2011
with the first wives constantly having to deal with ankle-biters who aren’t valuable enough to get their own high-status husband
Admittedly, we’re left with three solutions. We can either let the ankle-biters marry the high status men and form polygamist marriages, we can tell these women to suck it and remain single, or we can tell them to try out as mistresses and be that second rate concubine with far less rights and social status as a wife. The first will not work in the long-run, while the third is barely better than the first option for the main wife, and the second revolves around the idea of these women willing to forsake having children or living in celibacy for the entire lives, something that may not be as easy for some women. Regardless, from a social standpoint, the latter two options are still better than the first for society.
Alte
October 7, 2011
It’s just that there are arguments being made here, and a prior thread, that European Jews are not Jewish because they are not all the direct descendents of the ancient Hebrews, but this was never the requirement for Jewishness unless you consider Judaism only a race, rather than an ethnicity. Jesus was Himself of mixed ancestry, as we see in Matthew 1.
Incidentally, that carries the following bit:
Notice that Matthew makes an exception here and clearly points out that Bathsheba was actually someone else’s wife. It’s not relevant to the retelling, but is pointed out anyway.
Alte
October 7, 2011
we can tell these women to suck it and remain single
…which results in them marrying other men who would otherwise be alone with nothing but a bagel. You see the advantage of this system.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Their ethnicity didn’t disappear, it just got flooded with DNA from other ethnicities. Even if the DNA changes, the ethnicity can be passed on through language, religion, traditions, etc.”
Then where are the Hebrews? The Jews? I doubt Bolshevism, Ultra-Capitalism, Cultural Marxism are Hebrew traditions. I doubt that the Hebrew spirit was that of victimhood.
“Consider the ethnic changes to the Slavs and Germans over the centuries. We still trace ourselves back to those roots, even if our genetic heritage is more mixed now.”
That doesn’t seem like analogous situation.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Jesus was Himself of mixed ancestry, as we see in Matthew 1.”
Okay, now that is ridiculous. How can Jesus be of mixed-descent if he only had one biological parent? Unless, Mary was mixed.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“It’s just that there are arguments being made here, and a prior thread, that European Jews are not Jewish because they are not all the direct descendents of the ancient Hebrews, but this was never the requirement for Jewishness unless you consider Judaism only a race, rather than an ethnicity.”
Well, it’s hard to believe that the Jews are the descendants of the Hebrews considering that they don’t act like them. I mean the Slavs and Germans changed their religion, but the modern Jews believe in Judaism like the Old Hebrews. Yet, they don’t act like the Old Hebrews. So I don’t see the passing of any ethnicity nor do I see much genetic lineage either.
Either way, this doesn’t matter in the long run. We are Israel, not them.
Stadt-Land-Fluss
October 7, 2011
“unless you consider Judaism only a race, rather than an ethnicity. Jesus was Himself of mixed ancestry, as we see in Matthew 1.”
I don’t object to the point you want to make, but a foreign ancestor a millenia ago doesn’t really constituate a mixed heritage in any meaningful way.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Of course, Mary was mixed in her ancestry. That is stated clearly in the passage.
David Alexander
October 7, 2011
Even if the DNA changes, the ethnicity can be passed on through language, religion, traditions, etc.
That’s just impure talk from a half-breed.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Svar: (I feel stupid, I thought you were female until now Dx)”
My love for blowjobs and my disdain for handjobs didn’t indicate otherwise? Seriously, Jen thought I was a girl when she first met me. Why did you think I was a gerrull, Nicole?
Stadt-Land-Fluss
October 7, 2011
“That’s just impure talk from a half-breed”
Perhaps she wants to be an Indian.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“I don’t object to the point you want to make, but a foreign ancestor a millenia ago doesn’t really constituate a mixed heritage in any meaningful way.”
That is true.
Svar
October 7, 2011
““That’s just impure talk from a half-breed”
Perhaps she wants to be an Indian.
”
Hahaha.
David Alexander
October 7, 2011
…which results in them marrying other men who would otherwise be alone with nothing but a bagel. You see the advantage of this system.
That’s funny. You keep thinking that these women will actually find other men attractive. Having these alpha chasing ankle-biters marry average men just simply makes for bad marriages and future divorces. It’s better that most of these people stay single in lieu of creating broken families.
Stadt-Land-Fluss
October 7, 2011
She shouldn’t have read so many Karl May stories
Alte
October 7, 2011
I don’t object to the point you want to make, but a foreign ancestor a millenia ago doesn’t really constituate a mixed heritage in any meaningful way.
But it does break the general principle that racial purity is required for Jewishness, that Jesus is clearly described as having four non-Jewish ancestors.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Even if the DNA changes, the ethnicity can be passed on through language, religion, traditions, etc.”
This is also true to an extent.
Stadt-Land-Fluss
October 7, 2011
“But it does break the general principle that racial purity is required for Jewishness”
You are aware that you here have harder conditions than the Reichssicherheitshauptamt?
Alte
October 7, 2011
We are Israel, not them.
We are Israel, but they are still Jewish, and our reunification will mark the Second Coming.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Having these alpha chasing ankle-biters marry average men”
You’re not average.
Nicole
October 7, 2011
Svar,
To be fair, I haven’t been around long enough to hear you talk about hand and blowjobs. x] Plus, to be fair, disdain for handjobs isn’t DISTINCTLY masculine– they’re not popular with much of anyone, that I know of.
Though, honestly, I just kind of assumed– this site seems to be primarily composed of women, so unless someone has a name that can only be masculine, I assume female… but now I’m wondering about other people, too. <__>
Svar
October 7, 2011
“We are Israel, but they are still Jewish, and our reunification will mark the Second Coming.”
How so? What exactly are the conditions for the Second Coming?
David Alexander
October 7, 2011
You’re not average.
Remember, I gave up. I’m referring to other men.
Alte
October 7, 2011
You are aware that you here have harder conditions than the Reichssicherheitshauptamt?
You are aware that I am attempting to disprove an absolute in order to establish a new gray-area? LOL
Getting back to polygamy, all we need to know is this:
What does this mean? It means that a man cannot divorce his wife and remarry because he’s still married and polygamy is considered adultery.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Nicole, most of the commenters here are male.
Alte
October 7, 2011
Svar,
Catholic Knight describes the situation well in that article you linked to. We are Israel, the tree of Christ, and they are the branches that were sawed off when they refused Christ, but those branches will be reattached before Jesus’ return. Van was making the point that the non-existence of Jews would prevent the sign of the Second Coming from being fulfilled. No Jews, no branches to be reattached.
Nicole
October 7, 2011
Alte: Really? Wow, I misjudged there. Are you male or female?
Alte
October 7, 2011
In this thread there are a lot of women, but other threads lean heavily-male. I’m female, of course.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“To be fair, I haven’t been around long enough to hear you talk about hand and blowjobs. x]”
A little upthread. Blowjobs are probably one of my favorite things amongst alcohol, sports, the Roman Catholic Church, sex, racism, sexism, Catholic chauvinism, sex, the American Heartland, firearms, being an asshole, and women.
“Plus, to be fair, disdain for handjobs isn’t DISTINCTLY masculine– they’re not popular with much of anyone, that I know of.”
Handjobs suck.
“Though, honestly, I just kind of assumed– this site seems to be primarily composed of women, so unless someone has a name that can only be masculine, I assume female… but now I’m wondering about other people, too. ”
Oh, it’s cool. Jen told me the same exact thing, that my handle was ambiguous.
Nicole
October 7, 2011
I’m not ENTIRELY sure if I’m being trolled or not here, as it doesn’t seem to be the norm around here to talk about hand/blow jobs, or to participate in them outside of wedlock. >_> But I’m just going to treat everything like you’re being sincere.
That’s quite the list of hobbies. I collect swords and rescue birds– I’m afraid I can’t compete with that resume.
“Handjobs suck.”
Lol,no silly– blowjobs suck.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Remember, I gave up. I’m referring to other men.”
I would explain this to you but you’re obtuse and looking for a pity-fix.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“That’s quite the list of hobbies.”
Danke. They’re all really fun. Especially, getting blowjobs and racism. Oh and being an asshole. And alcohol.
“I collect swords and rescue birds– I’m afraid I can’t compete with that resume.”
Interesting. I collect maedchen and eat meat.
“Lol,no silly– blowjobs suck.”
You’re a woman, what do you know? Blowjobs are the greatest.
David Alexander
October 7, 2011
Lol,no silly– blowjobs suck.
You’ll fit in here very well.
David Alexander
October 7, 2011
I would explain this to you but you’re obtuse and looking for a pity-fix.
And I wouldn’t believe the delusional stuff that you or other men tell each other to keep hope alive about their prospects for a wife and healthy marriage. Admittedly, you’re excellent at faking alpha, so you may have a chance.
Nicole
October 7, 2011
Svar, I was being punny… blowjobs suck because they involve sucking.
Come on… not even a pity laugh?
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Svar, I was being punny… blowjobs suck because they involve sucking.
Come on… not even a pity laugh?”
Hahaha, I got it but I wanted to make fun of you because you’re a woman.
Nicole
October 7, 2011
Good save. ;]
Svar
October 7, 2011
“And I wouldn’t believe the delusional stuff that you or other men tell each other to keep hope alive about their prospects for a wife and healthy marriage.”
Don’t care; like always you don’t know what you’re talking about. What doesn’t apply to someone like you does apply to the vast majority of normal men. You are not able to understand. Oh well.
Also, there’s Keoni, there’s 7man, and there’s David Collard.
“Admittedly, you’re excellent at faking alpha, so you may have a chance.”
Who says I’m faking? I have alpha and beta characteristics like most men. Most men unlike you, have a personality; they’re not pathetic little shits like you. You want to believe that they are just to make yourself better.
There is no point in arguing with you because you have shit for brains. And everything you say is just another cry for pity.
Svar
October 7, 2011
“Good save. ;]”
Of course.
Svar
October 8, 2011
“But I’m just going to treat everything like you’re being sincere.”
Sauerkraut milkshakes, Nicole.
The Deuce
October 8, 2011
Svar:
Also, who’s to say that children can’t consent? That could all change with the APA’s revolutionary stances.
Yup. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen supporters of socially sanctioned fudgepacking argue that pedophilia is totally different and totally wrong because “children can’t consent”. Bullcrap. Of course kids can consent. Tell a kid you want them to eat ice cream. Notice the consent? Now tell them to eat brussell sprouts. Notice the difference. Of course, kids can’t *legally* consent to sex, but that’s a mere contingent law, that could be changed at any time. It’s not a coherent basis for a moral system.
The Deuce
October 8, 2011
Will S:
(Oh, and intermammary… You know.)
Why, no, why don’t you explain it for us? :-p
(Also, high five!)
The Deuce
October 8, 2011
Chels:
Ughh, [modern polygamy-lite is] just a sign of the decay in values. Same as the increase in acceptability of swinging, polyamory and alternative lifestyles.
Yes, but when values decline, people don’t just act randomly. They generally act according to their basest animalistic urges. That this results in something like polygamy far more often than other things indicates that women generally do have certain tendencies toward it built in.
The Deuce
October 8, 2011
Svar:
Everyday that passes, I realize three things: 1776 was a mistake, 1789 was a joke, and 1917 was a horror.
I say “meh” to the whole “American’s founding was fundamentally flawed and contained all the seeds of modern liberalism” meme floating about on the alt-right these days. It’s really not true. What was called the Enlightenment in places like France was fundamentally different, even opposite in many ways, from what was going on in America. And what we call liberalism today was largely the result of leftist ideas from Europe making their way over here and corrupting our founding principles, rather than being inherent in them.
The Deuce
October 8, 2011
Alright, I guess five in a row is good for now. You people need to stop posting so fast whenever I step away for a few hours.
Svar
October 8, 2011
“Why, no, why don’t you explain it for us? :-p”
Yes, Will why don’t you explain it? How does it work?
Svar
October 8, 2011
“(Also, high five!)”
Protestants get to have all the fun
Stuki
October 8, 2011
Alte,
I’m harbor no illusions about out traditionalizing a bunch of Catholics, but isn’t cautioning others against being judgmental about as traditional a practice in Christianity as one can find?
And BTW, I’m not Mormon (I’m Unitarian), don’t have a bunch of wives running around in Prarie dresses; and, all things being equal, wouldn’t feel entirely comfortable advocating that lifestyle as a first choice to anyone I wanted to keep on God’s good side. But if it works for them, and is compatible with their understanding of God (Even if their traditions don;t go back as far as yours), then who am I to judge……. And as far as I can tell, it works pretty well. For all their supposed deviancy, they’re sure blessed with lots of Children, the vast majority who stay in the faith and practice.
Also, calling them deviant in comparison with some idealized monogamous Catholic marriage is one thing. Still narrow minded (to an almost heretic degree in my opinion), but at least understandable. But compared to mainstream America’s current best effort reenactment of Sodom and Gomorrah; even by Catholic standards, the level of sexual vice amongst fundamentalist Mormons must seem pretty low. No sex outside marriage for one. No abortion at all (even in cases of fumarase deficiency, to the chagrin of busybody progressive doctors.) Modesty in dress for both sexes. Somewhere between virtually and absolutely no divorce. If only things were so well in the Catholic Church of today.
The Deuce
October 8, 2011
Svar:
Protestants get to have all the fun
I thought you guys could do that, provided you didn’t, uh, finish what you started (or, rather, finish *where* you started).
wifey
October 8, 2011
i think we’re forgetting a couple of things here. (chels, this is not an argument against you, i am just quoting you to make a point). previously, there was a major economic imbalance between the sexes, as well as a less major power imbalance (in that women actually needed the physical protection of men, even in civilized society). obviously, these imbalances lead to women making more rational, pragmatic decisions. for example, a widow who suddenly found herself without money or protection might rationally make the decision to re-marry (even if he already had a wife) in order to ensure the well-being of herself and her children.
many people will act in a variety of ways when they feel they have no other choice, and i don’t even mean in a life-threatening way. “having no other choice” could be as trivial as “upholding the family honor.”
that said, we’re currently in an era where the imbalance has been nullified, even reversed. women no longer need (in the tangible sense) a man for money or protection. while this doesn’t mean there’s a shortage of gold-diggers (i don’t think there ever will be a shortage, from either of the sexes), it does mean that women are freer to make romantic decisions about relationships, as opposed to practical ones.
i think the infamous satoshi kanazawa once tried to make the absurd argument that, because elder leaders of villages often had very young wives, that women were probably naturally attracted to elderly men. it should be pretty obvious that “elder leaders having young wives” was virtually never a product of “female attraction.” just because something has always happened doesn’t mean it’s natural, in other words.
as for the five minutes of alpha = five years of beta, i think we all know this isn’t true unless you’re mindlessly intaking the roissy board, and even then it’s not true in a marriage situation. but i’m pretty sure svar knows the deal with roissy so i assume he was being tongue-in-cheek.
this has always been an interesting argument for the natural-ness of polygamy. it seems that people like to forget that just because it isn’t happening in the open doesn’t mean it’s happening. men have always been able to command more open sexual power in society, perhaps because of the other imbalance between the sexes — to men, women often ooze sexuality and so their obvious sexuality is seen as something to be guarded and preserved (hence the whole idea of covering up in various ways). however, to assume that in a “natural” polygamous society (where “natural” does not include FLDS mormons, because it’s not natural to brainwash people into thinking sex is a sin and leave hundreds of young men in the desert to die) it’s only the men who are sleeping with multiple partners is to be pretty willfully ignorant.
but of course, female sexual openness is still kept under wraps a lot of the time, because of how female sexuality is viewed. that said, it isn’t even really that hidden these days, either. maury povich, anyone?
lol, this is so long but you guys should really read about the FLDS mormons, and how rigid their society must be kept in order to keep it from collapsing on itself. they threaten, lock down, and impoverish women in order to keep them in line, they excommunicate and drive out children as young as 13 because they are a sexual threat, they have an extremely high rate of in-breeding and therefore an extremely high rate of rare congenital birth defects, and even in the midst of all the brainwashing people still voluntarily leave the sect when the state raids them. oh yeah, they’re doing so well.
CL
October 8, 2011
the brain doesn’t even fully develop until you get into your 20′s… for that reason, I don’t trust myself to marry until I’m closer to 30
Waiting until your fertility is dropping off seems a bad plan unless you don’t want kids or want to spend a fortune on interventions that go against Natural Law.
Your reasoning is spurious. Brain development as a reason to delay marriage? Now I’ve heard everything! Is this about marriage or buying a car?
Svar
October 8, 2011
“I’m harbor no illusions about out traditionalizing a bunch of Catholics, but isn’t cautioning others against being judgmental about as traditional a practice in Christianity as one can find?”
So we shouldn’t criticize the actions of adulterers and murderers as well because that’s being judgemental?
“And BTW, I’m not Mormon (I’m Unitarian)”: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2007/11/28/a-muslim-america/
Unitarianism, lol. Go worship a real religion like Asatru.
“But if it works for them, and is compatible with their understanding of God (Even if their traditions don;t go back as far as yours), then who am I to judge”
If your understanding is wrong or wishful thinking, we can’t point it out if you want.
“Also, calling them deviant in comparison with some idealized monogamous Catholic marriage is one thing. Still narrow minded (to an almost heretic degree in my opinion)”
Yes, heresy is based in opinion. And in your opinion, it’s heretical to call heretics, heretics. LOL.
This is hilarious. A Unitarian giving real Christians i.e. Traditional Catholics and Conservative Protestants a lecture about being Christian.
Svar
October 8, 2011
“I thought you guys could do that, provided you didn’t, uh, finish what you started (or, rather, finish *where* you started).”
We can, but like you said we can’t finish where we started. What’s the fun in that?
CL
October 8, 2011
Also, calling them deviant in comparison with some idealized monogamous Catholic marriage is one thing. Still narrow minded (to an almost heretic degree in my opinion)
It’s not narrow minded, it’s in accordance with the dictionary definition of deviant. Whether or not it’s morally wrong is where opinion might come in, not in the fact that it is deviant. A monogamous Catholic marriage is not “idealised”, it’s what works for society and what is in accordance with God’s Law. So-called narrow mindedness is not heresy in the sense you’re using it, it’s following Natural Law. “If it works for them” is such a liberal cop-out and totally misses the point, but of course, Unitarianism isn’t even Christian it’s so watered down so I expect no better from such.
Alte
October 8, 2011
I’m harbor no illusions about out traditionalizing a bunch of Catholics, but isn’t cautioning others against being judgmental about as traditional a practice in Christianity as one can find?
We’re not all Catholics, but we are mostly catholics. And you won’t find “don’t be judgmental” about heresies and sexually-deviant behavior in my Bible. Maybe you’ve got a different one.
it’s only the men who are sleeping with multiple partners is to be pretty willfully ignorant
Divorce and separation rates are high, cuckoldry is common, and the women are sometimes reassigned from one man to another, if the man “steps out of line” with the elders.
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/11/15/economics-of-polygamy-divorce-and-happiness-daynes-part-4/
A Lady
October 8, 2011
Also, regular monogamous Mormons are losing their children and not exactly growing like gangbusters. As Mormon culture seamlessly becomes more ‘American Christian’, they replicate the divorce and doctrine problems and even delayed marriage. In the bad old days, Mormons had their weirdness and heresy to bond them, but they appear to be sacrificing that weirdness to fit in with mainstream evangelicals, bad doctrine and all.
Mormons are coasting on social capital left over from previous more functional generations, but in their case they have a lot less of it to burn.
Nicole
October 8, 2011
“Waiting until your fertility is dropping off seems a bad plan unless you don’t want kids or want to spend a fortune on interventions that go against Natural Law.”
CL,fertility is an issue for me because I don’t actually want kids. And if I changed my mind at any point– sincerely doubt it–I would prefer to adopt.
Also, I’m waiting until 30 because I want to make sure I’m “grown up.” I know people never stop changing and growing mentally and emotionally, but I just want to be as sure as possible that I’m making a decision that I’ll always be pleased with– choosing who to spend your life one is a pretty big one. And it’s not a big sacrifice, as right now I still have a lot of collegeto get through, and the years will go fast.
Also, I concur with whoever said that calling something deviant isn’t necesarily calling it immoral. To be deviant is to stray from a societal norm.
Svar
October 8, 2011
“Also, I concur with whoever said that calling something deviant isn’t necesarily calling it immoral. To be deviant is to stray from a societal norm.”
There is a great degree of overlap. Roissy: “Exceptions don’t make the rules”
Stuki
October 8, 2011
Svar, adultery and murder is specifically prohibited. Polygamy not so much. I personally agree with those who reckon The New Testament, at a minimum, strongly suggest to bury the practice alongside temple sacrifices and other interesting practices of ancient Israelites. But, as the discussion above indicates, the case is not nearly as closed as with respect to murder and adultery. Of course, what is and is not impermissible murder is another can of worms, but let’s leave that for another time.
CL, the dictionary definition of deviant is “departing from the norm.” The norm in this case being biblically sanctioned sexual practices. From where I’m sitting, a monogamous marriage between two “virgins”, ’till death, no contraception (pretty traditional for a Unitarian, huh?) and abortion etc., etc., i.e.an “Idealized Catholic Marriage”, scores very low on deviancy from Biblical teachings. A polygamous marriage, yet with basically all the other of the above facets in place, a bit higher. While a bunch of non married people rolling around in a mudpond at Woodstock, fornicating with anyone who happens to roll into their immediate surroundings, and doing their darnedest to either prevent their acts from giving rise to life, or should that fail, to kill off whatever life may result from it, scores quite a bit higher still. And as long as 90% of society follows the latter model, focusing criticism of the tiny minority who, while perhaps not perfect, are certainly way above norm, seems a bit backwards. Or perhaps even narrow minded.
Alte, does the advice in Matt 7, amongst a raft of others, somehow exclude sexual behavior? And, more cheap talking point than something that really matters, wasn’t it a Catholic Pope who once claimed Mary Magdalene was a whore?
In all honesty, I have no problem with Traditional Christians criticizing polygamy. Forced to pick sides, I agree with much of what you are saying. My concern is that some may use this personal criticism to justify getting secular authority involved in suppressing those whose practices they do not fully agree with. That’s when things go downwards in a handbasket really fast. After all, what makes living a proper Christian life in America today harder than it need be, hence condemning millions to unnecessarily fail, is the pervasive intrusiveness of progressive secularism and its enablers, not some tiny band of Mormons in cute dresses.
terri
October 8, 2011
in cute dresses.
You really like those prairie dresses, huh? ROFL.
Alte
October 8, 2011
But, as the discussion above indicates, the case is not nearly as closed as with respect to murder and adultery.
No, the discussion above clearly indicates that polygamy is adultery, and is therefore a mortal sin:
This means that a man cannot divorce his wife and remarry because he’s still married, and a man cannot have more than one wife.
The RCC ranks polygamy as an “offense against the dignity of marriage” along with incest, fornication, and adultery. It is a mortal sin. Straight from the catechism:
This is not a matter of personal opinion. Polygamy is a form of adultery. There is no way around that without ignoring Jesus’ very own words, and anyone who denies this is a heretic. There is absolutely no room for tolerance on this matter, and the fact that you would even suggest otherwise is incomprehensible to me.
The “well, they’re really not that bad” meme doesn’t fly with me, or with most of the other readers. Heresy is heresy. Grave sin is grave sin. This is just another form of lust, and these women don’t get a pass just because they’re shacking up with their Baby Daddy and wearing ugly dresses to fool people into thinking they’re not fornicators. That’s not how my religion works.
Now, if they are Mormon, Muslim, whatever, it’s still wrong, as this is a question of Natural Law.
Clarence
October 8, 2011
How does “heretic” fit into non-belief, Alte?
I’ve never really looked into that but always thought it was someone who repudiated one of the core beliefs of his religion. I assume atheism is a mortal sin, but it’s not heresy, am I correct?
Alte
October 8, 2011
I suppose it’s apostate:
Clarence
October 8, 2011
Alte:
Thank you.
Will S.
October 8, 2011
@ The Deuce: Cheers.
@ Svar: You can use Google to look it up, if you must. Hint: add another word that also has the prefix ‘inter-’ at its beginning, and Google them together. I’m sure there’s a Wiki about it, or an urbandictionary entry, or something. Just don’t do a Google image search, unless you want to see that sort of thing, heh heh.
Stuki
October 8, 2011
Alte, there are plenty of posts above indicating God is at least tolerant of Polygamy. One even noting how he mandated it in certain instances. All old Israel stuff, but nowhere in he New Testament is it flat out and directly stated that God’s tolerance has from now on tightened.
And what is the catechism, if not personal opinions? The opinions of people with far more authority on the matter than me for sure, which is why I have no problem deferring to them on many matters, despite not being a Catholic.
Exactly how Natural Law differs from God’s Law is a bit unclear to me, as both spring from the same hands; but either way, both God and Nature are perfectly capable of sending violators packing in not too many generations, without revealing suspiciously much in the way of intelligent involvement.
Regardless, as I noted before, I have no issues with Catholics (or those of any other denomination) renouncing polygamy, and even criticizing those who practice it. Just don’t let that lead you down the path of in any way, shape or form supporting those who are the real threat; the secular progressives who for over a century have been busy doing nothing but poisoning the soil for anyone who seeks God, by whatever pathway. That’s nothing but acquiescing to letting the Worst make use the Best, in their quest to destroy the comparatively Good. Instead, make common case with the Mormon’s, as more than anything, they simply ask to be left alone; something all half decent or better people have in common.
Alte
October 8, 2011
Stuki,
You obviously haven’t been reading here very long, as I’m hardly anti-Mormon or particularly statist. This is a moral question, not a legal question.
Svar
October 8, 2011
“@ Svar: You can use Google to look it up, if you must. Hint: add another word that also has the prefix ‘inter-’ at its beginning, and Google them together. I’m sure there’s a Wiki about it, or an urbandictionary entry, or something. Just don’t do a Google image search, unless you want to see that sort of thing, heh heh.”
Hahaha, I already knew what you were talking about; I was hoping that you would explain so as to turn this thread into a total smutfest and offend those with more delicate sensibilities.
Alte
October 8, 2011
Yeah, we all noticed you guys clowning around like this is a locker room. Okay, the topic seems to have exhausted itself, so let’s move on now.