RSS

Polygamy will be legalized; traditionalist Christians will likely be the only religious group to oppose it

19 Feb

Remember the Law of Merited Impossibility: It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.


From the comments, we can see one group who won’t join with traditionalist Christians in opposing it:

And no doubt members of any faith which still accepts polygamy won’t oppose its legalization.

(As for other non-Western religionists: did they vocally join in opposing SSM? No. ‘Nuff said.)

Will trad members of The Tribe stick their neck out and join us in opposing it? As with the aforementioned commenter (and as he pointed out), their ancestors used to practice it; I doubt they care that much. And with their more liberal brethren like the author above making the case for it, they’re even less likely to get involved.

Other than some individual allies here and there, we’ll likely be largely alone in our opposition.

Same as we have been, mostly, in all the other culture war battles. (And Democrat-/Liberal-voting racial and ethnic minority Christians are useless, because notwithstanding their personal opinions, they never let such affect their continued solidarity voting for parties which most ardently fight on the other side in the culture war. So it’ll mostly be white Christians fighting the good fight, without even Моrmons on our side in this case.)

Advertisements
 

40 responses to “Polygamy will be legalized; traditionalist Christians will likely be the only religious group to oppose it

  1. seriouslypleasedropit

    February 19, 2017 at 1:38 am

    Actually, I’m curious: what *is* the standard Christian objection to polygamy?

    I mean, full disclosure: I’m Mormon.

    But a) I’ve been around the sphere for a long time and would hope I’ll be taken in good faith, and b) I’m pretty sure IsaacH above is right, and I’ll go one further: I bet the LDS church would actively opppose attempts to legalize polygamy. Whether we’re inspired by Satan or whatever, we really are sincere in trying to follow God, so an about face back to polygamy would not happen lightly, to say the least.

     
    • Will S.

      February 19, 2017 at 2:00 am

      Hi seriously, thanks for commenting.

      The Church has generally emphasized that New Testament passages such as Ephesians 5:31 and Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7 reiterate and emphasize the message of 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.”), and that from this, the Bible upholds, as an ideal, this one flesh consisting of one man and one wife.

      I am genuinely interested to hear why you think the LDS would actively oppose the legalization of polygamy. After all, while I understand completely that the LDS has no interest in reversing their reversal of their original practice of polygamy, I don’t see why it would follow that they would oppose the law changing to allow others, such as the FLDS, or Muslims, or even hippy freak ‘polyamorist’ types, to live their lives as they see fit. Why they wouldn’t just ignore the debate as not relevant to their own lives, and let others concerns themselves with the matter.

      Your brother IsaacH doesn’t understand why we non-LDS Christians would get exercised about this matter, and I’d imagine his non-exercised-about-polygamy-laws-changing POV would not be uncommon among his and your fellow Mormons, which is why I don’t understand your contention.

      But I am curious to learn why you think thus.

      Cheers. 🙂

       
      • infowarrior1

        February 19, 2017 at 7:34 am

        I think we have to watch out for arguments put forward by those who claim to be Christian.

        Have you heard of the argument that I seem to start seeing around these parts. That since sex is the mechanism by which one flesh is achieved and that God who inspired moses to pen the book of genesis also regulated polygyny. And since David was only considered in the wrong when he took Uriah’s wife for himself and not his polygyny. Polygyny is not sinful.

        This strange notion of one flesh with multiple women because one flesh is referring to sex.

        But I think that such a thing is only not sinful in the Old covenant and never had a happy ending. Always causes more problems than it solves. My thought is that Jesus in his teaching is returning marriage to it edenic ideal. One man and one woman.

         
      • Will S.

        February 19, 2017 at 12:01 pm

        What we have to do is test their arguments against both Scripture and the traditional, Scripture-based arguments that the Church has long made against polygyny. They are as ridiculous and absurd as the examples you cite, and can be easily rebutted and dismissed.

        Christ talked about Moses permitting certain things, like easy divorce, which nevertheless were not ideal. Polygyny (and polyandry) falls under the same category. And indeed, Christ was returning marriage to its ideal, which is why the Mormons were wrong to go back to the Old Testament model, and were right later when they ended up changing their policy.

         
      • seriouslypleasedropit

        February 19, 2017 at 2:55 pm

        “I don’t see why it would follow that they would oppose the law changing to allow others, such as the FLDS, or Muslims, or even hippy freak ‘polyamorist’ types, to live their lives as they see fit. Why they wouldn’t just ignore the debate as not relevant to their own lives, and let others concern themselves with the matter.”

        For the same reason you would oppose it, presumably: a belief that the more closely a society hews to God’s laws, the better.

        That said, you’re right that it doesn’t automatically follow that the Mormon church would get into it institutionally. We did on Prop 8 in CA, but, you know, no guarantees.

        How LDS members as people, rather than members of a church, would go, well, you might ask the same question about mainstream Christians. Suffice it to say that Churchianity has a home among us as well. But by the same token: well, I’m here. And, save the extremely unlikely event of the Church bringing back polygamy, I would oppose it.

        Be of good cheer! They that be with you are more than they that be with them.

         
      • Will S.

        February 19, 2017 at 5:24 pm

        Ah. Well, glad to hear it! 🙂

         
      • infowarrior1

        February 19, 2017 at 6:17 pm

        Polyandry isn’t weren’t even permitted in the Old Testament though. I do agree with the rest of your comment.

         
      • Will S.

        February 19, 2017 at 6:34 pm

        You’re right, I’m not sure why I put it there; I was going somewhere with a thought, or was trying to, but lost my train of thought. 🙂

         
    • Dave

      February 19, 2017 at 2:51 am

      The historical pattern seems to be that patriarchy tolerates polygamy only so long as the alternative is for unmarried women to starve to death in the street. If there’s any other place for surplus women (convents, alms-houses, public housing, make-work government jobs), polygamy is outlawed, because societies that allow a few elite men to hoover up all the girls (e.g. Saudi Arabia) are *extremely* violent and unstable.

      That is why the Mormons required polygamy while they were nomads, then banned it after they settled down.

      Next time a single Christian woman complains of a “man shortage”, playfully suggest restoring polygamy. There are probably dozens of single men in her church that she rejects for being boring low-status betas, but being a second wife would be the ultimate loss of status!

       
      • infowarrior1

        February 19, 2017 at 7:55 am

        They are not among the biggest exporter of jihadists for no reason. Better send them troublemakers abroad.

         
  2. Carnivore

    February 19, 2017 at 7:02 am

    Since the state in the US is not based upon Christianity and does not recognize an ultimate or absolute law given by God which sits above any laws enacted by the state, there is no logical reason not to enable polygamy. Appeals to the Bible are pointless. The only possible argument would be some definitive proof that polygamy harms the ‘general welfare’ in some fashion. I’m not aware of any such proof.

     
    • Will S.

      February 19, 2017 at 12:07 pm

      Given that all laws are based on moral principles, and given that we have not, traditionally, as Christians, been reluctant to use the power of the State to reinforce Christian morality by banning practices seen as un-Christian, I don’t see why we shouldn’t fight against legalizing polygamy, same as we have fought against SSM, etc. We might lose, but it’s still worth a try.

      The best practical argument against polygamy is that it potentially deprives some individuals of spouses, because other individuals get to have more than one. And we know what societies that have excess unmarried men are like; what effect such a scenario has: see the Middle Eastern countries apart from Israel.

       
      • infowarrior1

        February 19, 2017 at 6:19 pm

        Makes us think that we either have state religion or we have secular humanism as the religion. It may be possible that there cannot not be no state religion.

         
      • Will S.

        February 19, 2017 at 6:38 pm

        That’s a profound observation, and I’m sure you’re right.

        “You gotta serve somebody”, as Bob Dylan put it; or, from Paul, we’re either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness…

        The same is surely true of the State.

        That’s why I’m a constitutional monarchist. 🙂

         
      • c matt

        February 20, 2017 at 4:04 pm

        I don’t know that it necessarily deprives a significant number of individuals of spouses. Presumably, the spousal relationship is consensual, and with readily available divorce, wife 2 (or 3) could just divorce the polygamous relationship and go where she will be first banana. If she doesn’t want to leave Alpha male, it is not that likely she would have consented to being first banana to beta anyway, and beta has no particular “right” to her.

         
      • Will S.

        February 20, 2017 at 9:02 pm

        In the absence of polygyny, though, she can’t marry an alpha already married to another woman; at most, she can be a mistress to one.

        In any case, in the absence of polygyny, women all have to make do, and so some may end up settling for a lesser alpha or even a beta. I’m not asserting that a beta has a right to any particular woman, but that in the world we live in, people make do with what they can get, and so instead of a smaller number of men hogging all the women to themselves, more men get to have wives (in theory, unless you have like what we have now, rotating polyandry).

         
  3. Finsals Collons

    February 19, 2017 at 8:55 am

    @Carnivore

    “The only possible argument would be some definitive proof that polygamy harms the ‘general welfare’ in some fashion.”

    There are scientific studies proving that non-fault divorce harms people, kids and the general welfare but non-fault divorce is not outlawed.

    The fact that all polygamy societies are backward, poor and violent would be the start of such an argument but even if we had a 100% ironclad argument wouldn’t mean a thing.

    A religion is a worldview with a morality, which defines what is good and what is evil.

    – The Muslim religion is a worldview (“There is only one God and Muhammad is his messenger”) with a morality (“The definition of good and evil is contained in the Quran and the hadiths”)

    – The Christian religion is a worldview (“Jesus is the Son of God”) with a morality (“The definition of good and evil is contained in the Bible”)

    – The Enlightenment religion is a worldview (“There is no God and nothing but the physical world”) with a morality (Utilitarianism: “The Self defines what is good and what is evil”). It is the religion of the Self.

    Every society has an official religion, which is codified in the law. So the law allows what the official religion considers good and forbids what the official religion considers evil.

    The official religion of Western countries is the Enlightenment religion. This is why polygamy will be allowed, no matter the arguments. You cannot oppose the Self, which is the God of our society. If the Self wants to marry more than one woman, who are you to oppose it?

     
    • Carnivore

      February 19, 2017 at 2:57 pm

      @FC – I totally agree. I said “definitive proof” with tongue in cheek. Any scientific studies would no doubt be countered with other scientific studies showing the exact opposite (e.g. global warming). If there truly were an iron clad proof, it could easily be dismissed based upon the “Founders’ intent” or mystical hidden meanings that are discovered at the moment.

       
  4. Julian L

    February 19, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    Stumbled over here through this excellent portal that my own site is on: http://nxx14.blogspot.com/

    Fascinating discussion. It is a subject I have many thoughts on.

    1) I think the modern LDS church would oppose attempts at legalizing polygamy, although I think some monogamous Mormon men would sympathize privately. The Church has been bending over backwards to separate itself from its polygamous history for a hundred+ years now, and many young Mormons today will tell you with a straight face that Joseph Smith never even practiced polygamy and that it was a smalll and limited phenomenon within the Brighan Young era to ensure that widows and orphans were taken care of on the trek to Utah. Full disclosure I am not a Mormon but grew up around them and have very positive feelings towards the LDS Church. True Mormon men who have studied their history in depth believe that polygamy will one day return, but they are far and few between these days.

    2) I would support polygamy becoming legalized and its adoption by traditionalist-thinking Europeans and members of the European-diaspora in cases where couple genuinely wanted to engage in it for positive reasons. With birthrates across Europe and North America being sub-replacement level our people need all the help they can get in that regard.

    3) While I think it is 110% accurate that the Cultural-Marxists will keep trotting out crazier and sicker behaviors to be considered the new ‘normal’ and will attack all skeptics as ‘bigots’ (like what we see with transgenderism) I do not think polygamy will be their next one. This is because I think polygamy is by definition patriarchal, and I just can’t see the pc-blue hair crowd advocating for it. Now, pan-sexuality and all sorts of other nutjob stuff, sure, but not actual plural marriage.

    4) The only exception I make to that is in Europe, where the left WILL embrace the legalization of polygamy as one aspect of their kowtowing to Islam and Islamization. It will be considered a ‘religious right’ of Muslims though, and they will never accept the idea of white European men engaging in it.

    5) I don’t really consider myself an evangelical christian so obviously I am at odd’s with the perspective of this site in that regard (if I am understanding it right). I do find doctrinal discussions on the Bible’s outlook on polygamy interesting however my knowledge of the Bible is relatively limited and I profess no authority on that question.

    Thanks for the thought-provoking article!

     
    • Will S.

      February 19, 2017 at 9:57 pm

      “I think the modern LDS church would oppose attempts at legalizing polygamy, although I think some monogamous Mormon men would sympathize privately. The Church has been bending over backwards to separate itself from its polygamous history for a hundred+ years now, and many young Mormons today will tell you with a straight face that Joseph Smith never even practiced polygamy and that it was a smalll and limited phenomenon within the Brighan Young era to ensure that widows and orphans were taken care of on the trek to Utah. Full disclosure I am not a Mormon but grew up around them and have very positive feelings towards the LDS Church. True Mormon men who have studied their history in depth believe that polygamy will one day return, but they are far and few between these days.”

      Interesting.

      We are traditionalist Christians, not evangelicals in the usual understanding (though, as a trad Calv, I am one in the older, British / European sense of the word). But we would have similar understandings about marriage, overall.

      Thanks for commenting.

       
  5. Carnivore

    February 19, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    @infowarrior1 – “It may be possible that there cannot not be no state religion.”

    I believe that is exactly the case. I recently finished “Liberty The God that Failed” by Chris Ferrara. What an eye opener. Now, he writes from a very strict RC point of view. But for our purposes here – who reading is aware of the NRA? No, not the rifle and bullets NRA, the National Reform Association? This was a Protestant organization that highlighted the God-lessness of the US Constitution. In the NRA proceedings, mention was frequently made of the unanimous declaration of of the US Senate in Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli, approved by President John Adams in 1797. It reads as follows:

    As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Mussulmen…it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

    The NRA pointed out that the Treaty of Tripoli only confirmed that the Constitution was so devoid of Christian content as to be suitable for a Muslim nation without any need for amendment.

    The NRA proposed to amend the Preamble of the Constitution to read as follows:

    We the People of the United States, [humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government,] and in order to form a more perfect union….

    Of course, this proposal failed miserably.

     
    • infowarrior1

      February 20, 2017 at 12:02 am

      That’s why the deistic notions of the founding Fathers inspired by the Enlightenment is bound to fail. Although they do say that their Republic is designed for a Moral and Religious people.

      Since that is not something that is maintained its bound to end up like it is now.

       
  6. Carnivore

    February 19, 2017 at 7:07 pm

    NRA is mentioned here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_amendment

    Also, I’m not familiar with Protestant theology, however the concepts invoked by the NRA’s proposed amendment are essentially identical to the Roman Catholic concept of the social Kingship of Christ.

     
    • Will S.

      February 19, 2017 at 9:47 pm

      We have a similar understanding; just this morning at church, someone used the term ‘King Jesus’.

       
  7. Carnivore

    February 19, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    Will – “That’s why I’m a constitutional monarchist. 🙂”

    Exactly. It begs the question – if Canada and Australia managed, what really was the purpose of the American rebellion? Especially considering that not many years after, citizens were complaining of the tyranny in Washington being worse than ever experienced under George III.

     
    • Will S.

      February 19, 2017 at 8:59 pm

      To benefit a new native-born bureaucratic class, as well as merchants freed from Imperial taxes. 😉

       
      • feeriker

        February 20, 2017 at 11:30 am

        EXACTLY. It now is obvious that the Constitution and BoR were at best window dressing for disguising the Founders’ real intentions, or at worst instruments for covertly and gradually solidifying the kleptoligarchy we’re now burdened with. Either way, the republic that the Constitutional Convention ostensibly set in motion was a sham and a fraud. Read this for a fascinating and authoritative account of one of history’s most remarkably successful political scams ever perpetrated against an entire nation.

         
      • Will S.

        February 20, 2017 at 8:57 pm

        Fixed your link.

         
      • infowarrior1

        February 20, 2017 at 7:47 pm

        Your link is broken Feeriker.

         
  8. oogenhand

    February 19, 2017 at 11:19 pm

    What about religions that out-polygamize Islam, like Odinism? What if they start converting immigrants using the slogan “Four wives is NOT enough!”

     
    • Will S.

      February 19, 2017 at 11:58 pm

      Really? I would have thought that Asatru would not be polygynous, given Nordics’ penchant for radical sexual egalitarianism.

      In any case, I doubt one will see many women in those lands, whether Nordics or Muslim immigrants, convert en masse to a particularly reactionary form of Asatru. So, a weiner party. Yay. As useless as a wankfest.

       
  9. Sanne

    February 21, 2017 at 11:19 am

    Viking princes surely were polygamous:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_the_Great

     
    • Will S.

      February 21, 2017 at 7:14 pm

      Before Christianity took hold, sure. 🙂

       
      • infowarrior1

        February 22, 2017 at 6:51 pm

        Polygamy is why Vikings were doing all those raids.

         
      • Will S.

        February 22, 2017 at 6:54 pm

        I don’t know about that, but yes, they got to capture women as well as booty (no pun intended) during their raids. 🙂

         
      • Will S.

        February 22, 2017 at 8:09 pm

        But yes, no doubt, it was a factor in why they raided the northern coasts of western Europe. 🙂

         

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s