• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Read Me

andrew

andrew

Administrator
Staff member
Real Person
Male
This forum evolved out of a conversation on the "Recent CMI Article" thread that has now been moved to this forum from the "Links of Interest" forum where it originated. The idea of being a bit more intentional about being involved in online discussions outside the BF discussion board—particularly as part of a team that shared that interest—resonated with several members, so here we are. Take a look at that CMI Article thread if you're interested in seeing how this evolved.

Initially, we have the following members that have expressed a willingness to be active and support each other in online discussion forums and comment threads:

@NetWatchR (whom I've asked to be an informal leader/facilitator of this team's activities)
@rustywest4
@Shibboleth
@cnystrom
@Slumberfreeze
@Mojo

This is not a 'closed' group, though, and anyone here at BF aware of a serious online discussion (let's not waste time doing the 'pearls before swine' thing) that a few of our members should have the opportunity to join in, please open a new thread on this forum and post a link to the discussion there, and tell us a little about why you're recommending it.

¡Vaya con Dios!
 
I vacillated whether I should respond here. I welcome the idea of more defenders of PM, but I cannot recall having ever seen a name I recognize from BF in any of the forums where I usually find PM debated. Perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough.

The strength of BF is in its support of plural families, building out the network of connections, helping people with the real world problems inherent in this lifestyle. Conversely, defending or advocating for that lifestyle seems to be a weak point. Don't get me wrong, BF has great resources for defending against a religious argument. But where I usually find PM debated, its different.

Usually the arguments against PM that I encounter aren't religious, they are sociological or legal, and extremely secular. For instance, i get many arguments about the harm of PM, and they are able to provide links to studies to back that up. Against this I only have one reputable, scientific study I can cite to refute that. Similarly, legal arguments are sometimes brought up and need to be answered.

I'd like to see BF expand their resources to apply to the bigger (secular) debate. For instance, expand the common objections section to include secular arguments, such as:

* My opponent has links to studies that prove PM is harmful.
* My opponent says PM isn't needed anymore, because <reason>.
* My opponent says PM is <primitive/anti-feminist/etc>.
* My opponent says because the law restricts everyone to one spouse, it is therefor fair.
* My opponent says the legal system is built to handle monogamy, not polygamy, and for that reason PM should remain illegal.

And so on. None of these are religious points, but they come up a lot. I would be glad to contribute to this effort.

I support the idea (already mentioned elsewhere) that there should be an organized response (outreach) to anti-PM sites (emphasis on the religious, since that is BF strength). My feeling is that PM has been on the defensive long enough, and its time to start pushing back. Let the other side be on the defense for a while. But we must be very careful to be completely civil, or our behavior will undermine our point, doing more harm than good.

I have other things to say, but will put them in their own threads.
 
Feminist arguments are the most troubling, as many "Christians" now use them against PM.
 
Jeff Ray said:
I vacillated whether I should respond here. I welcome the idea of more defenders of PM, but I cannot recall having ever seen a name I recognize from BF in any of the forums where I usually find PM debated. Perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I have had the opposite experience: getting into one of these debates and then realize that one or more people are people I already know from BF or other online PM forum.

It is always interesting to learn that while still a minority there are a many many PM supporters out there who have sophisticated and intelligence defenses of PM who are not members or active here.
 
Jeff Ray said:
Usually the arguments against PM that I encounter aren't religious, they are sociological or legal, and extremely secular. For instance, i get many arguments about the harm of PM, and they are able to provide links to studies to back that up. Against this I only have one reputable, scientific study I can cite to refute that. Similarly, legal arguments are sometimes brought up and need to be answered.
Click to expand...

First of all good point. Thank you for posting.

I think the main secular defense for PM is freedom. Consenting adults should be free to live their lives without interfearence from the state.

For specific details of how that might be accomplished see the Sister Wives court case (Brown v. Buhman) which they lost on standing. Had they been heard I think they would have won it.

It can also be argued on freedom of speech: Why is it legal for Hugh Hefner to have 3 "girlfriends" but if he simply calls them "wives" then somehow that is a now crime?

It can be argued as a freedom of religion: if I have three girlfriends it is a sin. It is important for me to use the word "wife" so as to make it not a sin. The state should not encourage sin or to prevent its citizens from avoiding sin.

Or simple rationality: Why is it that a man can legally have 3 girlfriends that he is not committed to, and have babies with them, but if he makes a commit to love them for life and to support them then that is bad for women, children and society and in fact so bad that we need to use the power of the state to attempt to curb it?

"Scientific" studies are a dime a dozen especially about sociology. They are very easy to be biased. There were lots of studies about the evils of homosexuality, too. That did not stop supporters from discounting them and getting it legalized anyway.

Also, I always make a point with secularists that polygamists are not asking for legalizing polygamy. All they want is to de-criminalize it. The distinction is important. Polygamists should not get their children taken away simply for their family structure if there are in an otherwise loving family.
 
Mojo said:
Feminist arguments are the most troubling, as many "Christians" now use them against PM.
Click to expand...

Feminist rebellion is deeply engrained in the modern church. It is a major problem not just for PM, but for the church as a whole. The clearest voice in opposition that I know of is the Dalrock Blog. Even Christian groups that are supposed to be in oppositon to feminism like the CBMW is saturated with feminist thought or are too afraid to speak out clearly as Dalrock documents.

They do not take PM seriosuly enough to really hate it. What the world (and increasingly the wordly church) really hates is patriarchy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top