• 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.

Secular arguments against poly

This is an interesting argument but the whole traditional saying by pro monogamists is that "Their is somebody for everybody". I personally think that some men and women should't get married. Some people don't want to marry and have children. What is a good counterargument against this notion that their is "Somebody for everybody"? Some men are abusive and don't treat women right and the same applies to women as well.

https://www.elitedaily.com/dating/t...r-or-not-there-is-someone-for-everyone/608721

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/love-digitally/201605/is-there-someone-everyone
I agree that not all males would make acceptable leaders. No one can by sheer choice or gutting it out become a reasonable leader. Leading without abusing requires actual skill, no matter how intentional the person is.
The same is not true of a person who follows a leader. She makes the choice to follow. She may have to remake that choice minute by minute, but it doesn’t take skill, just commitment.

We would never say that so-and-so shouldn’t become a Christian because they are X. It is a choice to follow and conform to His desires. Some just do it better than others.
 
No one can by sheer choice or gutting it out become a reasonable leader.

I'd say that not all individuals have the personality characteristics to make a reasonable leader. But personality is not entirely fixed in stone. One can learn, change, improve. Though it's rare that happens.
 
I'd say that not all individuals have the personality characteristics to make a reasonable leader. But personality is not entirely fixed in stone. One can learn, change, improve. Though it's rare that happens.
Some just are not smart enough and never will be.
The ones that can change should be required to change before a girl accepts them as a husband. Change takes years to prove out. A girl might do better to choose a man already married and proven.
 
This is an interesting argument but the whole traditional saying by pro monogamists is that "There is somebody for everybody". I personally think that some men and women should't get married. Some people don't want to marry and have children. What is a good counterargument against this notion that their is "Somebody for everybody"? Some men are abusive and don't treat women right and the same applies to women as well.

https://www.elitedaily.com/dating/t...r-or-not-there-is-someone-for-everyone/608721

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/love-digitally/201605/is-there-someone-everyone
There are many people who should not get married and there are Christians that are called to singlehood. However, there is pressure on them by their families and people at church to marry. Single women are often the object of both pity and contempt. Married women are afraid they will be a temptation for their husband..smh. Then there are men who believe that single women are communal property to be used for their own gratification and are angry if a single female turns there advances or does not want to go out with them. Thus, men will also hold them in contempt. Then of course you have family members who want grandchildren and do not understand why their daughter or son has chosen to remain single. The pressure to marry and treating singleness as a second class status is leading people to marry the first person they can, which leads to disaster and eventual divorce.
 
I don’t accept the idea that anyone is called to celibacy, Paul notwithstanding.
Please study Isaiah 4:1 in its context. It shows the change that takes place when they start living life the way that it was designed to be lived.
 
Some just are not smart enough and never will be.
The ones that can change should be required to change before a girl accepts them as a husband. Change takes years to prove out. A girl might do better to choose a man already married and proven.

How is that realistic in a society where 80-90% of boys have been propagandized to the point they are unable to lead?

I don’t accept the idea that anyone is called to celibacy, Paul notwithstanding.

I think Christ is pretty clear that some are called to it. Though between what He and Paul say, I have my doubts that it extends to women as well. It's against nature.
 
How is that realistic in a society where 80-90% of boys have been propagandized to the point they are unable to lead?
How much more realistic can you get than reality?

Look, of course we cannot require girls to not marry problems. Most of them will not wait or be willing to marry a safe man.
But we can put the cards on the table and recommend the best choices. Those that ignore it become the example of what not to do for the younger ones.
The problem today is that there are not any standards for people to even consider, much less ignore at their peril.
 
I think Christ is pretty clear that some are called to it. Though between what He and Paul say, I have my doubts that it extends to women as well. It's against nature.

Some males would definitely be forced into staying single if women would refuse to marry the inappropriate ones.

The elders were the leaders of the church and were required to be married, so I just don’t buy it.
You are spot on about the women.
 
Last edited:
I think Christ is pretty clear that some are called to it. Though between what He and Paul say, I have my doubts that it extends to women as well. It's against nature.

Some males would definitely be forced into staying single if women would refuse to marry the inappropriate ones.

Well poly sure enables women to do that and still fulfill their creation mandates. I just can't think of a scriptural justification for a female calling to singleness.
 
Well poly sure enables women to do that and still fulfill their creation mandates. I just can't think of a scriptural justification for a female calling to singleness.
Spot on. They are not called to lead, but need to be led by a capable leader, in many cases, in order to learn how to follow.
 
Alright so, I haven't thought about this in a while, but months ago my brother made a big stink and got into a huge argument with me about poly. He had no interest in debating Biblical teachings, but instead brought up 'secular' arguments of why poly is bad. In particular he cited this study:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2012-01-monogamy-major-social-problems-polygamist.amp

With no desire to court debate simply for debate's sake, I'm wondering if some of the INTJ types on this forum would be willing to tackle a logic-based response to these assertions made in this study? :)

(PS: you'll earn yourself some baked cookies as thanks for me not having to do it myself ;) )
Why would you be concerned or entertain any discussion about a biblical principle without using the Bible. My advice is follow the WORD and do not allow the fallen one (Satan) to poison the topic.
 
It compares modern/current world with less developed societies.

Reason for less violence could be more respect for property rights and life. This will cause more societal sanction for crime makers which will reduce amount of crime. Also richer societies have more possibilities to earn money, so there is less need for someone to steal.

Greater investment in children could be because there are less children, so parents put more resources per child. Could also be that more richer societies are more monogamous so parents can afford to invest more in children.

Read Popper's critique of science. You will find philosophical reasoning why science can't find truth, only that something isn't true.
 
The ones that can change should be required to change before a girl accepts them as a husband. Change takes years to prove out. A girl might do better to choose a man already married and proven.

That is almost three years old and it is GOLD!!!
 
So I have been reading through some of the comments here and have a question similar to the one posted by @DeathIsNotTheEnd (I'm not trying to hi Jack your thread)
I was speaking with a cousin about the Biblical view of marriage. She is an outside the box thinker and has a non traditional family so I thought she might be a little more open minded. Ha! After our conversation she sent me this
Good morning!
I just wanted to go over a few things I thought of after we spoke last night! About more than one wife...some verse that might help.
Deut. 17:17 ( He is speaking to laws of kings) so it may not apply? Gen. 2:18 a helper( not multiple) Gen. 2:24 he is to hold fast to his wife and become one! 1 Cor 7:1-40 he only speaks of one wife. Eph 5:33 love his wife as himself.
And then the last thing is what does you state law say? Laws to the king did apply to David and Solomon. David had 8 wives and 18 kids he suffered quite a few consequences for this and God didn't allow him to build the Temple because of it!

What scriptures would you use to rebuttal?
I know what I would and have said I am just curious how it may differ from what you would say?
 
So I have been reading through some of the comments here and have a question similar to the one posted by @DeathIsNotTheEnd (I'm not trying to hi Jack your thread)
I was speaking with a cousin about the Biblical view of marriage. She is an outside the box thinker and has a non traditional family so I thought she might be a little more open minded. Ha! After our conversation she sent me this
Good morning!
I just wanted to go over a few things I thought of after we spoke last night! About more than one wife...some verse that might help.
Deut. 17:17 ( He is speaking to laws of kings) so it may not apply? Gen. 2:18 a helper( not multiple) Gen. 2:24 he is to hold fast to his wife and become one! 1 Cor 7:1-40 he only speaks of one wife. Eph 5:33 love his wife as himself.
And then the last thing is what does you state law say? Laws to the king did apply to David and Solomon. David had 8 wives and 18 kids he suffered quite a few consequences for this and God didn't allow him to build the Temple because of it!

What scriptures would you use to rebuttal?
I know what I would and have said I am just curious how it may differ from what you would say?
Hi @Patricia C. Here a a few points you might make in response to the verses your cousin has presented:
Deut. 17:17 ( He is speaking to laws of kings) so it may not apply? The same Hebrew word for "multiply" is used in Deut. 17:16 regarding horses. Owning more than one horse was "normal" until the invention of cars, trucks, and tractors. The command does not restrict a king (or anyone else) from owning more than one horse, or one piece of silver or gold, or one woman but rather it restricts kings from hoarding these.

Gen. 2:18 a helper( not multiple). Yes, God made one man and one woman but that doesn't set any limitations on how many men a woman may have nor how many women a man may have; we know the limits through the God's Law. The same reasoning could be applied to the references to a "son" singular in e.g. Proverbs 1:8, 10; 2:1; 3:1, 11, 21, etc.. But just referring to a "son" doesn't set limitations on the number of sons a man may have. God told Noah to take one pair of each kind of animal onto the Ark (Gen. 6:19) but that didn't set a limit for how many pairs of animals there should be nor how many a man may breed. In e.g. Jer. 31:31-32 God refers to Himself as being a husband to more than one wife. Is God presenting Himself as an example of someone doing wrong or being in sin there?

Gen. 2:24 he is to hold fast to his wife and become one! The man is joined to his wife and they become one flesh however there is nothing in the verse to indicate a man may not take another woman and be joined to his (new) wife and they also become one flesh. To read such things into the passage is to create an illusion; it's eisegesis and it builds a doctrine Scripture doesn't support. For example, see also Gen. 2:15; the man was put in the garden to tend and keep but it doesn't mean all men are to be horticulturalists nor does Gen. 2:25; they were both naked.... require all Christians to become nudists. Jesus wasn't married nor was He a horticulturalist or nudist so the Creation account cannot be setting any sort of ideal otherwise Jesus failed to live up to it.

1 Cor 7:1-40 he only speaks of one wife. See my answer for Ge. 2:18 and 2:24 above. Also, you might direct your cousin to 1 Cor. 7:1 where we are told Paul is addressing the question of celibacy, not polygamy! Context, context, context; the three most important rules for understanding the Bible. However, look at v:2, to avoid sexual immorality a man is to have sexual relations with his wife and a woman is to have sexual relations with her husband. Nothing in this passage is dealing with the issue of the number of wives a man may have but it's about avoiding sexual sin.

Eph 5:33 love his wife as himself. Yes, and in Eph. 6:4, fathers are not to provoke their "children" (plu.) but bring "them" (plu.) up. Following your cousin's logic every man who has no child or only one child is in sin. This same response can be applied to the 1 Cor 7:1-40 he only speaks of one wife.

And then the last thing is what does you state law say? Laws to the king did apply to David and Solomon. God NEVER gave the state (human government) authority over marriage, family, or children; never! Just because some organization or religion makes a rule or law doesn't mean you must obey it and especially when that rule or law violates God's Holy Word. The laws that applied to David and Solomon were God's laws not the Egyptian, Philistine, or Canaanite laws.

David had 8 wives and 18 kids he suffered quite a few consequences for this and God didn't allow him to build the Temple because of it! No, David had many wives and concubines, but it was because David had been a man of war and had shed much blood that prevented him from building the Temple (see 1 Chron. 22:8; 28:3). Also, your cousin needs to remember it was through Adam and Eve (a monogamous couple!) that sin came with all its consequences. Tell her to take a close look at her American monogamy-only culture and see the shocking failures of marriages and families there and the consequences of those failures. Check out the name "Hunter Biden" as one to consider. :rolleyes:

Hope this is of some help. Blessings and Shalom
 
Hi @Patricia C. Here a a few points you might make in response to the verses your cousin has presented:
Deut. 17:17 ( He is speaking to laws of kings) so it may not apply? The same Hebrew word for "multiply" is used in Deut. 17:16 regarding horses. Owning more than one horse was "normal" until the invention of cars, trucks, and tractors. The command does not restrict a king (or anyone else) from owning more than one horse, or one piece of silver or gold, or one woman but rather it restricts kings from hoarding these.

Gen. 2:18 a helper( not multiple). Yes, God made one man and one woman but that doesn't set any limitations on how many men a woman may have nor how many women a man may have; we know the limits through the God's Law. The same reasoning could be applied to the references to a "son" singular in e.g. Proverbs 1:8, 10; 2:1; 3:1, 11, 21, etc.. But just referring to a "son" doesn't set limitations on the number of sons a man may have. God told Noah to take one pair of each kind of animal onto the Ark (Gen. 6:19) but that didn't set a limit for how many pairs of animals there should be nor how many a man may breed. In e.g. Jer. 31:31-32 God refers to Himself as being a husband to more than one wife. Is God presenting Himself as an example of someone doing wrong or being in sin there?

Gen. 2:24 he is to hold fast to his wife and become one! The man is joined to his wife and they become one flesh however there is nothing in the verse to indicate a man may not take another woman and be joined to his (new) wife and they also become one flesh. To read such things into the passage is to create an illusion; it's eisegesis and it builds a doctrine Scripture doesn't support. For example, see also Gen. 2:15; the man was put in the garden to tend and keep but it doesn't mean all men are to be horticulturalists nor does Gen. 2:25; they were both naked.... require all Christians to become nudists. Jesus wasn't married nor was He a horticulturalist or nudist so the Creation account cannot be setting any sort of ideal otherwise Jesus failed to live up to it.

1 Cor 7:1-40 he only speaks of one wife. See my answer for Ge. 2:18 and 2:24 above. Also, you might direct your cousin to 1 Cor. 7:1 where we are told Paul is addressing the question of celibacy, not polygamy! Context, context, context; the three most important rules for understanding the Bible. However, look at v:2, to avoid sexual immorality a man is to have sexual relations with his wife and a woman is to have sexual relations with her husband. Nothing in this passage is dealing with the issue of the number of wives a man may have but it's about avoiding sexual sin.

Eph 5:33 love his wife as himself. Yes, and in Eph. 6:4, fathers are not to provoke their "children" (plu.) but bring "them" (plu.) up. Following your cousin's logic every man who has no child or only one child is in sin. This same response can be applied to the 1 Cor 7:1-40 he only speaks of one wife.

And then the last thing is what does you state law say? Laws to the king did apply to David and Solomon. God NEVER gave the state (human government) authority over marriage, family, or children; never! Just because some organization or religion makes a rule or law doesn't mean you must obey it and especially when that rule or law violates God's Holy Word. The laws that applied to David and Solomon were God's laws not the Egyptian, Philistine, or Canaanite laws.

David had 8 wives and 18 kids he suffered quite a few consequences for this and God didn't allow him to build the Temple because of it! No, David had many wives and concubines, but it was because David had been a man of war and had shed much blood that prevented him from building the Temple (see 1 Chron. 22:8; 28:3). Also, your cousin needs to remember it was through Adam and Eve (a monogamous couple!) that sin came with all its consequences. Tell her to take a close look at her American monogamy-only culture and see the shocking failures of marriages and families there and the consequences of those failures. Check out the name "Hunter Biden" as one to consider. :rolleyes:

Hope this is of some help. Blessings and Shalom
Just one quibble... I cannot believe that you would blame monogamy-only on us Americans... the nerve!
 
You Americans gave us KFC, McDonald's, AND Joel Osteen. Maybe MO isn't that big a deal.
I appreciate that you didn’t list the really bad ones.
I mean Joel is bad enough, but…..


😁
 
Back
Top