Article on polygyny and (retch) "polyamory"...Thoughts?

[paterfamilias]

The Next Marriage Frontier: Biblical Polygyny, Gen Z Polyamory- America's Future Legal Battleground

Explore the clash of biblical polygyny and Gen Z polyamory in America's evolving marriage laws.

redstate.com

There you go

I will hold off on giving my remarks for a bit but I suspect a few of you can make fairly accurate predictions on where I eill come down on the issue
Interesting to see Rob get some press though

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

The Next Marriage Frontier: Biblical Polygyny, Gen Z Polyamory- America's Future Legal Battleground

Explore the clash of biblical polygyny and Gen Z polyamory in America's evolving marriage laws.

redstate.com

There you go

I will hold off on giving my remarks for a bit but I suspect a few of you can make fairly accurate predictions on where I eill come down on the issue
Interesting to see Rob get some press though

Yep! It is great to see Rob and Rich getting press on this issue. I am ready to see it legalized! The other forms of civil unions will likely be legalized as well but, I will take what I can get!

For some reason this reminded me of a recent story...
I met a lady on a dating app... She was hoping I was divorced. No scandal there in her mind... But to discover that I was happily married with no intention of divorce while looking for a second great wife with which to grow my family... Clutch her pearls and pass out! lol

I guess the reason I thought of this is because if it were legalized, the clutching of pearls would disappear.

Anyway, thanks for sharing this article!

 

[Mojo]

The Next Marriage Frontier: Biblical Polygyny, Gen Z Polyamory- America's Future Legal Battleground

Explore the clash of biblical polygyny and Gen Z polyamory in America's evolving marriage laws.

redstate.com

There you go

I will hold off on giving my remarks for a bit but I suspect a few of you can make fairly accurate predictions on where I eill come down on the issue
Interesting to see Rob get some press though

Thank you. Good find.

Biblical polygynists are arguing that one way or another, the culture is heading towards plural marriages. It’s best for people of the Bible to help frame it, not just the pagans.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Wow, that article represents a major milestone in my opinion!

 

[Heavens Declare]

The other forms of civil unions will likely be legalized as well but, I will take what I can get!

We must take a stand against those other forms. Failure to do so only puts us in a negative light.

I guess the reason I thought of this is because if it were legalized, the clutching of pearls would disappear.

It depends on which age group you are looking at. It is clear according to that article that you will see much less pearl clutching amongst the Gen Z-ers.

 

[Heavens Declare]

The Next Marriage Frontier: Biblical Polygyny, Gen Z Polyamory- America's Future Legal Battleground

Explore the clash of biblical polygyny and Gen Z polyamory in America's evolving marriage laws.

redstate.com

There you go

I will hold off on giving my remarks for a bit but I suspect a few of you can make fairly accurate predictions on where I eill come down on the issue
Interesting to see Rob get some press though

Owen Anderson claimed that polygyny is not normative for all Christian marriages. I think every one of us can get on board with that. He fails to see though that that is hardly an argument that all Christian marriages ought to be monogamous.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

We must take a stand against those other forms. Failure to do so only puts us in a negative light.


It depends on which age group you are looking at. It is clear according to that article that you will see much less pearl clutching amongst the Gen Z-ers.

I agree that we should continue to stand against lawless forms of marriages. I am simply acknowledging the likely-hood of the outcome

 

[frederick]

We must take a stand against those other forms. Failure to do so only puts us in a negative light.

Marriage, according to the Word of God, is the union of a man and woman. No licence is required. If two of the same gender have a civil or religious union, it's not Marriage.

The unbiblical definition of adultery doesn't make me an adulterer for having two wives, in spite of all the accusations. A civil union of two homosexual men doesn't create a marriage. Like liars and thieves we warn the homosexuals of their sin against God.

 

[Mojo]

I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t pretend to know the full ramifications, but I’ve long contended that the easy way out of the “marriage” mess is for states to issue civil unions to all consenting adults like contracts. “Marriages” would be reserved for religious ceremonies.

The homos only wanted “marriage” to make us all accept their perversion. They don’t respect that word any more than the rest of the population.

 

[frederick]

I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t pretend to know the full ramifications, but I’ve long contended that the easy way out of the “marriage” mess is for states to issue civil unions to all consenting adults like contracts. “Marriages” would be reserved for religious ceremonies.

What difference would it make? I'm just wondering how that would change the fact that Marriage is only Marriage by biblical definition?

 

[Mojo]

It wouldn’t change anything other than to take the term out of circulation from civil society and place it back in the possession of private worship where it belongs.

They can call their little ceremonies whatever they want, but civil, legal society only acknowledges a union (which doesn’t even necessarily connote a physical union) that is contractual.

Polygynous unions have to be creative when it comes to property and inheritance. Legal, civil unions would at least provide an option for a family to help preserve property and inheritance. Having polygynous Christians part of that conversation would help to preserve our interests, and not be shaped just by the secularists. I believe that’s what the article was emphasizing. I could be wrong.

 

[Mark C]

Owen Anderson is why some of us reject his definition of 'Christianity':

For Anderson, Christian marriage is defined not by Old Testament exception, but by New Testament fulfillment. “The norm for Christians is Christ and His Bride,” he said.

Says a guy who sounds like what Paul warned against in II Corinthians 11:4.

Anderson also pointed to legal precedent. “The United States already gave its Christian argument for marriage against the Mormon practice,” he told Holloway. “If someone comes back and says Christianity justifies this, we already have precedent that says no.”

The First Amendment said "NO!" too, but they ignored that.

If Reynolds were really precedent, then Islam would already be outlawed. Think about it.

 

[Mark C]

I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t pretend to know the full ramifications, but I’ve long contended that the easy way out of the “marriage” mess is for states to issue civil unions to all consenting adults like contracts.

Obergefell (the infamous "legalize homo-gamy" decision) is literally all about 'licensing,' and nothing else. Read just the first paragraph, under "Held". It's clear, it's overt.

Licensing is permission, without which whatever the Almighty State allows - or disallows - is, by definition, "illegal." At least for those who "submit to the jurisdiction thereof." So, don't.

 

[MemeFan]

What difference would it make? I'm just wondering how that would change the fact that Marriage is only Marriage by biblical definition?

Practically speaking, there is need to allow homos some kind of union. For hospital visits amd similar. Otherwise, they will claim of discimination. Ban of such things won't be popular.

Another possibility is practical Christians migrating in one state do to demographic takeover and impose biblical laws only there.

Fundamental reality is that, no matter how biblical laws themselves are, if significant part of population aren't for them, such laws will be seen as oppresion.

 

[CountrySquire]

I tend to "follow the money" and my skepticism around polygamy ever being legalized stems from the question of benefits. Particularly government administered ones. The budgetary implications of allowing people to claim multiple spouses seems like a can of worms, and in the private sector for instance, if I'm receiving healthcare coverage from my employer, and that extends to my spouse... then I take a second wife, and can legally argue that they're denying one spouse coverage. Their rejoinder will be that I just doubled their expenditures. I've never seen a clear answer for this in the current system.

 

[Mark C]

I tend to "follow the money" and my skepticism around polygamy ever being legalized stems from the question of benefits. Particularly government administered ones. (emphasis added)

And therein lies the rub.

So long as socialist anti-constitutional incentives remain, Scriptural ones will not be an option.

 

[Off-Grid Artist]

Must the way forward then become more about making the argument to reduce the government's control over marriages in general rather than allowing the government to define and administer marriage at all?

The alphabet crowd will still claim whatever-kind-of marriages. This guy and that guy. That guy and his dog. They will do what they want. The argument needs to rest on what the Bible says, and what that means. Instead of a question of "what does the government allow" we can motivate the culture to ask "does the Bible say this is marriage."

Seizing the narrative is what it is all about.

 

[frederick]

...for instance, if I'm receiving healthcare coverage from my employer, and that extends to my spouse... then I take a second wife, and can legally argue that they're denying one spouse coverage.

And that's the problem where employers have been saddled with the responsibility of providing all those extra benefits on top of paying wages to the employees. The system is destroying itself, making it more and more difficult to do the right thing - like take care of additional wives and kids.

 

[frederick]

Must the way forward then become more about making the argument to reduce the government's control over marriages in general rather than allowing the government to define and administer marriage at all?

The alphabet crowd will still claim whatever-kind-of marriages. This guy and that guy. That guy and his dog. They will do what they want. The argument needs to rest on what the Bible says, and what that means. Instead of a question of "what does the government allow" we can motivate the culture to ask "does the Bible say this is marriage."

Seizing the narrative is what it is all about.

Yes, reduce the control. If you don't get government approval for your marriage, they don't get much control over it.

The alphabet soup people will moan and complain no matter what they get because it will never be enough. Their lives are an abomination. It reminds me of Proverbs 29:27, An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous, And he who is upright in the way is an abomination to the wicked.

 

[Mark C]

Seizing the narrative is what it is all about.

But it sure LOOKs like, from prophecy, and lots of it, that won't be the way it will happen. Which is why the alternative is to "Come out of her, My people," and look forward to being part of the Remnant. We can at least seize the narrative there.