I have been hearing a lot lately in the PM chatrooms the term "Well it's us against them!". Whenever we are talking about polygamy rights. By this I am saying people want to work with all forms of polygamy cause if not we are too small of a group to make an impact. I think we are not that small in reality, it's just no one seems to work together as soon as they find you have different religious views than any one else. So when people get the "us vs Them" complex it seems too me like they are ready to drop what they believe is right in order to get something going their way. Yet this tends to backfire and blow up in their faces from what I have seen. Many of you may remember when many polygynist folks wanted to work with the gays. As it was against their views, but many went with it for their rights to be heard. The gays made a little leeway and boom! They started denouncing polygyny. Now I am wandering if this attitude of "Well we are all polygamist" view is really going to help. Who's to say if any polyfaction group makes leeway if not once again we get put on the back burner. I know more mono people that are for polygyny (true biblical polygyny) than any other form of poly. So in reality how does everyone else feel? Is it really us vs them? Poly vs Mono? If so why do we feel that way?
-
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.
Us against them
- Thread starter Gillfam
- Start date
I really have to disagree here, I know (and know of) far less people who support a patriarchal view of Polygamy, than they believe in a more egalitarian style of Poly. What sticks in many people's craws is the idea of the Gander having rights the Goose does not!! People who are conservative and monogamist tend to be IMHO, the most vehemently against ALL forms of Poly, especially those who they feel are re-writing the rules of their religion to do so.
The LGBT lobby started to denounce Polygamy because they got sick of hearing the 'slippery slope' argument from conservative pundits and politicians who kept insisting that Gay marriage will lead to things like "incest, bestiality and Polygamy". So the root of this argument comes from conservatives anti gay people.
We must always remember where these things originate from or else we may make incorrect assumptions. Many of us believe the State should get out of the marriage business entirely, since there are laws of consent around to protect children and animals from abuses what does it matter who wants to call whom a spouse? Or indeed, how many of them?
B
The LGBT lobby started to denounce Polygamy because they got sick of hearing the 'slippery slope' argument from conservative pundits and politicians who kept insisting that Gay marriage will lead to things like "incest, bestiality and Polygamy". So the root of this argument comes from conservatives anti gay people.
We must always remember where these things originate from or else we may make incorrect assumptions. Many of us believe the State should get out of the marriage business entirely, since there are laws of consent around to protect children and animals from abuses what does it matter who wants to call whom a spouse? Or indeed, how many of them?
B
There seem to be a couple of things at play as it relates to patriarchy. The first is the extremely negative definition which is currently in use at least in Western society. Mentioning the word conjures up images of iron-fisted men who make every decision in the family, rules with an iron fist treats everyone in the family as his personal slaves or servants and every person in the house is subservient to him and their status as humans is less than his. I may have exaggerated a bit but that seems to be the perception. Personally, I'm not yet convinced that the term can be reclaimed for something more noble at this juncture in time. I also don't personally feel the need to be called a patriarch, nor do I believe I have to be. It's the old saying if you have to call yourself a leader you probably aren't one. If you have to call yourself a patriarch well.... Frankly, I don't see a call in the Bible to be called a patriarch. I see a call to lead and love but nothing to seek out titles as such.
In practice I believe my marriage tends to be more egalitarian in nature which I believe comes from trying to love my wife as I am called to do.
In practice I believe my marriage tends to be more egalitarian in nature which I believe comes from trying to love my wife as I am called to do.
Wow, Bels, you said something I agree with in spite of our totally different worldviews!
Actually, I would go one step further than you did, and say, "So what if some perverted idiot wants to call his horse his 'wife?'" {I've seen some men whose horses were more attractive than their wives...LOL!} Yes, that is a death-penalty offense under Mosaic (Old Testament) law, but since our government is not a theocracy, the only OT laws we should have on our secular law-books are those protecting us from each other - like the commandments not to murder, steal, etc.
And I will go further yet and say that even the Church should not be in the marriage businesss, other than to teach what the Bible teaches about marriage, and to bless a marriage involving member(s) of the church AFTER the fact, if the marriage conforms to biblical teaching.
A marriage is supposed to be a contract between two families. But in modern America, it's a contract involving only ONE family. Uncle Sam approves or denies the marriage, acting as the patriarchal head of the family for both the bride and the groom! And the Church wrongfully defers to the government...
Maybe some of you will want to burn me at the stake for saying this, but I think gay marriage SHOULD be legal, because it is none of the government's business who marries whom. As already stated, the Church should bless any marriage involving a church member that conforms to biblical teaching, and (in many cases, but possibly not all) not allow those who are married outside of God's guidelines to hold positions of leadership in the church. (But the Church also needs to dump the pagan Greco-Roman marriage customs and laws that the Roman Catholic Church wrongfully adopted between AD 950 and AD 1100 [and which Protestant churches retained after the Reformation], and return to biblical teaching about marriage.)
And one more thing some of you will want to fry me for saying...I also think drugs should be legalized. A very large percentage of crime is drug-related. Most property crime is driven by the high prices an addict must pay to get his "fix." The "drug war" is being won by BOTH sides (politicians/law enforcement and the criminals) because BOTH are getting RICH at the expense of the rest of us. Every time there is a big drug bust, honest citizens LOSE because the "success" of the "bust" is used as propaganda to increase funding for law enforcement (i. e., pry more money from the taxpayer's pockets), while politicians/law enforcement and the criminals (except the few criminals involved in the specific "bust") WIN. It's supply-and-demand at its finest - the laws (and "successful busts") make drugs harder to get, which drives prices up and attracts more sophisticated criminals into the drug business. More sophisticated criminals in the drug business then requires more tax dollars to fight the crime. It's a vicious cycle. Honest citizens won't use drugs anyway, just like true Christians won't try to marry contrary to the biblical teaching about marriage. If street drugs were legal, they would be cheap enough that an addict wouldn't have to rob honest people in order to support his habit. (Well, maybe he wouldn't have to rob as many honest people...) And I'd be willing to bet that drug use would go DOWN, not up, if street drugs were legalized, just because of human (sin) nature - the lure of doing something forbidden would be gone. We are paying for both sides in the drug war - higher taxes for the law enforcement side, and higher insurance, etc., because of all the property crimes committed by the criminal side.
And yes, Bels, I think that a woman should be allowed by secular law to have multiple husbands - something that a true Christian would not do, even if it were not against the secular laws, because of the biblical injunction that equates polyandry with adultery (see Romans 7:2-3) and the biblical teaching about family structure (see Ephesians 5:22-6:4). (In reality, ALL secular marriage laws should be repealed, except those protecting children, and those prohibiting incest - anti-incest laws, to at least a limited degree, protect the next generation from some genetic diseases, which is why the Bible prohibits it.)
But getting off my soapbox and back to Gillfam's original topic...I don't think we should join forces with anti-christian groups, such as the gay lobby or the FLDS perverts who do such things as "daughter-swapping" and forcing underage girls (as well as grown women) into polygynous marriages, in order to win our battle. Doing so might give the appearance that we approve of an ungodly lifestyle. But those of us who believe what the Bible actually teaches about marriage need to stop our fighting and bickering over the differences we might have in other doctrinal areas and work together.
Actually, I would go one step further than you did, and say, "So what if some perverted idiot wants to call his horse his 'wife?'" {I've seen some men whose horses were more attractive than their wives...LOL!} Yes, that is a death-penalty offense under Mosaic (Old Testament) law, but since our government is not a theocracy, the only OT laws we should have on our secular law-books are those protecting us from each other - like the commandments not to murder, steal, etc.
And I will go further yet and say that even the Church should not be in the marriage businesss, other than to teach what the Bible teaches about marriage, and to bless a marriage involving member(s) of the church AFTER the fact, if the marriage conforms to biblical teaching.
A marriage is supposed to be a contract between two families. But in modern America, it's a contract involving only ONE family. Uncle Sam approves or denies the marriage, acting as the patriarchal head of the family for both the bride and the groom! And the Church wrongfully defers to the government...
Maybe some of you will want to burn me at the stake for saying this, but I think gay marriage SHOULD be legal, because it is none of the government's business who marries whom. As already stated, the Church should bless any marriage involving a church member that conforms to biblical teaching, and (in many cases, but possibly not all) not allow those who are married outside of God's guidelines to hold positions of leadership in the church. (But the Church also needs to dump the pagan Greco-Roman marriage customs and laws that the Roman Catholic Church wrongfully adopted between AD 950 and AD 1100 [and which Protestant churches retained after the Reformation], and return to biblical teaching about marriage.)
And one more thing some of you will want to fry me for saying...I also think drugs should be legalized. A very large percentage of crime is drug-related. Most property crime is driven by the high prices an addict must pay to get his "fix." The "drug war" is being won by BOTH sides (politicians/law enforcement and the criminals) because BOTH are getting RICH at the expense of the rest of us. Every time there is a big drug bust, honest citizens LOSE because the "success" of the "bust" is used as propaganda to increase funding for law enforcement (i. e., pry more money from the taxpayer's pockets), while politicians/law enforcement and the criminals (except the few criminals involved in the specific "bust") WIN. It's supply-and-demand at its finest - the laws (and "successful busts") make drugs harder to get, which drives prices up and attracts more sophisticated criminals into the drug business. More sophisticated criminals in the drug business then requires more tax dollars to fight the crime. It's a vicious cycle. Honest citizens won't use drugs anyway, just like true Christians won't try to marry contrary to the biblical teaching about marriage. If street drugs were legal, they would be cheap enough that an addict wouldn't have to rob honest people in order to support his habit. (Well, maybe he wouldn't have to rob as many honest people...) And I'd be willing to bet that drug use would go DOWN, not up, if street drugs were legalized, just because of human (sin) nature - the lure of doing something forbidden would be gone. We are paying for both sides in the drug war - higher taxes for the law enforcement side, and higher insurance, etc., because of all the property crimes committed by the criminal side.
And yes, Bels, I think that a woman should be allowed by secular law to have multiple husbands - something that a true Christian would not do, even if it were not against the secular laws, because of the biblical injunction that equates polyandry with adultery (see Romans 7:2-3) and the biblical teaching about family structure (see Ephesians 5:22-6:4). (In reality, ALL secular marriage laws should be repealed, except those protecting children, and those prohibiting incest - anti-incest laws, to at least a limited degree, protect the next generation from some genetic diseases, which is why the Bible prohibits it.)
But getting off my soapbox and back to Gillfam's original topic...I don't think we should join forces with anti-christian groups, such as the gay lobby or the FLDS perverts who do such things as "daughter-swapping" and forcing underage girls (as well as grown women) into polygynous marriages, in order to win our battle. Doing so might give the appearance that we approve of an ungodly lifestyle. But those of us who believe what the Bible actually teaches about marriage need to stop our fighting and bickering over the differences we might have in other doctrinal areas and work together.
Marvin, I agree with you about government and church getting out of the marriage business. I even agree about drugs! But there is one big issue with gay marriage, and that's anti-discrimination legislation.
At present our government is considering introducing gay marriage. But we already have laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Combine the two as proposed and the legal opinion goes that it would be illegal for anyone to refuse to officiate a gay marriage, have one in their church building, provide wedding photography services at one... So much for freedom.
So I can fully support government getting out of marriage regulations etc entirely. But nobody is proposing that. Governments are only proposing MORE regulations, giving some freedom with one hand while taking away even more with the other. I can't support that.
At present our government is considering introducing gay marriage. But we already have laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Combine the two as proposed and the legal opinion goes that it would be illegal for anyone to refuse to officiate a gay marriage, have one in their church building, provide wedding photography services at one... So much for freedom.
So I can fully support government getting out of marriage regulations etc entirely. But nobody is proposing that. Governments are only proposing MORE regulations, giving some freedom with one hand while taking away even more with the other. I can't support that.
As a political libertarian, I think that more than 90% of the laws enacted by Congress, 99% of the regulations that are put in place by bureaucrats without the dubious benefit of having been voted on by our elected officials, and more than half of the laws enacted by state and local governments, are unconstitutional. That includes anti-discrimination laws. If I want to refuse to associate with someone, or refuse to sell something to someone who visits my retail store (hypothetically, since I don't have a store), for any reason or for no reason, that should be between me and the person I choose to discriminate against. Of course, in some cases it might be morally wrong, and in some cases completely stupid (it would hurt business to refuse to sell to someone for no good reason), but that should be my choice, not the government's. Anti-discrimination laws were an over-reaction to the wrong attitudes too many people in this once-great nation developed because of slavery (an institution that was wrongly approved by many churches at that time), and the "cure" for that wrong attitude has taken on a life of its own. (Kind of like the "temporary" sales tax that was put in place to fund some voter-approved project when I lived in Modesto, CA - after the project was completed, the "temporary" tax was extended forever...)
We have all seen those signs in store windows that say, "No shirt - no shoes - no service." Should that also be considered discriminatory? Maybe someone's religion (or just their taste in fashion) forbids the wearing of shirts or shoes. When I see a sign like that, my first thought is that the store has no shirts, has no shoes, and has no service.
The bottom line is this: our government will continue to enact laws that make no sense, laws that take away our freedoms and rights, and laws that transfer wealth from honest citizens to politicians and other criminals. It doesn't matter which party - the Republicrats or Demicans - control the Senate, the House, or the Oval Office. The only difference between them is which group they want to most heavily overtax, and which pet projects they want to most heavily over-fund.
BTW, the Republicans are not really pro-life, even though they officially oppose abortion on demand. War kills people, too. I say this as one who spent over nine years as an active-duty Marine: no war we have been involved in since WWII has been a just war. That is why we haven't really won any of them. We decisively won WWI and WWII, but Korea is still a mess, we lost the Viet Nam war outright, and everything we have done in the Mideast has just resulted in moving our war machinery to another nearby country and fighting some more. It is my opinion that if the recent wars we have been (and still are) involved in were just, and not being fought only for the benefit of those in power, we could have won them as decisively as we won both WWs. Yes, I know all the propaganda put out by Bush about rooting out terrorists - but remember, he also said that we (Muslims and Christians) worship the same god. 9/11/01 could not have happened if those in government who claim that they are here to protect us had been doing their supposed job instead of helping the terrorists learn how to fly, and in the end, the terrorists have won. Look at our airport "security," for example - want a colonoscopy? Want an X-ray? Want your disabled kid in a wheelchair to be treated as if he were a terrorist, and separated from his parents while being searched for weapons? Just try to fly somewhere...and the same "security" measures are coming soon to a bus depot, a train station, and an Interstate Highway near you, courtesy of the unconstitutional "Department of Homeland Security."
Oops, I just realized I was on my soapbox again...sorry!
We have all seen those signs in store windows that say, "No shirt - no shoes - no service." Should that also be considered discriminatory? Maybe someone's religion (or just their taste in fashion) forbids the wearing of shirts or shoes. When I see a sign like that, my first thought is that the store has no shirts, has no shoes, and has no service.
The bottom line is this: our government will continue to enact laws that make no sense, laws that take away our freedoms and rights, and laws that transfer wealth from honest citizens to politicians and other criminals. It doesn't matter which party - the Republicrats or Demicans - control the Senate, the House, or the Oval Office. The only difference between them is which group they want to most heavily overtax, and which pet projects they want to most heavily over-fund.
BTW, the Republicans are not really pro-life, even though they officially oppose abortion on demand. War kills people, too. I say this as one who spent over nine years as an active-duty Marine: no war we have been involved in since WWII has been a just war. That is why we haven't really won any of them. We decisively won WWI and WWII, but Korea is still a mess, we lost the Viet Nam war outright, and everything we have done in the Mideast has just resulted in moving our war machinery to another nearby country and fighting some more. It is my opinion that if the recent wars we have been (and still are) involved in were just, and not being fought only for the benefit of those in power, we could have won them as decisively as we won both WWs. Yes, I know all the propaganda put out by Bush about rooting out terrorists - but remember, he also said that we (Muslims and Christians) worship the same god. 9/11/01 could not have happened if those in government who claim that they are here to protect us had been doing their supposed job instead of helping the terrorists learn how to fly, and in the end, the terrorists have won. Look at our airport "security," for example - want a colonoscopy? Want an X-ray? Want your disabled kid in a wheelchair to be treated as if he were a terrorist, and separated from his parents while being searched for weapons? Just try to fly somewhere...and the same "security" measures are coming soon to a bus depot, a train station, and an Interstate Highway near you, courtesy of the unconstitutional "Department of Homeland Security."
Oops, I just realized I was on my soapbox again...sorry!
PS- it also doesn't matter which party appoints Supreme Court justices. It was a Republican Bush's appointee, not a Democrat President's, that was the deciding vote claiming that "Obama-care" is constitutional!
Back to the "us vs. them" if I may... I don't know why, but if three people get together, two of them will turn against the other. I don't understand it, but every minority group needs to single out someone in their own group who's different and demonize them. Keeps people in line, I guess.
Think about it, African-Americans critcize each other for acting "too white". I remember when President Obama first ran, there was all this chatter about if he was "black enough". :roll: The gay community does it, too - isolating bisexuals. Frankly, christians are their own worst enemy.
If pro-PM people would get their gear together, they could really go far. They have a lot of fuel for the fire and I think they'd be surprised at how many people are sympathetic to their cause. It's family, after all.
Unity, not righteousness, is the key to equality.
Think about it, African-Americans critcize each other for acting "too white". I remember when President Obama first ran, there was all this chatter about if he was "black enough". :roll: The gay community does it, too - isolating bisexuals. Frankly, christians are their own worst enemy.
If pro-PM people would get their gear together, they could really go far. They have a lot of fuel for the fire and I think they'd be surprised at how many people are sympathetic to their cause. It's family, after all.
Unity, not righteousness, is the key to equality.