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

[Mark C]

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.

Which is why, in the US at least, the Founders set up a system that forbade 'welfare,' (or anything else, like education, funding 'science' [aka BS now], or paying for abortions) or mandates on 'employers' of any kind, that wasn't enumerated in a short list. Back when we had a "Constitution," anyway.

 

[Off-Grid Artist]

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.

Yeah, I feel it.

My self-employment career is 100% seize back the narrative, all day all the time.

The private life I'm building for my family is 100% Come Out of Her. That switch was flipped in 2020 when everything was only a little bit crazier out there than it is right now.

I personally have a hard time with the idea of giving up the fight, but I've done what I can to hedge up our protection. And now I feel like we are just learning something we will need to pass on to others when they are ready, and getting ready for a second Exodus.

 

[paterfamilias]

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.

Correct
Kind of

Let's look at the framing. Normative assumes that this will become the norm. Trouble is that this is nonsense on so many levels.
- lots of guys want to play the field and sow the oats and ideally get a ding round the ear hole from your favorite manilla gorilla
- lots of guys just have no interest in more than one women
' lots of guys have such negative experiences with marriage generally or have a series of long term relationships amd/or marriages which go sour that they turn into virtual hermits
- soooooo many men struggle to attract one woman, we should think that they are all gonna attract multiple to that degree? Something Something bridge to sell etc
- guys and leftists and soy powered retards
- not remotely enough woman for this ratio. Much less sane ones who can see the benefits and are not mad cows with a wartbound nose, a pointy hat and a crooked wand singing bippity boppety boo in an attempt to make all bibles burst into flames and an abortion clinic to appear on every corner.

Ok, totally serious now

Normalize. Same root but different meaning.

It should not be all that weird. Maybe there is one of those mad sly bastards in the neighborhood. You know the ones. The ones that not only likes marriage and family so much that he is willing to double down or *dunt dunt duuuhhhh* triple down on commitment. Not cutting around with side chick's or buying drinks for the girl with the most interesting cleavage at a hotel bar right before closing or even making eyes at single moms in the produce section. No...he will happily and enthusiastically marry multiple woman and try his best to be a good husband, father and provider. Crazy right? Well maybe there is one in the neighborhood and that is fine. Good for them if they are happy and honestly...you want on his good side. Seriously. You want to be invited to his cookout. Three ladies that can really cook and the man is a demon on the smoker. Oh and talk about a back yard built for lots of people. Yeah...they are cool. Maybe a little weird but they are not the only family like that I know...not for me ya know cause you know women be crazy or whatever but if it make them happy then great.

Now that my silly vignette is done, you get my point. Normalized is big time but no way to ever consider normative. Just not practical or desirable.

 

[paterfamilias]

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.

Correct
It was a power play

Part of why completely outside of the idea skeeving me out and being incomprehensible, the gay marriage push always struck me as well...gay. as in weak and limp. Seeking the approval of strangers and the rubber stamp of a bureaucracy for your union? Seriously?
Pfffft
No

 

[Off-Grid Artist]

Seeking the approval of strangers and the rubber stamp of a bureaucracy for your union? Seriously?
Pfffft
No

I agree with this personally but I don't think gay marriage is about inclusion. Rather it's about destroying the construct of marriage. If marriage is anything and means nothing then it is nothing. The enemy seeks to destroy the family structure and strong male / female marriages resist that effort.

 

[frederick]

I agree with this personally but I don't think gay marriage is about inclusion. Rather it's about destroying the construct of marriage. If marriage is anything and means nothing then it is nothing. The enemy seeks to destroy the family structure and strong male / female marriages resist that effort.

Looking at the big wide world out there, it is religiosity that has done more to destroy biblical marriage and patriarchal families than the alphabet soup people have. Redefining terms so the alphabet soup people can be included doesn't necessarily change what religious people do. It's more their religion that has done so much damage and caused the confusion over patriarchy and polygyny.

 

[Mark C]

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

I could say the same thing about theft (especially in Minnesota). Or adultery.

And if we don't 'discriminate' we can't claim to be His. We are supposed to learn discernment, and exercise it.

We don't have to stone them. But neither do we choose to let them pervert children, or destroy our culture. (OK - admittedly, too late for that one...)

 

[Mojo]

I agree with this personally but I don't think gay marriage is about inclusion. Rather it's about destroying the construct of marriage. If marriage is anything and means nothing then it is nothing. The enemy seeks to destroy the family structure and strong male / female marriages resist that effort.

I think both were true.

 

[Heavens Declare]

Correct
Kind of

Let's look at the framing. Normative assumes that this will become the norm. Trouble is that this is nonsense on so many levels.
- lots of guys want to play the field and sow the oats and ideally get a ding round the ear hole from your favorite manilla gorilla
- lots of guys just have no interest in more than one women
' lots of guys have such negative experiences with marriage generally or have a series of long term relationships amd/or marriages which go sour that they turn into virtual hermits
- soooooo many men struggle to attract one woman, we should think that they are all gonna attract multiple to that degree? Something Something bridge to sell etc
- guys and leftists and soy powered retards
- not remotely enough woman for this ratio. Much less sane ones who can see the benefits and are not mad cows with a wartbound nose, a pointy hat and a crooked wand singing bippity boppety boo in an attempt to make all bibles burst into flames and an abortion clinic to appear on every corner.

Ok, totally serious now

Normalize. Same root but different meaning.

It should not be all that weird. Maybe there is one of those mad sly bastards in the neighborhood. You know the ones. The ones that not only likes marriage and family so much that he is willing to double down or *dunt dunt duuuhhhh* triple down on commitment. Not cutting around with side chick's or buying drinks for the girl with the most interesting cleavage at a hotel bar right before closing or even making eyes at single moms in the produce section. No...he will happily and enthusiastically marry multiple woman and try his best to be a good husband, father and provider. Crazy right? Well maybe there is one in the neighborhood and that is fine. Good for them if they are happy and honestly...you want on his good side. Seriously. You want to be invited to his cookout. Three ladies that can really cook and the man is a demon on the smoker. Oh and talk about a back yard built for lots of people. Yeah...they are cool. Maybe a little weird but they are not the only family like that I know...not for me ya know cause you know women be crazy or whatever but if it make them happy then great.

Now that my silly vignette is done, you get my point. Normalized is big time but no way to ever consider normative. Just not practical or desirable.

Yeah but he was saying "normal for ALL marriages", which is sort of an either/or fallacy.

 

[paterfamilias]

I agree with this personally but I don't think gay marriage is about inclusion. Rather it's about destroying the construct of marriage. If marriage is anything and means nothing then it is nothing. The enemy seeks to destroy the family structure and strong male / female marriages resist that effort.

Hand waggle

I never buy the manipulation narratives and inclusion is one of the most transparent.

I saw it less as an overt attempt to destroy a pillar of civilization...that was just a happy retard tier bonus that came with their goal of power extraction and forcing the culture to elevate their position under pain of violence from the state.
Regardless of which point of view you see it from, it was maladaptive bullshit that has sweet F'all to do with family ie the entire point of marriage.

 

[MemeFan]

I could say the same thing about theft (especially in Minnesota). Or adultery.

And if we don't 'discriminate' we can't claim to be His. We are supposed to learn discernment, and exercise it.

We don't have to stone them. But neither do we choose to let them pervert children, or destroy our culture. (OK - admittedly, too late for that one...)

Either you seize control of state as ancap/minarchists of libertarians orientation have done to New Hampshire or you accept some compromise for sake of social peace.

If you want no compromise then it's fight to death over who will control federal/continental/global government.

If you go New Hampshire path, those who don't like Christian laws can move to, say, California or whatever.

I'm talking about practical realities of living in this world. Of course, everybody being practical believer is best, but this won't happen. As you know.

 

[Mark C]

Either you seize control of state as ancap/minarchists of libertarians orientation have done to New Hampshire or you accept some compromise for sake of social peace...
...I'm talking about practical realities of living in this world. Of course, everybody being practical believer is best, but this won't happen. As you know.

This is what, I contend, "Come out of her, My people," means in the context of being "in this world, but not of it," and not participating "in her sins," her Evil.

We can't always "leave" (although I contend staying in NYC, LA, or Minneapolis is arguably "asking for it...") We can do our best to 'come out of' an utterly corrupt, anti-Constitutional, "dishonest weight" fiat dollar system by looking to the Scriptural (and lawful!) alternative - silver coin.

And that seems to be bearing good fruit lately, by way of example.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Silver spot price is nearly $120 today!!! Wowsa!!!!

This is what, I contend, "Come out of her, My people," means in the context of being "in this world, but not of it," and not participating "in her sins," her Evil.

We can't always "leave" (although I contend staying in NYC, LA, or Minneapolis is arguably "asking for it...") We can do our best to 'come out of' an utterly corrupt, anti-Constitutional, "dishonest weight" fiat dollar system by looking to the Scriptural (and lawful!) alternative - silver coin.

 

[Heavens Declare]

Silver spot price is nearly $120 today!!! Wowsa!!!!

Charts show the picture better.

 

[Heavens Declare]

This is what, I contend, "Come out of her, My people," means in the context of being "in this world, but not of it," and not participating "in her sins," her Evil.

We can't always "leave" (although I contend staying in NYC, LA, or Minneapolis is arguably "asking for it...") We can do our best to 'come out of' an utterly corrupt, anti-Constitutional, "dishonest weight" fiat dollar system by looking to the Scriptural (and lawful!) alternative - silver coin.

And that seems to be bearing good fruit lately, by way of example.

This is one of your favorite passages of Scripture to quote, but when you look at it in context, it has more to do with being unequally yoked together with unbelievers, and I know @paterfamilias is an unbeliever so....

 

[Mark C]

This is one of your favorite passages of Scripture to quote, but when you look at it in context, it has more to do with being unequally yoked together with unbelievers....

What??? "in context"? The context is about the destruction of the Whore, Babylon, and the whoring of commerce (see v 3) and all the evil associated with it. How do you reduce it to that? (Yes, idolatry is whoring, but I don't think that's what you are claiming...but it would be correct.)

 

[cnystrom]

I have told this before, but when I first learned about polygamy, and thought the polyamory folks would be allies, as I would think a successful polyamory relationship would end up looking a lot like polygamy, but it turns out that really hated polygamists. At least the local group here in Austin did. This was many years ago.

Funny story though. I asked in the group of anyone knew of any other Christian polygamists, and someone gave me an e-mail of a guy out of Brenham, Texas. I did not follow up on it. Years later, when I was going through my e-mail I saw that message again and recognized the e-mail address. It was Andrew A. Had I followed up I could have met him much earlier than I ended up doing.

 

[Heavens Declare]

What??? "in context"? The context is about the destruction of the Whore, Babylon, and the whoring of commerce (see v 3) and all the evil associated with it. How do you reduce it to that? (Yes, idolatry is whoring, but I don't think that's what you are claiming...but it would be correct.)

Yeah you are right. I was thinking about another verse. You are actually quoting from Revelations 18:4. For context we read verse 1:
1After this I saw another angel descending from heaven with great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his glory.

So that brings up the question, after what? That requires us to dig a little deeper into the preceding chapter:
14They will make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will triumph over them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and He will be accompanied by His called and chosen and faithful ones.”

15Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute was seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. 16And the ten horns and the beast that you saw will hate the prostitute. They will leave her desolate and naked, and they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17For God has put it into their hearts to carry out His purpose by uniting to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18And the woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

I think most of us would agree that this is still futuristic.

 

[Mark C]

I think most of us would agree that this is still futuristic.

But I still contend the "come out of her," part is still good counsel ANY time. Like now...