Quantcast

Are you for or against Polygamy?

Willow 2012/09/11 03:05:56
Related Topics: Polygamy
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Against in every single way.
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • The Bantam Seditioner 2012/09/11 03:14:59 (edited)
    FOR!
    The Bantam Seditioner
    +12
    I'm not actually "for" polygamy as in personally endorsing it. I just don't think marriage should be any of the government's business. Very few modern Americans would tolerate knowingly being part of a polygamous relationship anyway, but if there are some who do, who am I to limit their choices?

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Jesse 2013/02/04 03:03:38
    FOR!
    Jesse
    +1
    If everyone in the marriage agrees, why not?
  • TheExphinitee42 2013/02/04 01:12:44
  • iamco2000 2012/10/14 23:29:39
    AGAINST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    iamco2000
    +1
    Is it not a sign of the times that we can even ask this question?

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
  • ppk007@... iamco2000 2012/11/24 01:25:54
    ppk007@cfl.rr.com
    Don't you support religious freedom - or do you ONLY support YOUR religious freedoms?
  • iamco2000 ppk007@... 2012/11/25 22:49:26
    iamco2000
    I do support religious freedom, what would make you think I don't and what is your faith?

    What I don't support is pluralism, which is not even close to the same thing as tolerance. Tolerance says, basically, I'll put up with you (even grant you liberty to do) as you see fit, even if it runs counter to my beliefs so long as you extend the same in return, don't physically harm someone in the process, don't violate any state or national laws in the process and seek just proceedings through the legal system should one of the nations laws prevent you from practicing your faith.

    Pluralism on the other hand, most of what liberals, hipsters, atheists, agnostics and the gay/woman's agenda, appear to ascribe to and desperately want everyone else to as well. Pluralism seeks directly affirm all beliefs, to say that they are all correct, that they all have the same merit and that no one should even so much attempt to tell the difference between anything, let alone consider that there may even be a difference....THIS is what I am opposed to.

    If you'd like to discuss the differences between the tenets of our faith perspectives and the basis for your understanding based on moral constitution, I'd rather enjoy that exchange.

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
  • ppk007@... iamco2000 2012/11/25 23:29:56
    ppk007@cfl.rr.com
    It's been my experience that most "religious people" only believe in "religious freedom" for their particular religion. These people quickly identify themselves by requesting for others to identify their religion (as you have ironically done).

    I enjoy, that for the most part - America has religious freedom - many countries do NOT - (many of the middle Eastern countries are prime examples). In these particular countries, the merely possession of a Bible is a criminal offence, let alone wishing to display a Nativity Scene, either on public or PRIVATE property. These same countries / governments DO openly support the majority religion, in the middle East, it's usually Islam.

    Many (not all) alleged Christians in the USA, believe that their religious freedoms are under attack, if they are not allowed to display the ten commandment or a Nativity Scene on public property. I for one, have no problem with the Ten Commandments or a Nativity Scene being displayed on public property, AS LONG as other religions have the SAME right to display their beliefs on public property. (That is usually problematic - therefore, usually no religions are granted such displays)

    Many of these same alleged American Christians would deny non-Christians the right to display their beliefs on public property, us...





    It's been my experience that most "religious people" only believe in "religious freedom" for their particular religion. These people quickly identify themselves by requesting for others to identify their religion (as you have ironically done).

    I enjoy, that for the most part - America has religious freedom - many countries do NOT - (many of the middle Eastern countries are prime examples). In these particular countries, the merely possession of a Bible is a criminal offence, let alone wishing to display a Nativity Scene, either on public or PRIVATE property. These same countries / governments DO openly support the majority religion, in the middle East, it's usually Islam.

    Many (not all) alleged Christians in the USA, believe that their religious freedoms are under attack, if they are not allowed to display the ten commandment or a Nativity Scene on public property. I for one, have no problem with the Ten Commandments or a Nativity Scene being displayed on public property, AS LONG as other religions have the SAME right to display their beliefs on public property. (That is usually problematic - therefore, usually no religions are granted such displays)

    Many of these same alleged American Christians would deny non-Christians the right to display their beliefs on public property, using the argument that the USA, is a Christian country, ironically the same reverse argument is what is employed by the Islamic countries, to deny Christians their religious freedoms.

    As far as religious displays on public property, if you really support religious freedoms, you are either ALL IN, for all religions to use public property, or you support that no religion can use public property. Allowing one or two religions, to be able to display their beliefs on public property, and at the same time deny other religions those same rights, is as wrong as the religious restrictions in Middle Eastern countries.

    Question - if God (Allah, or whatever you my call him or her) is everywhere, and knows everything, and is in everything - why does many religions of the World restrict God (Allah, etc) to only one religion (usually their religion) - Can't God (Allah etc) multi-task? Why restrict God (Allah, etc.) to only a linear existence?

    Grace to You, Glory to Allah, God, or whomever you pray to..... LOL
    (more)
  • iamco2000 ppk007@... 2012/11/26 00:22:21
    iamco2000
    "AS LONG as other religions have the SAME right" You forget though friend, right doesn't equate mandate and right doesn't ignore precedent, nor does it ignore foundational history of this nation.

    " you are either ALL IN, for all religions to use public property" Same argument as above. I DO support (as an ACTUAL American Christian) the same rights for all religious perspectives to utilize public and private lands to communicate and practice their faith; this is not however a mandate or a requirement and it doesn't mean that all perspective want to do so.

    "Can't God (Allah etc) multi-task?" No. It's quite simple, God has stated without question (as is evident in the 1st Commandment, "2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 “You shall have no other gods before me." (Ex 20: 2-3). We also know that no other religion in the world claims Jesus as their Messiah or teaches that that Jesus is the only way to God the father. In fact, Christianity is the only faith in existence that teaches salvation is only possible by grace (all other perspectives teach that salvation is possible by works). God cannot violate the Law of Non-Contradiction so to claim that two opposing perspectives (salvation by grace and salvation by wor...





    "AS LONG as other religions have the SAME right" You forget though friend, right doesn't equate mandate and right doesn't ignore precedent, nor does it ignore foundational history of this nation.

    " you are either ALL IN, for all religions to use public property" Same argument as above. I DO support (as an ACTUAL American Christian) the same rights for all religious perspectives to utilize public and private lands to communicate and practice their faith; this is not however a mandate or a requirement and it doesn't mean that all perspective want to do so.

    "Can't God (Allah etc) multi-task?" No. It's quite simple, God has stated without question (as is evident in the 1st Commandment, "2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 “You shall have no other gods before me." (Ex 20: 2-3). We also know that no other religion in the world claims Jesus as their Messiah or teaches that that Jesus is the only way to God the father. In fact, Christianity is the only faith in existence that teaches salvation is only possible by grace (all other perspectives teach that salvation is possible by works). God cannot violate the Law of Non-Contradiction so to claim that two opposing perspectives (salvation by grace and salvation by works) could simultaneously be correct, in the same way at the same time, is itself a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction.

    "and is in everything" This is absolutely errant, God is not IN everything anymore than a carpenter is IN every floor he covers or a potter is IN every vase they hand-mold. You do not worship the created, you worship the creator and do so otherwise is to worship an idol or false god.

    "Why restrict God (Allah, etc.) to only a linear existence?" There is only one God in existence that delivered the Hebrew nation from captivity, "No other god" is pretty self-evident. John 14:6, when taken with this understanding, nails the point "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." 2 John 1:7 also warns us of any who might reject Jesus, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist."

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
    (more)
  • ppk007@... iamco2000 2012/11/26 00:51:22
    ppk007@cfl.rr.com
    So do you, as an alleged Christian (I use the word allege, because I do not know you) believe that the US Constitution is a "mandate or a requirement" for Christians to be able to use public lands to "communication and practice their faith"?
  • iamco2000 ppk007@... 2012/11/26 17:41:44
    iamco2000
    Well, I confess with my lips and believe my heart the Jesus came in the flesh, was born to a virgin, lived a perfect and sinless life, died for my sins and raised from the dead 3 days later. I accept Jesus as my personal savior and know that he is the only way to salvation....so call me a Christian as that is what I am.

    I don't believe the constitution is a mandate or requirement for anyone to practice anything...I know that the constitution is protection for individuals to practice their faith openly and without limitations imposed by their government (or any agent thereof) with the exception of local, state and federal laws that supersede this amendment (such as protection of life, protection from physical, mental or emotional abuse, coercion of youth, etc). Outside of a Christian worldview, these rights and this amendment's origin don't make sense and outside of a Christian worldview, the founding father's perspective would not make sense either.

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
  • ppk007@... iamco2000 2012/11/26 18:38:25
    ppk007@cfl.rr.com
    Sometimes the problem with a "Christian Worldview" is that it only sees alleged Christians - Christ was far more interested in the sinners, then he was ever interested with the alleged "Holy Men".

    Grace to you, Glory to Allah, God, or whomever....
  • iamco2000 ppk007@... 2012/11/27 03:19:50
    iamco2000
    Your recurring insistence to me is an obvious attempt to inflict pain. You wouldn't refer to a Muslim as a "supposed Muslim" or a Jew as a "supposed Jew" or a Hindu as a "supposed Hindu" so don't call Christians supposed or alleged Christians. Secondarily, you deliberately mock my signature...I am a Christian, I've told you I'm a Christian and I am a Christian so the back handed comment about Allah is entirely un-necessary and you know it (duly reported now).

    I forgive your actions but you can't speak to people like that, here or anywhere else and whats ironic is that you wouldn't speak to me like that face to face so drop the rhetoric.

    ""...Christian Worldview" is that it only sees alleged Christians" Wholly incorrect. The Christian worldview first of all doesn't see "alleged" anyone, it sees people for who they are, saved or unsaved, led or led astray. The Christian Worldview calls us to be Salt & Light, it calls us to go into the world and baptize men in the name of the Father and lead them to become disciples, not to just focus internally on ourselves. In fact, it teaches us to live wholly outside of ourselves. Your comment couldn't in fact be more baseless or further from the truth. How many humanitarian efforts exist around the world purely from Christian initiative...



    Your recurring insistence to me is an obvious attempt to inflict pain. You wouldn't refer to a Muslim as a "supposed Muslim" or a Jew as a "supposed Jew" or a Hindu as a "supposed Hindu" so don't call Christians supposed or alleged Christians. Secondarily, you deliberately mock my signature...I am a Christian, I've told you I'm a Christian and I am a Christian so the back handed comment about Allah is entirely un-necessary and you know it (duly reported now).

    I forgive your actions but you can't speak to people like that, here or anywhere else and whats ironic is that you wouldn't speak to me like that face to face so drop the rhetoric.

    ""...Christian Worldview" is that it only sees alleged Christians" Wholly incorrect. The Christian worldview first of all doesn't see "alleged" anyone, it sees people for who they are, saved or unsaved, led or led astray. The Christian Worldview calls us to be Salt & Light, it calls us to go into the world and baptize men in the name of the Father and lead them to become disciples, not to just focus internally on ourselves. In fact, it teaches us to live wholly outside of ourselves. Your comment couldn't in fact be more baseless or further from the truth. How many humanitarian efforts exist around the world purely from Christian initiatives? Do you not know that for the 1st half of this nations history the official foreign diplomacy model was to foster world peace through spreading the Christian Gospel?

    I'm curious as to why you carry so much disdain for Christianity and for followers of Christ?

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
    (more)
  • ppk007@... iamco2000 2012/11/27 06:27:05
    ppk007@cfl.rr.com
    What makes you think that I have "so much disdain for Christianity" or alleged Christians?

    Don't be offended by my usage of the word "alleged" or by my alleged mocking of "your signature" - might I suggest that since you profess yourself as a "true Christian" that you just turn the other cheek. WWJD?

    It has been my experience that most (not all) self professed religious types (no matter the religion) are frauds - OR as the Bible states - false prophets

    Matthew 7:15
    Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

    Grace to you, Glory to Allah, God, or Whomever....
  • iamco2000 ppk007@... 2012/11/27 22:33:58
    iamco2000
    What makes me think that you have disdain for Christians is your choice of words and your continued mockery of my statements. I'll not enter negative discourse or argument with you but I will stand on the authority of God's word until my head is removed from shoulders.

    "Turn the other cheek", doesn't mean lay down to opposition, in fact Christ instructs us to boldly and confidently stand firm in the Lord and God's authority. It is not hypocritcal to call something that is. As I expressed before, I forgave your actions already but your understanding of what forgiveness means is a debased as your understanding of scripture. Paul echoed the sentiment of Christ in 1 Cor 15:58 "Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain."

    Again, a chapter later, Paul instructs us "Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong." (1 Cor 16:13).

    Turning the other cheek does not constitute passivity, weakness, backing away or shying from rebuking another clearly in the wrong. Do you recall Proverbs 17:10 " A rebuke impresses a man of discernment more than a hundred lashes a fool."

    "It has been my experience that most" Your experience can't begin to cover enough people to even con...



    What makes me think that you have disdain for Christians is your choice of words and your continued mockery of my statements. I'll not enter negative discourse or argument with you but I will stand on the authority of God's word until my head is removed from shoulders.

    "Turn the other cheek", doesn't mean lay down to opposition, in fact Christ instructs us to boldly and confidently stand firm in the Lord and God's authority. It is not hypocritcal to call something that is. As I expressed before, I forgave your actions already but your understanding of what forgiveness means is a debased as your understanding of scripture. Paul echoed the sentiment of Christ in 1 Cor 15:58 "Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain."

    Again, a chapter later, Paul instructs us "Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong." (1 Cor 16:13).

    Turning the other cheek does not constitute passivity, weakness, backing away or shying from rebuking another clearly in the wrong. Do you recall Proverbs 17:10 " A rebuke impresses a man of discernment more than a hundred lashes a fool."

    "It has been my experience that most" Your experience can't begin to cover enough people to even consider the term "all", so a vast generalization that all or even most of anyone is neither realistic or exemplary of the true all.

    " are frauds" Based on what? If you have no moral authority, you have no base from which to make such an assessment and you have nothing to complain about.

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
    (more)
  • ppk007@... ppk007@... 2012/11/28 00:47:36
    ppk007@cfl.rr.com
    LOL - and the ALLEGED Man of God (iamco2000) blocks me - got to love it...apparently he can not follow his own Biblical advice...

    1 Cor 15:58 "Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain." --- he gives up in spreading the word of Jesus to a soul like me..... and therefore assists in proving my point...

    It has been my experience that most (not all) self professed religious types (no matter the religion) are frauds - OR as the Bible states - false prophets

    Grace to you, Glory to Allah, God, or Whomever....
  • DixieGirl 2012/09/14 00:59:32
    AGAINST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    DixieGirl
    +1
    Marriage is between one man and one woman. Not one man and a multitude of women.
  • jcadla 2012/09/14 00:30:36
    Dafaq is that?
    jcadla
    It depends on the people and the situation...and the law...
  • Lawnmowerman~PWCM~JLA 2012/09/14 00:13:12
    AGAINST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Lawnmowerman~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    I'm a bachelor and couldn't stand ONE mouthy broad in my face, let alone two or three.
  • Bibliophilic 2012/09/13 04:30:36
    Dafaq is that?
    Bibliophilic
    +1
    I don't support it, but it should probably be legal.
  • Stardust 2012/09/13 04:05:50
  • bman~AVA~BTTB 2012/09/13 02:23:08
    AGAINST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    bman~AVA~BTTB
    +3
    Very much against! If you're married then you should only be with your spouse. Not some other person.
  • Stardust bman~AV... 2012/09/13 04:05:15
  • bman~AV... Stardust 2012/09/13 05:11:11
    bman~AVA~BTTB
    +1
    Hehehe! I hear that o.k. miss Serenity.
  • Stardust bman~AV... 2012/09/13 05:20:24
  • bman~AV... Stardust 2012/09/13 05:36:37
    bman~AVA~BTTB
    +1
    Hahahahaha! Love the pic!
  • Stardust bman~AV... 2012/09/13 05:44:29
  • bman~AV... Stardust 2012/09/13 05:48:27
    bman~AVA~BTTB
    +1
    You did at that sweet lady. And with that I think I'm gonna call it a night. I have to get up in about 5 hours so I'm gonna hit the hay. Good night to you sweet friend. I'll talk to you later.
  • BBLEE 2012/09/13 02:21:34
    AGAINST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    BBLEE
    +2
    I would not ask to share or accept being required to share. If it's not really true love, ever ask yourself, why did you get married in the first place?
  • laydeelapis 2012/09/12 03:17:43
    FOR!
    laydeelapis
    I'm not FOR it so much as for the right to participate in it if you want to. I personally wouldn't be okay with sharing my man but I don't see why we should stop those that don't have issues with it. As long as everyone involved is okay with it, it's okay with me.
  • senvestoj 2012/09/12 00:57:10
    FOR!
    senvestoj
  • Delete 2012/09/12 00:15:14
  • NymRod 2012/09/11 20:09:44
    AGAINST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    NymRod
    +2
    I see the majority have selected they are FOR polygamy before giving it any thought at all.

    Hey! Why don't we all just go jump off the edge of the earth! Sounds like FUN!

    So, you want a second or third wife. Your second wife wants a second husband.
    Hey, equal rights remember, if a man can have more than one wife a woman can have more than one husband. So where does her second husband stay? In your home under your roof?
    Now her second husband wants a second, third, fourth and fifth wife. Where do they stay? With you?
    What if your third wife wants 10 more husbands and those men marry more men?
    Do they stay in your home?
    Now your second wife marries your third wife's fourth husband and has children by lets assume... who knows.
    The next thing you know there's fifty plus people involved in this marriage debacle not counting the 30 plus children involved.
    Then let the divorces begin because you know there are going to be many.
    Who's the father of this child and that child?
    Who will have to pay the child support?
    That could be solved when your fourth wife's 24th husband marries the 12 year old daughter of who knows who.
    Yes, if polygamy is allowed next comes pedophilia with the lowering of the age of consent to like maybe 10 years old or less as it keeps getting lower and lower ove...



    I see the majority have selected they are FOR polygamy before giving it any thought at all.

    Hey! Why don't we all just go jump off the edge of the earth! Sounds like FUN!

    So, you want a second or third wife. Your second wife wants a second husband.
    Hey, equal rights remember, if a man can have more than one wife a woman can have more than one husband. So where does her second husband stay? In your home under your roof?
    Now her second husband wants a second, third, fourth and fifth wife. Where do they stay? With you?
    What if your third wife wants 10 more husbands and those men marry more men?
    Do they stay in your home?
    Now your second wife marries your third wife's fourth husband and has children by lets assume... who knows.
    The next thing you know there's fifty plus people involved in this marriage debacle not counting the 30 plus children involved.
    Then let the divorces begin because you know there are going to be many.
    Who's the father of this child and that child?
    Who will have to pay the child support?
    That could be solved when your fourth wife's 24th husband marries the 12 year old daughter of who knows who.
    Yes, if polygamy is allowed next comes pedophilia with the lowering of the age of consent to like maybe 10 years old or less as it keeps getting lower and lower over time.
    Next your 4th wife's 112th husband marries your 10 year old son...
    It could go on indefinitely until ever person on this planet is involved in the mess.

    I suggest we not open this can of worms.
    (more)
  • Delete NymRod 2012/09/12 00:26:50
  • Willow NymRod 2012/09/12 02:38:39
    Willow
    +1
    I think you are almost right on the money, depending on the amount of people he marries or she marries.
  • Robin 2012/09/11 19:24:49
    Dafaq is that?
    Robin
    +1
    It sure aint for me. I don't for the life of me understand how those women keep from killing each other.
  • Bothergirl 2012/09/11 17:44:19
    AGAINST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Bothergirl
    +1
    Then again, More than one husband could be fun.
  • JDLogan 2012/09/11 12:43:21
    FOR!
    JDLogan
    +6
    More specifically, I am for any loving, consensual relationship among and between adults.
  • Rich Matarese 2012/09/11 12:41:26
    FOR!
    Rich Matarese
    +5
    If a household can function under such an "arrangement for living," the voluntary engagement in any form of polyamory is the business of the voluntary participants.

    Consider the proposal of "line marriage" in Robert A. Heinlein's 1966 novel, *The Moon is Harsh Mistress,* in which the notion of responsibility shared among a range of husbands and wives provides blended wisdom in management, increased surety for children, support for aging family members, and conservation of wealth accumulated.

    (And if, as you're reading here, you're unfamiliar with Mr. Heinlein's work, congratulations. I can never have the pleasure of reading his stuff for the first time, which is now ahead of you.)
  • Philo-Publius 2012/09/11 12:36:43
    FOR!
    Philo-Publius
    +6
    I'm also in favor of origami...
    origami
    (Origami chipmunk thinks you support tyranny, by the way.)
  • Mark 2012/09/11 12:25:16
    AGAINST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Mark
    +2
    Polygamy is a fancy way of saying greedy.
  • DizziNY 2012/09/11 11:32:28
    AGAINST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    DizziNY
    +4
    How can anyone be for polygamy?

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/28 13:38:26

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals