Posted on 03/31/2006 9:51:05 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Mat 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
chapter and verse please where it states that it is not wrong, not that it happened, or that so-and-so had so many wives, etc. where does it say we are allowed more than one wife?
I think you misunderstand what I said or I explained myself wrong. What I mean is that it does not say that polygamy is wrong, but it does not say that you can have more wives than one. I am for the if it is not a law of God than people don't have to follow it. Obviously in our case, it is a law of the country (in most states) so of course I follow it, but I am more concerned with God's law than man made laws.
I did. Maybe you should.
Not lawyers.. its an increased workload thing..
Polygamy/Polyandry or Homogamy and Heterogamy will make it possible to double the quota of lawyers in this country..
Its all a wicked plan.. funny that most politicians are lawyers ain't it.. It has little to do with morality its lawyers promoting their Union.. Union?.. Yeah you can't be a lawyer unless "they" say you can.. With DUES and everything..
Based on the articles I read on the first yahoo search screen.
I think you you mistake screeching and emotional for strength. I grew up with strong women; some involved in state and national politics in the rocky mountain west. You don't strike me as strong and capable as much as one with vicitim'm mentality and focus on revenge.
Not saying that you'd be quality enough to be one of my five, but if I was so inclined, and the others agreed, you could be my number six and I'd let the others train you in our ways. Eventually you'd be quite happy.
"but I have a serious argument against it; it is called fumarole deficiency. "
Uh...no such medical problem. This came either from a blog or from some tabloid, right?
Here's the deal. Some idiot misunderstood someone who referred to a "familial" something deficiency. This idiot heard the word "fumarole," which is a hole in the ground that emits volcanic gasses.
Go Google your "fumarole deficiency." You'll find a silly message thread on it from some random website.
There is no medical condition called a "fumarole deficiency" because there are no "fumaroles" in the human body.
Random websites produce random results.
Someone don't know their a-hole from a hole in the ground, eh?
Of course the NYT has assumed that the only thing that matters to a woman is the man's pockets. Which might be the case if all other things are equal among available men, but that's never true.
I have a big problem with this argument. It works for Tierney because he can't see beyond the current generation of women in the show. But ideas like prohibiting polygamy arent just based the present but looking longterm.
Let's say there are 500 males and 500 females in a small town. If the women share a relatively small fraction of the more prosperous males rather than mate with all of them (or almost all of them), over time the population will become progressively more inbred.
Did you learn about the ill effects of inbreeding in high school biology? Well forget all that. A New York times reporter has decided that you are an overwrought conservative.
Then we have nothing further to say to each other. Good luck.
"Someone don't know their a-hole from a hole in the ground, eh?"
That's pretty much it. I can understand the word "familial" not being heard correctly, and being confused with "fumarole," but to see it posted that way is really amusing.
That's why, when I'm not sure of something, I hit Google to make sure I know what the heck I'm talking about. I wouldn't want to be accused of having any fumarole deficiencies.
As long as nobody FORCES anyone into polygamy then you're ok. Don't want to, don't.
But by the same token, what about those that do but can't?
I don't think that any opponent has shown examples of those whose participants are all willing. And that makes the wives more like chattle than wives in our sense of the word.
That is so funny. I wonder what they did on their honymoon. Oh never mind I don't want to know. LOL.
Yahoo and Google can even make folks like me appear erudite.
Those who know me, know that I am strong and capable. That you think of it as screeching and emotional says more about you than about me.
Only weak men would you strong opinion as a tool against women. You are exactly the type of man that would abuse polygamy.
BTW who gets to decide if you are to take another wife? Is it by majority? Would you discount the emotion of wife #3 if she thought you had enough? Does the man get to decide because of his strength...these are some of the problems that infringe upon the rule of equal rights.
Excuse me, "fumarase deficiency". Google that.
Yea, well I'm sure there are tons of folks who think Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame is a cliffnotes of the literary work.....
Just like there are folks who think that FX show about Iraq is remotely factual...
There are 2 universal constants.. . Hydrogen and Stupidity.... never underestimate the extent of either of them.
"Excuse me, "fumarase deficiency". Google that."
No need. I know what that is. When posting specific medical terms, it's really, really necessary to double check your spelling. Fumarole deficiency, indeed.
By the way, that spelling error is repeated in that silly blog thread I mentioned. Was that you who posted it?
"You couldn't keep up with me, let alone four others."
ROTF!!!
If you cannot even cite a chapter or verse justifying your position - how then can you even claim that it says what you are claiming it says? Within the Old testament era it was tolerated, (Exodus 21:10; 1 Samuel 1:2; 2 Chronicles 24:3). However the standard set by God was one man - one woman (Deuteronomy 17:17; Leviticus 18:18; Malachi 2:14,15). Do not confuse toleration with permission, though there were many polygamists in the OT,they suffered the negative consequences of their actions.
Within the New testament era it is not permitted (Matthew 19:4,5; Mark 10:2-8; 1 Timothy 3:2,12; Titus 1:6). as Jesus clearly stated, it was to be one man with one woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.