Gay Marriage is So Yesterday, Say Hello to Polygamy!

ClashDaily- The SCOTUS’ decision today on DOMA now opens the door for legalizing polygamy.

Thom Hartmann talks with Mark Henkel, Polygamy rights advocate & founder-TruthBearer.org (FYI…their slogan is “bringing Christian Polygamy to the Church.”)

Website: www.nationalpolygamyadvocate.com, who advocates the decriminalization of polygamy in the U.S.

  • jb80538

    The main trouble with polygamy…More than one mother in law!

    • janhalt

      AMEN!

    • janhalt

      AMEN!

    • janhalt

      AMEN!

    • jubilee

      you may be right about that one, but you, i think, wouldn’t have a father in law. A read dad wouldn’t let his daughter get into jams like this—if they have a close relationship

      • lildebrarae

        Amen to that!

        • January24

          Here’s a message to FC, the creep with the one wife and the one concubine and who knows how many children — who’s been on here defending his polygamous way of life, even though he’s sucking government teat to support his mob:

          1 Timothy 5:8: “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

          So FC (and all you other polygamists): Get off the freaking computer and get a job. You’ll probably need two jobs.

          You’re worse than an unbeliever, so you can stop quoting any Bible to me.

          • Ed Sumner

            PROVE that he’s receiving government benefits, and I’m with you, but to just accuse the man out of hand, that’s called slander, which makes YOU no better.

          • Ed Sumner

            PROVE that he’s receiving government benefits, and I’m with you, but to just accuse the man out of hand, that’s called slander, which makes YOU no better.

          • January24

            Ed,

            FC has posted five responses to my statements that he and his family are on the government dole . . . and none of them contained any denials. If he were not taking government bennies to support his wife, his mistress and their only-God-knows-how-many offspring, you can be sure he’d be shouting it from the rooftop.

            You don’t understand the polygamy scam. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It’s just a sweet scam for the guy. He marries the first wife. Then, he moves in a succession of other women — none of whom are his legal wives. They all procreate until there are 15 or 20 children and then they all live off the welfare.

            It’s been documented by women who have escaped these sorts of hellish arrangements. Having all that free government money leaves the man free to remain unemployed. He can focus on the one or two wives that he is fond of, but he makes sure that he keeps the rest of them pregnant as well. Gotta keep making those babies; gotta keep the government money rolling in. Every child that’s born increases the size of the government checks.

          • FC’s Wife

            I’m assuming you do not count my reply to you 24?

          • FC’s Wife

            BTW he is at work so won’t be able to talk for awhile but I am here!

          • FC’s Wife

            BTW he is at work so won’t be able to talk for awhile but I am here!

          • FC’s Wife

            BTW he is at work so won’t be able to talk for awhile but I am here!

          • January24

            So, wife. Or are you No. 2, also known as the mistress? You’re not a legal wife if you’re No. 2, you know.

            Tell us straight out. Are you or any of the other wives or any of the children receiving government benefits in any form? Tell the truth. Free school lunches? Medicaid? Anything at all? Don’t lie now. Lying sends you you know where.

          • FC’s Wife

            Well I have already answered that but Im guessing you’re going to need it spelled out. Not one of us nor our children recieve one cent of government assistance. Never have, never will. How about you? Married? Divorced? Kids? Ever been on assistance? How about your mom, was she ever on assistance in any way? How old are you?

          • January24

            I am a retired lawyer — the offspring of MONOGAMOUS hard-working parents. None of us have ever needed welfare.

            So tell us, how does your husband (or boyfriend, if you’re the mistress) support the two of you and your kids?

            And are there plans to add more mistresses and children? And if so, how does your baby daddy plan to support the whole mob?

          • FC’s Wife

            Lawyer? I don’t buy that for one single second! My father is a lawyer and before that a city councilman and could actually support his argument with more than insults. That is all your arguments are made up of… insults! Oh and assumptions. You do have plenty of assumptions!

          • January24

            Have you read the book “Escape” by Carolyn Jessop? Maybe you should. It’s the story of how she finally escaped the hellish polygamous situation she was forced into when she was 17. She escaped when she was about 26 with her seven or so children.

            She wrote that the “king daddy” of the family was unemployed and that he lived very well with his favorite mistress off of the government payments which were going to support the 20 or more children.

          • LoreneFairchild

            I’ve read the book. In fact, I make it a point to read all the expose books on polygyny. The one thing they all seem to have in common is that they are all stories from the FLDS. I am not and never have been associated with the FLDS.

          • LoreneFairchild

            I’ve read the book. In fact, I make it a point to read all the expose books on polygyny. The one thing they all seem to have in common is that they are all stories from the FLDS. I am not and never have been associated with the FLDS.

          • LoreneFairchild

            I’ve read the book. In fact, I make it a point to read all the expose books on polygyny. The one thing they all seem to have in common is that they are all stories from the FLDS. I am not and never have been associated with the FLDS.

          • Cory Hicks

            Ok OK enough about the book. If you only have one piece of evidence, you can’t be bringing it up over and over. If this is so prevalent, come up with another example or let people live the lives they choose.
            There is a diference between child abduction and a group of consenting adults.

          • Cory Hicks

            Ok OK enough about the book. If you only have one piece of evidence, you can’t be bringing it up over and over. If this is so prevalent, come up with another example or let people live the lives they choose.
            There is a diference between child abduction and a group of consenting adults.

          • Katie Miller

            January, I have actually read her book, but you don’t seem to have the facts straight. While there was government assistance involved, the husband ran a business and many of the wives had jobs.

            I am in no way a fan of the FLDS, but at least get your facts straight.

          • Katie Miller

            January, I have actually read her book, but you don’t seem to have the facts straight. While there was government assistance involved, the husband ran a business and many of the wives had jobs.

            I am in no way a fan of the FLDS, but at least get your facts straight.

          • Katie Miller

            January, I have actually read her book, but you don’t seem to have the facts straight. While there was government assistance involved, the husband ran a business and many of the wives had jobs.

            I am in no way a fan of the FLDS, but at least get your facts straight.

          • January24

            Have you read the book “Escape” by Carolyn Jessop? Maybe you should. It’s the story of how she finally escaped the hellish polygamous situation she was forced into when she was 17. She escaped when she was about 26 with her seven or so children.

            She wrote that the “king daddy” of the family was unemployed and that he lived very well with his favorite mistress off of the government payments which were going to support the 20 or more children.

          • John Whitten

            FC’s Wife, ZING! Well said. January24 is certainly lacking in logic, reason and facts beyond Caroyln Jessop’s book Escape.

          • John Whitten

            FC’s Wife, ZING! Well said. January24 is certainly lacking in logic, reason and facts beyond Caroyln Jessop’s book Escape.

          • John Whitten

            FC’s Wife, ZING! Well said. January24 is certainly lacking in logic, reason and facts beyond Caroyln Jessop’s book Escape.

          • Chris Nystrom

            You are a lawyer and yet you are unaware that there is no Biblical requirement to obtain a marriage license? Or are you presenting false witness to try to slander her with an immoral act (fornication) that she is not guilty of?

          • Chris Nystrom

            You are a lawyer and yet you are unaware that there is no Biblical requirement to obtain a marriage license? Or are you presenting false witness to try to slander her with an immoral act (fornication) that she is not guilty of?

          • FC’s Wife

            I’m assuming you do not count my reply to you 24?

          • FC’s Wife

            I’m assuming you do not count my reply to you 24?

          • Ed Sumner

            OK, I gotcha. That’s NOT Biblical polygamy by any stretch. That’s also how the Mormon fundamentalists do it, one legal wife and a bunch of concubines, many of whom are underage. All evil. And if he’s having more than one wife in bed with him at a time, that’s evil too. And of course, if the women are practicing any sort of perversion.

          • January24

            Yep. Now you’ve got it, Ed. It is the offshoot of Mormonism that even the Mormons disown.

            There have been several books published which were written by women who escaped these situations. And you’re right; most of the women are “taken” at very young ages by men who are sometimes twice their age.

            There is often no semblance whatsoever of relationship. Generally, the man has one or two of the mistresses that he’s actually interested in. The rest of the women just make babies to keep the government money rolling in.

          • FC’s Wife

            What about the women who are actively seeking this? The God loving Christian, self sufficient, educated,happy women who are everywhere right this very second looking to be a plural wife.

          • January24

            Any women who join households where there is already a wife and one or more mistresses — and where the household is supported by government money in any way — would be knowingly violating the Biblical admonition that he who fails to support the members of his household has denied the Christian faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

            I’m certain that you know of women in polygamous situations where the family is receiving government money. If they are “Christian and God-loving,” how do they square that with what the Bible says?

            Most polygamous households are in violation of this Biblical command. But then, polygamy doesn’t really have anything to do with Christianity. As I said, it’s just a sweet scam for the guy. He has a favorite wife or mistress or two. The rest of them are just baby-makers since the more babies, the more money.

            Then the guy plays the women off against one another so that they’re constantly competing for his attention. Thus, a guy who is a loser can feel like “king daddy” because he’s got his brood fighting over him. Good luck with that.

            By the way, are you the actual legal wife or are you Mistress No. 1? (There is only one legal wife, you know.)

          • FC’s Wife

            Who says there are any legal wives ? Yet another assumption. Who says there are any children? Chalk that one up to the all knowing “lawyer”

          • January24

            Oh, so you’re all just cohabiting and the mighty FC has yet to father any spawn. Well, well; give him time. I’m sure that’s in his plan.

            That ole’ FC is not as dumb as he looks. He’s got a GREAT retirement plan in mind — an EARLY retirement plan. It involves lots and lots and lots of children. And lots and lots and lots of government money.

            If there’s not a legal wife, I get that. Single moms with children get more government welfare than a married man and wife with children.

          • FC’s Wife

            Ok to all my friends reading this. You were right. Waste of breath. This one is going to assume till they are blue in the face. Don’t blame you for staying out of it anymore. Back to the real world!

          • John Whitten

            January24, Do you know any polygynists, personally, Mormon, Muslim, Biblical or any kind at all? I’ll bet that you know or know of first hand at least a half dozen men and women who have slept around indiscriminately, going from one partner to the next with no care for the wrecked lives left behind or the children brought to the government trough! They are all over the place. Talk about them, they far out number polygynists. I personally know about 10 polygynist men who are endeavoring to lead their families according to the Biblical pattern for marriage. To the best of my knowledge, only one has had any government assistance and that temporarily. Most of them have wives that also work and contribute to the family well-being.
            Historically, men who were and are polygynists are men who are strong, well-motivated to succeed in their profession and responsible for their own families. Don’t let the Mormon/Muslim’s cloud the truthful image.

          • John Whitten

            January24, Do you know any polygynists, personally, Mormon, Muslim, Biblical or any kind at all? I’ll bet that you know or know of first hand at least a half dozen men and women who have slept around indiscriminately, going from one partner to the next with no care for the wrecked lives left behind or the children brought to the government trough! They are all over the place. Talk about them, they far out number polygynists. I personally know about 10 polygynist men who are endeavoring to lead their families according to the Biblical pattern for marriage. To the best of my knowledge, only one has had any government assistance and that temporarily. Most of them have wives that also work and contribute to the family well-being.
            Historically, men who were and are polygynists are men who are strong, well-motivated to succeed in their profession and responsible for their own families. Don’t let the Mormon/Muslim’s cloud the truthful image.

          • John Whitten

            January24, Do you know any polygynists, personally, Mormon, Muslim, Biblical or any kind at all? I’ll bet that you know or know of first hand at least a half dozen men and women who have slept around indiscriminately, going from one partner to the next with no care for the wrecked lives left behind or the children brought to the government trough! They are all over the place. Talk about them, they far out number polygynists. I personally know about 10 polygynist men who are endeavoring to lead their families according to the Biblical pattern for marriage. To the best of my knowledge, only one has had any government assistance and that temporarily. Most of them have wives that also work and contribute to the family well-being.
            Historically, men who were and are polygynists are men who are strong, well-motivated to succeed in their profession and responsible for their own families. Don’t let the Mormon/Muslim’s cloud the truthful image.

          • Chris Nystrom

            The legal system will only allow one legal wife, and yet you seem to want to fault polygamists because the other wives are not legal wives as if they set up the system. Your argument is silly and beneath you. Further you talk about FC and his family as if you know them, but clearly you do not. The word for this is “prejudice”.

          • Chris Nystrom

            The legal system will only allow one legal wife, and yet you seem to want to fault polygamists because the other wives are not legal wives as if they set up the system. Your argument is silly and beneath you. Further you talk about FC and his family as if you know them, but clearly you do not. The word for this is “prejudice”.

          • Chris Nystrom

            The legal system will only allow one legal wife, and yet you seem to want to fault polygamists because the other wives are not legal wives as if they set up the system. Your argument is silly and beneath you. Further you talk about FC and his family as if you know them, but clearly you do not. The word for this is “prejudice”.

          • January24

            Oh, so you’re all just cohabiting and the mighty FC has yet to father any spawn. Well, well; give him time. I’m sure that’s in his plan.

            That ole’ FC is not as dumb as he looks. He’s got a GREAT retirement plan in mind — an EARLY retirement plan. It involves lots and lots and lots of children. And lots and lots and lots of government money.

            If there’s not a legal wife, I get that. Single moms with children get more government welfare than a married man and wife with children.

          • January24

            Oh, so you’re all just cohabiting and the mighty FC has yet to father any spawn. Well, well; give him time. I’m sure that’s in his plan.

            That ole’ FC is not as dumb as he looks. He’s got a GREAT retirement plan in mind — an EARLY retirement plan. It involves lots and lots and lots of children. And lots and lots and lots of government money.

            If there’s not a legal wife, I get that. Single moms with children get more government welfare than a married man and wife with children.

          • FC’s Wife

            Who says there are any legal wives ? Yet another assumption. Who says there are any children? Chalk that one up to the all knowing “lawyer”

          • Chris Nystrom

            I know many people living a polygamous lifestyle. I do not know of any of them on government assistance. Most of them are classic Christians, not FLDS, or even LDS. You seem to only be able to conceive of media created stereotypes instead of real people and real lives. By the way, do you dis-fellowship monogamous Christians who accept government assistance, or are you just prejudiced against polygamous Christians?

          • Chris Nystrom

            I know many people living a polygamous lifestyle. I do not know of any of them on government assistance. Most of them are classic Christians, not FLDS, or even LDS. You seem to only be able to conceive of media created stereotypes instead of real people and real lives. By the way, do you dis-fellowship monogamous Christians who accept government assistance, or are you just prejudiced against polygamous Christians?

          • FC’s Wife

            What about the women who are actively seeking this? The God loving Christian, self sufficient, educated,happy women who are everywhere right this very second looking to be a plural wife.

          • LoreneFairchild

            Not all polygynists are Mormon. There have been some terrible abuses in the FLDS compounds but what you are doing, January, is engaging in guilt by association. I abhor any abuse of our welfare system and I am very much opposed to underage girls being forced into marriage. I am not a Mormon. I am a Evangelical Christian with no Mormon associations of any kind. I am an adult college educated woman who simply believes that Polygyny (the correct term) was and is a valid form of marriage. I take my marching orders from God and the Bible. There is no prohibition against polygyny anywhere in the Bible. The practice was regulated in the Old Testament and many of God’s choice servants lived in polygynous families. For those who believe polygyny is sinful….please show me where God tolerates or regulates any sinful practice ?

          • Ed Sumner

            Well said ma’am. Have you read Tom Shipley on this? Tom and I are old and close friends. I have original copies of his book from before publication.

          • Ed Sumner

            Well said ma’am. Have you read Tom Shipley on this? Tom and I are old and close friends. I have original copies of his book from before publication.

          • LoreneFairchild

            I think I have his book but I would have to check to make sure. Are you familiar with Dr. William Luck of Moody Bible Institute ? He wrote a fine book as well.

          • John Whitten

            A good man, also. I know him personally and respect his scholarship and character very highly.

          • John Whitten

            A good man, also. I know him personally and respect his scholarship and character very highly.

          • John Whitten

            A good man, also. I know him personally and respect his scholarship and character very highly.

          • LoreneFairchild

            I think I have his book but I would have to check to make sure. Are you familiar with Dr. William Luck of Moody Bible Institute ? He wrote a fine book as well.

          • LoreneFairchild

            I think I have his book but I would have to check to make sure. Are you familiar with Dr. William Luck of Moody Bible Institute ? He wrote a fine book as well.

          • John Whitten

            Ed, I have read two of Tom Shipley’s books. He did a fine job of unbiased, honest research and reporting.

          • John Whitten

            Ed, I have read two of Tom Shipley’s books. He did a fine job of unbiased, honest research and reporting.

          • John Whitten

            Ed, I have read two of Tom Shipley’s books. He did a fine job of unbiased, honest research and reporting.

          • Panors77

            NT did away with polygamy. OT it was permitted especially just after Adam and Eve,etc.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Could you list where the NT did away with polygamy?

          • Chris Nystrom

            Could you list where the NT did away with polygamy?

          • Chris Nystrom

            Could you list where the NT did away with polygamy?

          • LoreneFairchild

            Panors77…Where is the prohibition against polygyny in the NT ?

          • LoreneFairchild

            Panors77…Where is the prohibition against polygyny in the NT ?

          • Panors77

            NT did away with polygamy. OT it was permitted especially just after Adam and Eve,etc.

          • Panors77

            NT did away with polygamy. OT it was permitted especially just after Adam and Eve,etc.

          • LoreneFairchild

            Not all polygynists are Mormon. There have been some terrible abuses in the FLDS compounds but what you are doing, January, is engaging in guilt by association. I abhor any abuse of our welfare system and I am very much opposed to underage girls being forced into marriage. I am not a Mormon. I am a Evangelical Christian with no Mormon associations of any kind. I am an adult college educated woman who simply believes that Polygyny (the correct term) was and is a valid form of marriage. I take my marching orders from God and the Bible. There is no prohibition against polygyny anywhere in the Bible. The practice was regulated in the Old Testament and many of God’s choice servants lived in polygynous families. For those who believe polygyny is sinful….please show me where God tolerates or regulates any sinful practice ?

          • Panors77

            Funny that the mormons were forced by the US government to give up polygamy. They still believe in it as it fits in with their “pre-existence” doctrine about providing bodies for spirit children born in heaven,etc. To me…the FLDS IS the true mormonism to the hilt practicing as their former leaders instructed. Of course I disagree heavily with mormon dogma, but I’d recognize those who DO fulfill their precepts.

          • LoreneFairchild

            Panors…of the pro-polygyny responders on this thread I’m not seeing any Mormons. So far, it seems we are all mainline Christians.

          • Panors77

            Funny that the mormons were forced by the US government to give up polygamy. They still believe in it as it fits in with their “pre-existence” doctrine about providing bodies for spirit children born in heaven,etc. To me…the FLDS IS the true mormonism to the hilt practicing as their former leaders instructed. Of course I disagree heavily with mormon dogma, but I’d recognize those who DO fulfill their precepts.

          • Chris Nystrom

            And there are plenty of books my consenting adults who love the lifestyle. “Love Times Three” by the Dargers is excellent. They were not underage brides and have great relationships.

          • Chris Nystrom

            And there are plenty of books my consenting adults who love the lifestyle. “Love Times Three” by the Dargers is excellent. They were not underage brides and have great relationships.

          • Chris Nystrom

            And there are plenty of books my consenting adults who love the lifestyle. “Love Times Three” by the Dargers is excellent. They were not underage brides and have great relationships.

          • John Whitten

            January24, you seem to be the major purveyor of the assumption that polygynists are on the government dole. Perhaps FC does not wish to expose himself or his family to intrusive examination by such as yourself that hold such a narrow view without a concern for truth. May I ask, what is it about a state licence that makes a woman a “legal wife” as opposed to one who is a wife without a license, does it make one a better wife than the other? Methinks, it is just a matter of government approval and control. For most of this countries (USA) history, no marriage was regulated by government and we got along just fine. Government tends to cause more problems than it cures.
            Carolyn Jessop is not a good example of any type of polygamy than FLDS (fundamentalist Mormon). Please do not paint all people with the same brush, it mixes up the colors and patterns.

          • Chris Nystrom

            A scam? You know that there are dating sites out there for adult consenting women who are seeking these relationships don’t you?

          • Chris Nystrom

            A scam? You know that there are dating sites out there for adult consenting women who are seeking these relationships don’t you?

          • January24

            Ed,

            FC has posted five responses to my statements that he and his family are on the government dole . . . and none of them contained any denials. If he were not taking government bennies to support his wife, his mistress and their only-God-knows-how-many offspring, you can be sure he’d be shouting it from the rooftop.

            You don’t understand the polygamy scam. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It’s just a sweet scam for the guy. He marries the first wife. Then, he moves in a succession of other women — none of whom are his legal wives. They all procreate until there are 15 or 20 children and then they all live off the welfare.

            It’s been documented by women who have escaped these sorts of hellish arrangements. Having all that free government money leaves the man free to remain unemployed. He can focus on the one or two wives that he is fond of, but he makes sure that he keeps the rest of them pregnant as well. Gotta keep making those babies; gotta keep the government money rolling in. Every child that’s born increases the size of the government checks.

          • January24

            Ed,

            FC has posted five responses to my statements that he and his family are on the government dole . . . and none of them contained any denials. If he were not taking government bennies to support his wife, his mistress and their only-God-knows-how-many offspring, you can be sure he’d be shouting it from the rooftop.

            You don’t understand the polygamy scam. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It’s just a sweet scam for the guy. He marries the first wife. Then, he moves in a succession of other women — none of whom are his legal wives. They all procreate until there are 15 or 20 children and then they all live off the welfare.

            It’s been documented by women who have escaped these sorts of hellish arrangements. Having all that free government money leaves the man free to remain unemployed. He can focus on the one or two wives that he is fond of, but he makes sure that he keeps the rest of them pregnant as well. Gotta keep making those babies; gotta keep the government money rolling in. Every child that’s born increases the size of the government checks.

          • FC

            Thank you, its actually really funny that I would be accused of taking assistance, I am totally against entitlement programs, But that doesn’t even matter, I’m sure there are polygamists that are on them, just like there is monogamists and everyone else, from every walk of life. That is not a polygamy issue. In fact I bet polygamists don’t make up even 1% of what is paid out.

            Besides, polygamists believe in marriage, they don’t believe in sleeping around, creating babies and running off. That alone should tell people something, sure they may also need help at times but they believe in taking responsibility. Which is far more then all the single babies daddies out there. So if the issue a person had was not taking care of their kids, why wouldn’t they be the target instead of the men who believe in marriage?

          • FC

            Thank you, its actually really funny that I would be accused of taking assistance, I am totally against entitlement programs, But that doesn’t even matter, I’m sure there are polygamists that are on them, just like there is monogamists and everyone else, from every walk of life. That is not a polygamy issue. In fact I bet polygamists don’t make up even 1% of what is paid out.

            Besides, polygamists believe in marriage, they don’t believe in sleeping around, creating babies and running off. That alone should tell people something, sure they may also need help at times but they believe in taking responsibility. Which is far more then all the single babies daddies out there. So if the issue a person had was not taking care of their kids, why wouldn’t they be the target instead of the men who believe in marriage?

          • Ed Sumner

            OK, point blank question. Are you or any of the women you claim as wives or any of the children whom you’ve fathered by those women currently (or in the past) receiving assistance from any government entity (local, state or federal)? This is a yes or no question, as is this one.:

            Are you currently in the same household as these women and children acting as male provider and father?

          • Ed Sumner

            OK, point blank question. Are you or any of the women you claim as wives or any of the children whom you’ve fathered by those women currently (or in the past) receiving assistance from any government entity (local, state or federal)? This is a yes or no question, as is this one.:

            Are you currently in the same household as these women and children acting as male provider and father?

          • FC

            I have answered this Ed.. I already said we aren’t and how I feel about the welfare system.

            Now you answer, Are you or any of the women you claim as a wife or claimed as a wife in the past or any women you have ever slept with or children
            whom you’ve fathered by those women currently (or in the past) receiving
            assistance from any government entity (local, state or federal)? This
            is a yes or no question?

            Yes we live in the same household and I am the Father and provider for my children.

            Now you answer, Are you currently in the same household with every women you have ever had sexual relations with? and are all your children living under your roof with you acting as their male provider and father? Yes or no question.

          • Ed Sumner

            If you’re telling the truth, then I don’t have a problem with your situation, except for the fact that you’re NOT married to any wife after the first. Of course, legally you can’t be, and you should’ve waited.

            I am divorced; she left me, I didn’t leave her. We have no children.

          • FC

            You didn’t answer either question. Surely you didn’t expect me to answer and you not be willing to do the same?

          • Ed Sumner

            Apparently you don’t read very well. I have no children. My wife left me. I am not aware of her being on assistance. I’m disabled, but that’s MY money, not Uncle’s. I paid, now I receive.

          • Ed Sumner

            Apparently you don’t read very well. I have no children. My wife left me. I am not aware of her being on assistance. I’m disabled, but that’s MY money, not Uncle’s. I paid, now I receive.

          • FC

            You didn’t answer yes or no.. So I guess the answer is, you don’t know if any of the women you have had sexual relations with have or ever has used welfare.

            Are you certain you wont be collecting any more then you paid in on the assistance program your receiving? BTW. most people I know have paid in, so each and everyone of them feel their just getting paid back..

            I hope you realize you shouldn’t have to answer to me for any of this. I just wanted you to know how intrusive it feels. Being asked questions about your personal business, especially your sex life by a stranger, just so you can be judged. Its well beyond the line of anything that ever should be asked.

          • Ed Sumner

            When I was married, we didn’t need assistance. As for SSD, it’s not assistance. I paid into the escrow, now I receive.

            I was trying to determine your situation. You were being accused of scamming the government, that’s why I asked. As I said, based on what you’ve told me, I don’t see you doing anything wrong. It’s sad that you can’t marry your other wives, but there’s nothing that can be done about that for now.

            My concern is that if polygyny IS permitted in the US, it won’t be Biblical.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Actually most polygamist are not concerned too much about legalizing polygamous marriage. They just want it de-criminalized. Two different things. They do not want government support. The just want to be free as consenting adults and citizens should be. They also believe that there are existing laws apart from polygamy that are sufficient to handle the abusive situations and that more openess will shine more light on any abuse, not less.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Actually most polygamist are not concerned too much about legalizing polygamous marriage. They just want it de-criminalized. Two different things. They do not want government support. The just want to be free as consenting adults and citizens should be. They also believe that there are existing laws apart from polygamy that are sufficient to handle the abusive situations and that more openess will shine more light on any abuse, not less.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Actually most polygamist are not concerned too much about legalizing polygamous marriage. They just want it de-criminalized. Two different things. They do not want government support. The just want to be free as consenting adults and citizens should be. They also believe that there are existing laws apart from polygamy that are sufficient to handle the abusive situations and that more openess will shine more light on any abuse, not less.

          • John Whitten

            Ed, I’m quite certain that if polygamy were to be legalized, it would NOT be Biblical in the vast majority of cases. In the same vein most monogamous marriages are not Biblical Even more so, the momentary co-habitation that permeates our society is not Biblical. I am not advocating, legalizing polygamy, but the decriminalizing of it. So that men could practice Biblical marriage to the extent of polygyny without fear of prosecution.

          • John Whitten

            Ed, I’m quite certain that if polygamy were to be legalized, it would NOT be Biblical in the vast majority of cases. In the same vein most monogamous marriages are not Biblical Even more so, the momentary co-habitation that permeates our society is not Biblical. I am not advocating, legalizing polygamy, but the decriminalizing of it. So that men could practice Biblical marriage to the extent of polygyny without fear of prosecution.

          • Ed Sumner

            Actually, polygyny only became illegal in the US because of Mormonism. To my knowledge, it was never illegal until Smith and his heretics started marrying underaged girls and the government stepped in with the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1886. Before that point, it was never an issue in the USA. The government could care less if we practice Biblical marriage. That’s obvious by the the fact they are starting to allow Sodomites the ‘right’ to marry. It all stems from the Humanist Manifesto 2 (1973); that document has become the de facto basis for recent laws in the States and internationally. This document denigrates religion and calls those who believe in an after life irrelevant and harmful and a host of other things. It elevates man to the status of his own savior and even states so.

            And to those of you who state that the cult of Mormonism has a lot of nice people in it, you’re right. But then, Satan used a brightly colored serpent to deceive our first parents, and he’s never been a horned monster with a tail and a forked tongue. If you knew anything about Mormonism’s origins and early days, you’d see it for what it is: a theologically dangerous cult that enslaves its membership and bears a striking resemblance to Islam in its origin. Read my article at the link below in one of my other posts regarding Islam and Mormomism.

          • Ed Sumner

            Actually, polygyny only became illegal in the US because of Mormonism. To my knowledge, it was never illegal until Smith and his heretics started marrying underaged girls and the government stepped in with the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1886. Before that point, it was never an issue in the USA. The government could care less if we practice Biblical marriage. That’s obvious by the the fact they are starting to allow Sodomites the ‘right’ to marry. It all stems from the Humanist Manifesto 2 (1973); that document has become the de facto basis for recent laws in the States and internationally. This document denigrates religion and calls those who believe in an after life irrelevant and harmful and a host of other things. It elevates man to the status of his own savior and even states so.

            And to those of you who state that the cult of Mormonism has a lot of nice people in it, you’re right. But then, Satan used a brightly colored serpent to deceive our first parents, and he’s never been a horned monster with a tail and a forked tongue. If you knew anything about Mormonism’s origins and early days, you’d see it for what it is: a theologically dangerous cult that enslaves its membership and bears a striking resemblance to Islam in its origin. Read my article at the link below in one of my other posts regarding Islam and Mormomism.

          • Ed Sumner

            Actually, polygyny only became illegal in the US because of Mormonism. To my knowledge, it was never illegal until Smith and his heretics started marrying underaged girls and the government stepped in with the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1886. Before that point, it was never an issue in the USA. The government could care less if we practice Biblical marriage. That’s obvious by the the fact they are starting to allow Sodomites the ‘right’ to marry. It all stems from the Humanist Manifesto 2 (1973); that document has become the de facto basis for recent laws in the States and internationally. This document denigrates religion and calls those who believe in an after life irrelevant and harmful and a host of other things. It elevates man to the status of his own savior and even states so.

            And to those of you who state that the cult of Mormonism has a lot of nice people in it, you’re right. But then, Satan used a brightly colored serpent to deceive our first parents, and he’s never been a horned monster with a tail and a forked tongue. If you knew anything about Mormonism’s origins and early days, you’d see it for what it is: a theologically dangerous cult that enslaves its membership and bears a striking resemblance to Islam in its origin. Read my article at the link below in one of my other posts regarding Islam and Mormomism.

          • John Whitten

            Ed, I’m quite certain that if polygamy were to be legalized, it would NOT be Biblical in the vast majority of cases. In the same vein most monogamous marriages are not Biblical Even more so, the momentary co-habitation that permeates our society is not Biblical. I am not advocating, legalizing polygamy, but the decriminalizing of it. So that men could practice Biblical marriage to the extent of polygyny without fear of prosecution.

          • Ed Sumner

            When I was married, we didn’t need assistance. As for SSD, it’s not assistance. I paid into the escrow, now I receive.

            I was trying to determine your situation. You were being accused of scamming the government, that’s why I asked. As I said, based on what you’ve told me, I don’t see you doing anything wrong. It’s sad that you can’t marry your other wives, but there’s nothing that can be done about that for now.

            My concern is that if polygyny IS permitted in the US, it won’t be Biblical.

          • FC

            You didn’t answer yes or no.. So I guess the answer is, you don’t know if any of the women you have had sexual relations with have or ever has used welfare.

            Are you certain you wont be collecting any more then you paid in on the assistance program your receiving? BTW. most people I know have paid in, so each and everyone of them feel their just getting paid back..

            I hope you realize you shouldn’t have to answer to me for any of this. I just wanted you to know how intrusive it feels. Being asked questions about your personal business, especially your sex life by a stranger, just so you can be judged. Its well beyond the line of anything that ever should be asked.

          • FC

            You didn’t answer yes or no.. So I guess the answer is, you don’t know if any of the women you have had sexual relations with have or ever has used welfare.

            Are you certain you wont be collecting any more then you paid in on the assistance program your receiving? BTW. most people I know have paid in, so each and everyone of them feel their just getting paid back..

            I hope you realize you shouldn’t have to answer to me for any of this. I just wanted you to know how intrusive it feels. Being asked questions about your personal business, especially your sex life by a stranger, just so you can be judged. Its well beyond the line of anything that ever should be asked.

          • Ed Sumner

            Apparently you don’t read very well. I have no children. My wife left me. I am not aware of her being on assistance. I’m disabled, but that’s MY money, not Uncle’s. I paid, now I receive.

          • FC

            You didn’t answer either question. Surely you didn’t expect me to answer and you not be willing to do the same?

          • FC

            You didn’t answer either question. Surely you didn’t expect me to answer and you not be willing to do the same?

          • Chris Nystrom

            Being married biblically and being married legally are two different things. I know people who do not get marriage licenses because they do not think it is the government’s business and it has nothing to do with polygamy. There is nothing in the Bible that says you must get a marriage license to be married.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Being married biblically and being married legally are two different things. I know people who do not get marriage licenses because they do not think it is the government’s business and it has nothing to do with polygamy. There is nothing in the Bible that says you must get a marriage license to be married.

          • R.W. Deese

            Government approved marriages may actually be a form of making an unauthorized covenant for Biblical Christians. I would only use it for practical purposes, like bringing in a wife from another country.

          • Ed Sumner

            If you’re telling the truth, then I don’t have a problem with your situation, except for the fact that you’re NOT married to any wife after the first. Of course, legally you can’t be, and you should’ve waited.

            I am divorced; she left me, I didn’t leave her. We have no children.

          • FC

            I have answered this Ed.. I already said we aren’t and how I feel about the welfare system.

            Now you answer, Are you or any of the women you claim as a wife or claimed as a wife in the past or any women you have ever slept with or children
            whom you’ve fathered by those women currently (or in the past) receiving
            assistance from any government entity (local, state or federal)? This
            is a yes or no question?

            Yes we live in the same household and I am the Father and provider for my children.

            Now you answer, Are you currently in the same household with every women you have ever had sexual relations with? and are all your children living under your roof with you acting as their male provider and father? Yes or no question.

          • Ed Sumner

            OK, point blank question. Are you or any of the women you claim as wives or any of the children whom you’ve fathered by those women currently (or in the past) receiving assistance from any government entity (local, state or federal)? This is a yes or no question, as is this one.:

            Are you currently in the same household as these women and children acting as male provider and father?

          • January24

            ” . . . sure they may also need help at times but . . . ”

            There is no excuse for a man who is a Christian to EVER take on more than one wife to support — and the resultant multiple children.

            Because if he does take on extra wives and then ends up needing government welfare — as the vast majority of polygamous families do — then he is in direct violation of the Biblical command to Christians to take care of their households.

            If a man puts himself in the position of needing government welfare because he’s got too many mouths to feed because he took more than one wife, he has denied the Christian faith and is no better than an unbeliever, according to God’s Word through Timothy.

          • Ed Sumner

            January24, you can’t make that statement, because you don’t know the vast majority of polygamous families. I am interested in what FC’s response to my queries will be however.

            In the current economy, if any man, Christian or no, loses his job, it’s not likely that he will find work immediately. What then do you suggest a man DO in that situation? Let his family starve? Is the Church going to support his family until he gets back on his feet? That’s what the Church is supposed to do, but in my experience, that’s not what happens. Such persons are usually referred to Uncle Bam for assistance. So then, the Church ends up supporting the very government programs they say they’re against.

          • January24

            Ed,

            Since you have a serious interest in this subject, I highly recommend to you a book called “Escape,” by Carolyn Jessop.

            At age 18, Mrs. Jessop became the fourth wife of Merril Jessop, who was 32 years older than she and who already had MORE THAN THIRTY CHILDREN — many of them older than Carolyn.

            By the time Carolyn was able to escape from the abusive Mr. Jessop, she had already had eight children.

            In her book, Carolyn documents how Mr. Jessop was not gainfully employed and didn’t need to be since there was tons of government money rolling in, based on the existence of the 50 or so children fathered by Jessop.

            It was a hellish life, according to Carolyn. Despite having plenty of government welfare money, Jessop spent his time and most of the money on one or two favored “wives” — leaving the rest of the women and all of the children to eat scraps of food.

            That’s polygamy. Perhaps not all situations are that extreme. But as polygamous families add wives and children, it is almost inevitable that they will come to depend on government welfare.

          • January24

            Ed,

            Since you have a serious interest in this subject, I highly recommend to you a book called “Escape,” by Carolyn Jessop.

            At age 18, Mrs. Jessop became the fourth wife of Merril Jessop, who was 32 years older than she and who already had MORE THAN THIRTY CHILDREN — many of them older than Carolyn.

            By the time Carolyn was able to escape from the abusive Mr. Jessop, she had already had eight children.

            In her book, Carolyn documents how Mr. Jessop was not gainfully employed and didn’t need to be since there was tons of government money rolling in, based on the existence of the 50 or so children fathered by Jessop.

            It was a hellish life, according to Carolyn. Despite having plenty of government welfare money, Jessop spent his time and most of the money on one or two favored “wives” — leaving the rest of the women and all of the children to eat scraps of food.

            That’s polygamy. Perhaps not all situations are that extreme. But as polygamous families add wives and children, it is almost inevitable that they will come to depend on government welfare.

          • Ed Sumner

            I would disagree that is polygamy. The man wasn’t married to any more than the first wife I’d reckon. Proper polygyny requires that the husband be covenanted to each wife, that he give each one her sexual due, that he care for and love each of them, that he maintain a proper house (no separate housing), that there be no sexual contact between the women, and no practice of other perversion (more than one wife in sexual contact with the husband at a time). What you’ve described is perversion of the Biblical practice.

            A man desiring more than one wife must follow Ex 21:10. In cases where the Church has been favorable to polygyny, it has been under circumstances such as: A man whose first wife is unable to permit sexual union (due to illness), or where a man has committed sexual misconduct and must marry the woman to avoid ‘scandal’.

          • Ed Sumner

            I would disagree that is polygamy. The man wasn’t married to any more than the first wife I’d reckon. Proper polygyny requires that the husband be covenanted to each wife, that he give each one her sexual due, that he care for and love each of them, that he maintain a proper house (no separate housing), that there be no sexual contact between the women, and no practice of other perversion (more than one wife in sexual contact with the husband at a time). What you’ve described is perversion of the Biblical practice.

            A man desiring more than one wife must follow Ex 21:10. In cases where the Church has been favorable to polygyny, it has been under circumstances such as: A man whose first wife is unable to permit sexual union (due to illness), or where a man has committed sexual misconduct and must marry the woman to avoid ‘scandal’.

          • Katie Miller

            January, how many books do you think I can pull off a bookstore shelf that tell the desperate, horrifying, hellish life of a child, wife, etc., from a christian home, non-christian home, muslim home. athiest home, rich home ,poor home, black home, white home.

            The exception does not make the rule, and using the exception as a means of punishing others is dangerous and careless.

          • Katie Miller

            January, how many books do you think I can pull off a bookstore shelf that tell the desperate, horrifying, hellish life of a child, wife, etc., from a christian home, non-christian home, muslim home. athiest home, rich home ,poor home, black home, white home.

            The exception does not make the rule, and using the exception as a means of punishing others is dangerous and careless.

          • Katie Miller

            January, how many books do you think I can pull off a bookstore shelf that tell the desperate, horrifying, hellish life of a child, wife, etc., from a christian home, non-christian home, muslim home. athiest home, rich home ,poor home, black home, white home.

            The exception does not make the rule, and using the exception as a means of punishing others is dangerous and careless.

          • Randal Deese

            Mormon polygamy is entirely different than Christian polygamy!!

          • Randal Deese

            Mormon polygamy is entirely different than Christian polygamy!!

          • January24

            Ed,

            Since you have a serious interest in this subject, I highly recommend to you a book called “Escape,” by Carolyn Jessop.

            At age 18, Mrs. Jessop became the fourth wife of Merril Jessop, who was 32 years older than she and who already had MORE THAN THIRTY CHILDREN — many of them older than Carolyn.

            By the time Carolyn was able to escape from the abusive Mr. Jessop, she had already had eight children.

            In her book, Carolyn documents how Mr. Jessop was not gainfully employed and didn’t need to be since there was tons of government money rolling in, based on the existence of the 50 or so children fathered by Jessop.

            It was a hellish life, according to Carolyn. Despite having plenty of government welfare money, Jessop spent his time and most of the money on one or two favored “wives” — leaving the rest of the women and all of the children to eat scraps of food.

            That’s polygamy. Perhaps not all situations are that extreme. But as polygamous families add wives and children, it is almost inevitable that they will come to depend on government welfare.

          • January24

            Ed,

            You are so right that the Christian church is supposed to support those who truly are unable to provide for themselves. However, if you read the Bible, this group of helpless people was limited to elderly women with no children who could help them.

            If Christians didn’t have so many taxes forcibly extracted from them by the government, perhaps they would be more willing and able to do what they’re supposed to do, and that is to tithe ten percent to the church. If all genuine Christians tithed ten percent to the church, all needy Christians would be taken care of.

            I agree with you that the current economy is a disaster (thanks in great part to the policies inflicted upon America by the Democrats).

            But the truth is that Christian men must do anything and everything to make money in any legal manner. If they must take two part-time jobs, that is what they need to do. If they need to buy a mower and an old truck and mow lawns for cash, that is what they need to do.

            It’s harsh and difficult — just as life is often harsh and difficult. But the Christian life — when lived properly — is not easy. Jesus said, “In this life, you will have trouble.”

            But it is worth it to live the Christian life. The rewards are very great, as I’m sure you know. It’s just that in America, many people don’t take God’s Word very seriously and don’t actually commit themselves to obeying it.

            I am persuaded that if a man who is unemployed will take any legal work whatsoever to provide for his family — and then tithe ten percent of his meager earnings — that God will open doors for that man as a result of the man’s faithful adherence to His Word.

          • January24

            Ed,

            You are so right that the Christian church is supposed to support those who truly are unable to provide for themselves. However, if you read the Bible, this group of helpless people was limited to elderly women with no children who could help them.

            If Christians didn’t have so many taxes forcibly extracted from them by the government, perhaps they would be more willing and able to do what they’re supposed to do, and that is to tithe ten percent to the church. If all genuine Christians tithed ten percent to the church, all needy Christians would be taken care of.

            I agree with you that the current economy is a disaster (thanks in great part to the policies inflicted upon America by the Democrats).

            But the truth is that Christian men must do anything and everything to make money in any legal manner. If they must take two part-time jobs, that is what they need to do. If they need to buy a mower and an old truck and mow lawns for cash, that is what they need to do.

            It’s harsh and difficult — just as life is often harsh and difficult. But the Christian life — when lived properly — is not easy. Jesus said, “In this life, you will have trouble.”

            But it is worth it to live the Christian life. The rewards are very great, as I’m sure you know. It’s just that in America, many people don’t take God’s Word very seriously and don’t actually commit themselves to obeying it.

            I am persuaded that if a man who is unemployed will take any legal work whatsoever to provide for his family — and then tithe ten percent of his meager earnings — that God will open doors for that man as a result of the man’s faithful adherence to His Word.

          • Ed Sumner

            The New Testament speaks of giving as one can rather than tithing. And the OT tithe was often far more than a mere 10%.

          • Ed Sumner

            The New Testament speaks of giving as one can rather than tithing. And the OT tithe was often far more than a mere 10%.

          • Ed Sumner

            The New Testament speaks of giving as one can rather than tithing. And the OT tithe was often far more than a mere 10%.

          • January24

            Ed,

            You are so right that the Christian church is supposed to support those who truly are unable to provide for themselves. However, if you read the Bible, this group of helpless people was limited to elderly women with no children who could help them.

            If Christians didn’t have so many taxes forcibly extracted from them by the government, perhaps they would be more willing and able to do what they’re supposed to do, and that is to tithe ten percent to the church. If all genuine Christians tithed ten percent to the church, all needy Christians would be taken care of.

            I agree with you that the current economy is a disaster (thanks in great part to the policies inflicted upon America by the Democrats).

            But the truth is that Christian men must do anything and everything to make money in any legal manner. If they must take two part-time jobs, that is what they need to do. If they need to buy a mower and an old truck and mow lawns for cash, that is what they need to do.

            It’s harsh and difficult — just as life is often harsh and difficult. But the Christian life — when lived properly — is not easy. Jesus said, “In this life, you will have trouble.”

            But it is worth it to live the Christian life. The rewards are very great, as I’m sure you know. It’s just that in America, many people don’t take God’s Word very seriously and don’t actually commit themselves to obeying it.

            I am persuaded that if a man who is unemployed will take any legal work whatsoever to provide for his family — and then tithe ten percent of his meager earnings — that God will open doors for that man as a result of the man’s faithful adherence to His Word.

          • FC

            Agreed Ed, I have known many good monogamist men who have had to use some form of assistance or another. Running them in the ground because they felt they had to isn’t right. People get put in bad situations and have to make tough choices. All any of us can do is the best we can and hope the relationships we have built will be there to help us when we need help..

          • FC

            Agreed Ed, I have known many good monogamist men who have had to use some form of assistance or another. Running them in the ground because they felt they had to isn’t right. People get put in bad situations and have to make tough choices. All any of us can do is the best we can and hope the relationships we have built will be there to help us when we need help..

          • FC

            Agreed Ed, I have known many good monogamist men who have had to use some form of assistance or another. Running them in the ground because they felt they had to isn’t right. People get put in bad situations and have to make tough choices. All any of us can do is the best we can and hope the relationships we have built will be there to help us when we need help..

          • Randal Deese

            This is humanism. God’s Word makes it clear He desires that families be fruitful and multiply. Christ exhorted His followers to trust God for provision. All Scripture warns against is laziness. Moreover, if a man is willing to work where I am located, we have lots of work – lowest unemployment in the nation. Good grief!

          • Randal Deese

            This is humanism. God’s Word makes it clear He desires that families be fruitful and multiply. Christ exhorted His followers to trust God for provision. All Scripture warns against is laziness. Moreover, if a man is willing to work where I am located, we have lots of work – lowest unemployment in the nation. Good grief!

          • Ed Sumner

            Exactly. What I had been concerned about was that FC was being accused of taking from government when there was no proof that he was actually doing so.

          • Ed Sumner

            Exactly. What I had been concerned about was that FC was being accused of taking from government when there was no proof that he was actually doing so.

          • Randal Deese

            This is humanism. God’s Word makes it clear He desires that families be fruitful and multiply. Christ exhorted His followers to trust God for provision. All Scripture warns against is laziness. Moreover, if a man is willing to work where I am located, we have lots of work – lowest unemployment in the nation. Good grief!

          • Ed Sumner

            January24, you can’t make that statement, because you don’t know the vast majority of polygamous families. I am interested in what FC’s response to my queries will be however.

            In the current economy, if any man, Christian or no, loses his job, it’s not likely that he will find work immediately. What then do you suggest a man DO in that situation? Let his family starve? Is the Church going to support his family until he gets back on his feet? That’s what the Church is supposed to do, but in my experience, that’s not what happens. Such persons are usually referred to Uncle Bam for assistance. So then, the Church ends up supporting the very government programs they say they’re against.

          • Ed Sumner

            January24, you can’t make that statement, because you don’t know the vast majority of polygamous families. I am interested in what FC’s response to my queries will be however.

            In the current economy, if any man, Christian or no, loses his job, it’s not likely that he will find work immediately. What then do you suggest a man DO in that situation? Let his family starve? Is the Church going to support his family until he gets back on his feet? That’s what the Church is supposed to do, but in my experience, that’s not what happens. Such persons are usually referred to Uncle Bam for assistance. So then, the Church ends up supporting the very government programs they say they’re against.

          • FC

            Does not Timothy also cover the men that take on one wife? Are you saying they aren’t being told to be able to take care of their wives and children?

            Knowing that to be the case, a mono husband on welfare is no different then a polygamist one.

          • January24

            For the first time today, you have said something which happens to be correct. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

            A monogamous husband who is Christian and who could (even through the greatest of effort) provide for his family and fails to do so is in violation of God’s command for people to support their households.

            However, a monogamous man generally has fewer mouths to feed than a polygamous one, and therefore has elected a course of life which is less likely to lead to dependence on the government.

            Undoubtedly you are aware of the book called “Escape” by Carolyn Jessop. At 18, she became the fourth wife of a man who was 32 years older than she and who already had more than 40 children.

            By the time Carolyn escaped her hellish life (which was funded entirely by government welfare), she herself had eight children.

            it shows polygamy at its ugliest. But even if your situation is not that ugly (yet), you’d better live in such a way that you don’t violate God’s command about supporting your family without forcing your fellow citizens to pony up tax dollars to fund your lifestyle.

          • January24

            For the first time today, you have said something which happens to be correct. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

            A monogamous husband who is Christian and who could (even through the greatest of effort) provide for his family and fails to do so is in violation of God’s command for people to support their households.

            However, a monogamous man generally has fewer mouths to feed than a polygamous one, and therefore has elected a course of life which is less likely to lead to dependence on the government.

            Undoubtedly you are aware of the book called “Escape” by Carolyn Jessop. At 18, she became the fourth wife of a man who was 32 years older than she and who already had more than 40 children.

            By the time Carolyn escaped her hellish life (which was funded entirely by government welfare), she herself had eight children.

            it shows polygamy at its ugliest. But even if your situation is not that ugly (yet), you’d better live in such a way that you don’t violate God’s command about supporting your family without forcing your fellow citizens to pony up tax dollars to fund your lifestyle.

          • FC

            Every polygamist practicing today could have 100 kids each, all on welfare and they still wouldn’t touch the amount that goes out to all the fatherless children. All men should be held accountable to take care of their children. This is not a polygamist issue. It is a father take care of your children issue.

          • FC

            Every polygamist practicing today could have 100 kids each, all on welfare and they still wouldn’t touch the amount that goes out to all the fatherless children. All men should be held accountable to take care of their children. This is not a polygamist issue. It is a father take care of your children issue.

          • FC

            Every polygamist practicing today could have 100 kids each, all on welfare and they still wouldn’t touch the amount that goes out to all the fatherless children. All men should be held accountable to take care of their children. This is not a polygamist issue. It is a father take care of your children issue.

          • John Whitten

            I have only read this far in the comments, but I see a pattern emerging among those opposing the practice of polygyny (the Biblical form of polygamy). That pattern seems to take the shape of assuming that fundamentalist Mormonism is an example of biblical polygyny and that Muslims somehow are also practicing the same type of polygamy. From my study of the Bible, I find that neither Muslims or any branch of Mormonism is practicing polygyny the way the men of the Bible did. Also, the pattern includes assuming that anyone practicing polygyny is or will soon be on government support. There is no evidence to support that theory aside from the expectation that all polygynists are Mormon/Muslim. From FC’s picture, I assume that he is likely a polygynist, yet he asserts that he supports his larger family. I think we should accept his word as valid truth, unless and until we can prove that all polygynists are after the Mormon/Muslim stripe. To fail to do so is to stretch the bounds of good logic and leave us with the fallacy that since Charles Manson has two eyes and long hair and he is a murderous maniac, therefore all men with two eyes and long hair are also murderous maniacs.

          • John Whitten

            I have only read this far in the comments, but I see a pattern emerging among those opposing the practice of polygyny (the Biblical form of polygamy). That pattern seems to take the shape of assuming that fundamentalist Mormonism is an example of biblical polygyny and that Muslims somehow are also practicing the same type of polygamy. From my study of the Bible, I find that neither Muslims or any branch of Mormonism is practicing polygyny the way the men of the Bible did. Also, the pattern includes assuming that anyone practicing polygyny is or will soon be on government support. There is no evidence to support that theory aside from the expectation that all polygynists are Mormon/Muslim. From FC’s picture, I assume that he is likely a polygynist, yet he asserts that he supports his larger family. I think we should accept his word as valid truth, unless and until we can prove that all polygynists are after the Mormon/Muslim stripe. To fail to do so is to stretch the bounds of good logic and leave us with the fallacy that since Charles Manson has two eyes and long hair and he is a murderous maniac, therefore all men with two eyes and long hair are also murderous maniacs.

          • John Whitten

            I have only read this far in the comments, but I see a pattern emerging among those opposing the practice of polygyny (the Biblical form of polygamy). That pattern seems to take the shape of assuming that fundamentalist Mormonism is an example of biblical polygyny and that Muslims somehow are also practicing the same type of polygamy. From my study of the Bible, I find that neither Muslims or any branch of Mormonism is practicing polygyny the way the men of the Bible did. Also, the pattern includes assuming that anyone practicing polygyny is or will soon be on government support. There is no evidence to support that theory aside from the expectation that all polygynists are Mormon/Muslim. From FC’s picture, I assume that he is likely a polygynist, yet he asserts that he supports his larger family. I think we should accept his word as valid truth, unless and until we can prove that all polygynists are after the Mormon/Muslim stripe. To fail to do so is to stretch the bounds of good logic and leave us with the fallacy that since Charles Manson has two eyes and long hair and he is a murderous maniac, therefore all men with two eyes and long hair are also murderous maniacs.

          • January24

            For the first time today, you have said something which happens to be correct. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

            A monogamous husband who is Christian and who could (even through the greatest of effort) provide for his family and fails to do so is in violation of God’s command for people to support their households.

            However, a monogamous man generally has fewer mouths to feed than a polygamous one, and therefore has elected a course of life which is less likely to lead to dependence on the government.

            Undoubtedly you are aware of the book called “Escape” by Carolyn Jessop. At 18, she became the fourth wife of a man who was 32 years older than she and who already had more than 40 children.

            By the time Carolyn escaped her hellish life (which was funded entirely by government welfare), she herself had eight children.

            it shows polygamy at its ugliest. But even if your situation is not that ugly (yet), you’d better live in such a way that you don’t violate God’s command about supporting your family without forcing your fellow citizens to pony up tax dollars to fund your lifestyle.

          • FC

            Does not Timothy also cover the men that take on one wife? Are you saying they aren’t being told to be able to take care of their wives and children?

            Knowing that to be the case, a mono husband on welfare is no different then a polygamist one.

          • Katie Miller

            …vast majority of polygamous families do??? January, where do you get these “facts”?

          • Katie Miller

            …vast majority of polygamous families do??? January, where do you get these “facts”?

          • January24

            ” . . . sure they may also need help at times but . . . ”

            There is no excuse for a man who is a Christian to EVER take on more than one wife to support — and the resultant multiple children.

            Because if he does take on extra wives and then ends up needing government welfare — as the vast majority of polygamous families do — then he is in direct violation of the Biblical command to Christians to take care of their households.

            If a man puts himself in the position of needing government welfare because he’s got too many mouths to feed because he took more than one wife, he has denied the Christian faith and is no better than an unbeliever, according to God’s Word through Timothy.

          • Katie Miller

            Good point. Men who want more than one wife are willing to support them, since they are actively advocating to marry them. Men who want to take advantage of a woman just get what they want and leave, without providing support.

          • Katie Miller

            Good point. Men who want more than one wife are willing to support them, since they are actively advocating to marry them. Men who want to take advantage of a woman just get what they want and leave, without providing support.

          • Katie Miller

            Good point. Men who want more than one wife are willing to support them, since they are actively advocating to marry them. Men who want to take advantage of a woman just get what they want and leave, without providing support.

          • FC

            Thank you, its actually really funny that I would be accused of taking assistance, I am totally against entitlement programs, But that doesn’t even matter, I’m sure there are polygamists that are on them, just like there is monogamists and everyone else, from every walk of life. That is not a polygamy issue. In fact I bet polygamists don’t make up even 1% of what is paid out.

            Besides, polygamists believe in marriage, they don’t believe in sleeping around, creating babies and running off. That alone should tell people something, sure they may also need help at times but they believe in taking responsibility. Which is far more then all the single babies daddies out there. So if the issue a person had was not taking care of their kids, why wouldn’t they be the target instead of the men who believe in marriage?

          • movingwaters

            European countries have allowed a huge influx of Muslims for a long time now. Socialism is so anti-family that they simply don’t have nearly enough children to replace their population. It is very common to have Muslims with 3-4 wives making lots of babies and receiving all these government benefits. That way you have the disadvantage of gradually taking over the country and having the host pay you to do it. Europe will be Islamic in just a very few decades.

            This is where we are headed someday. We are suffocating in our own dumb laws that have been given to us by Godless busybody liberals who think the little people just need someone to rule them.

          • January24

            Thank you, Movingwaters. You are exactly and precisely correct.

            The European countries who invited in a horde of practitioners of the evil cult of Islam were the authors of their own current pain and eventual takeover by Muslims.

            What idiocy. And, yes, that IS where America is headed.

          • January24

            Thank you, Movingwaters. You are exactly and precisely correct.

            The European countries who invited in a horde of practitioners of the evil cult of Islam were the authors of their own current pain and eventual takeover by Muslims.

            What idiocy. And, yes, that IS where America is headed.

          • January24

            Thank you, Movingwaters. You are exactly and precisely correct.

            The European countries who invited in a horde of practitioners of the evil cult of Islam were the authors of their own current pain and eventual takeover by Muslims.

            What idiocy. And, yes, that IS where America is headed.

          • $139615

            There are polygamist Muslims here in the U.S. already. Since polygamy isn’t legal here,they bring in their multiple wives and claim then as sisters or cousins, since they are allowed to bring in extended family. Most of them are in Minnesota and Michigan. They get extra benefits, which I don’t understand. If I were to try to claim MY adult sister, daughter and cousins; they would laugh me out of the welfare office. it’s really bad in the U.K.,, but they ahve been at this madness slightly longer than we have.
            It will become a problem here too.

          • $139615

            There are polygamist Muslims here in the U.S. already. Since polygamy isn’t legal here,they bring in their multiple wives and claim then as sisters or cousins, since they are allowed to bring in extended family. Most of them are in Minnesota and Michigan. They get extra benefits, which I don’t understand. If I were to try to claim MY adult sister, daughter and cousins; they would laugh me out of the welfare office. it’s really bad in the U.K.,, but they ahve been at this madness slightly longer than we have.
            It will become a problem here too.

          • Ed Sumner

            Since a Muslim comes from another culture where polygyny is already legal, he’s not doing anything illegal by having more than one wife; but getting them on government assistance just to do so is DEAD WRONG.

          • Cami W

            if any culture immigrates to the U.S they should adhere to our laws or go back home, or be deported if they don’t…Political correctness is America’s downfall.

          • Cami W

            if any culture immigrates to the U.S they should adhere to our laws or go back home, or be deported if they don’t…Political correctness is America’s downfall.

          • Cami W

            if any culture immigrates to the U.S they should adhere to our laws or go back home, or be deported if they don’t…Political correctness is America’s downfall.

          • Ed Sumner

            Since a Muslim comes from another culture where polygyny is already legal, he’s not doing anything illegal by having more than one wife; but getting them on government assistance just to do so is DEAD WRONG.

          • Ed Sumner

            Since a Muslim comes from another culture where polygyny is already legal, he’s not doing anything illegal by having more than one wife; but getting them on government assistance just to do so is DEAD WRONG.

          • Cami W

            Linda, you’re right, in Dearborn Michigan – the largest Mosque in the U.S. – Muslims are even marrying underage kids (along with slavery) and the Michigan AG will do nothing about it, for fear I suppose…with several Muslims in Obama’s administration, including an Imam “Sharia” czar, I can understand his fear.

          • Cami W

            Linda, you’re right, in Dearborn Michigan – the largest Mosque in the U.S. – Muslims are even marrying underage kids (along with slavery) and the Michigan AG will do nothing about it, for fear I suppose…with several Muslims in Obama’s administration, including an Imam “Sharia” czar, I can understand his fear.

          • Ed Sumner

            Proof please? And the other thing is, if they are legally married in the nation where they came from previously, there is nothing US jurisprudence can do. If they come HERE and marry a second wife, under current law, they are committing bigamy and subject to the penalties.

          • Ed Sumner

            Proof please? And the other thing is, if they are legally married in the nation where they came from previously, there is nothing US jurisprudence can do. If they come HERE and marry a second wife, under current law, they are committing bigamy and subject to the penalties.

          • Ed Sumner

            Proof please? And the other thing is, if they are legally married in the nation where they came from previously, there is nothing US jurisprudence can do. If they come HERE and marry a second wife, under current law, they are committing bigamy and subject to the penalties.

          • Cami W

            Linda, you’re right, in Dearborn Michigan – the largest Mosque in the U.S. – Muslims are even marrying underage kids (along with slavery) and the Michigan AG will do nothing about it, for fear I suppose…with several Muslims in Obama’s administration, including an Imam “Sharia” czar, I can understand his fear.

          • Alex M

            Bigamy is unlawful in the UK. Some Muslims who are lawfully married have been known to take a second ‘wife’ in a religious ceremony, but this cannot be registered as a civil marriage. Legally, it is no different from taking a mistress, which is a sport not restricted to just one group in society.

          • $139615

            There are polygamist Muslims here in the U.S. already. Since polygamy isn’t legal here,they bring in their multiple wives and claim then as sisters or cousins, since they are allowed to bring in extended family. Most of them are in Minnesota and Michigan. They get extra benefits, which I don’t understand. If I were to try to claim MY adult sister, daughter and cousins; they would laugh me out of the welfare office. it’s really bad in the U.K.,, but they ahve been at this madness slightly longer than we have.
            It will become a problem here too.

          • movingwaters

            European countries have allowed a huge influx of Muslims for a long time now. Socialism is so anti-family that they simply don’t have nearly enough children to replace their population. It is very common to have Muslims with 3-4 wives making lots of babies and receiving all these government benefits. That way you have the disadvantage of gradually taking over the country and having the host pay you to do it. Europe will be Islamic in just a very few decades.

            This is where we are headed someday. We are suffocating in our own dumb laws that have been given to us by Godless busybody liberals who think the little people just need someone to rule them.

          • movingwaters

            European countries have allowed a huge influx of Muslims for a long time now. Socialism is so anti-family that they simply don’t have nearly enough children to replace their population. It is very common to have Muslims with 3-4 wives making lots of babies and receiving all these government benefits. That way you have the disadvantage of gradually taking over the country and having the host pay you to do it. Europe will be Islamic in just a very few decades.

            This is where we are headed someday. We are suffocating in our own dumb laws that have been given to us by Godless busybody liberals who think the little people just need someone to rule them.

          • ARMAND PROULX

            ED YOU ARE SO RIGHT. WHEN I GOT OUT OF THE NAVY IN 1950 I SETTLED IN SALT LAKE CITY.. I HAD NEVER BEEN THERE BEFORE BUT I SOON FOUND THE MORMON PEOPLE TO BE FANTASTIC.WHEN I ENROLLED AT THE UNIVERSITY I FOUND THAT A LOT OF THE STUDENTS WERE FROM THE SOUTH PART OF THE STATE AND FROM POLYGAMIST FAMILIES. THEY TOO WERE WONDERFUL PEOPLE.

          • Ed Sumner

            My problem with Mormon polygyny is that it has a fallacious theological base (i.e.: make more babies to get spirits down from heaven and into our world), just as Mormonism on the whole has a fallacious theological base. For some interesting info on Mormonism and Islam, check this out:

            http://www.forerunner.com/blog/islam-and-mormonism-kissin-cousins

          • Ed Sumner

            My problem with Mormon polygyny is that it has a fallacious theological base (i.e.: make more babies to get spirits down from heaven and into our world), just as Mormonism on the whole has a fallacious theological base. For some interesting info on Mormonism and Islam, check this out:

            http://www.forerunner.com/blog/islam-and-mormonism-kissin-cousins

          • LoreneFairchild

            IMHO, Mormons are very nice people but their doctrine is not Biblical.

          • LoreneFairchild

            IMHO, Mormons are very nice people but their doctrine is not Biblical.

          • ARMAND PROULX

            ED YOU ARE SO RIGHT. WHEN I GOT OUT OF THE NAVY IN 1950 I SETTLED IN SALT LAKE CITY.. I HAD NEVER BEEN THERE BEFORE BUT I SOON FOUND THE MORMON PEOPLE TO BE FANTASTIC.WHEN I ENROLLED AT THE UNIVERSITY I FOUND THAT A LOT OF THE STUDENTS WERE FROM THE SOUTH PART OF THE STATE AND FROM POLYGAMIST FAMILIES. THEY TOO WERE WONDERFUL PEOPLE.

          • Rella Vaughn

            Amen! Ed, thank you. How many men do any of us know who have children w/ more than one woman? How many men complain that they have to pay child support for the children from previous relationships? How many of us only got to visit our fathers once in awhile because he had moved on to another woman and made a new family? These men are accepted as ordinary and decent, but when a man has more than one wife and children w/ each, that he fully supports and has a daily relationship w/ all of them, he’s a creep?! Really?

            This is all a double standard. When my first husband left for another woman and left three children under 5 w/ a mother w/out any skills to support them no one called him a creep. My previous plural hubby took on me and my kids and because of his fears of public scrutiny we hid and lied. This destroyed a wonderful family and caused great heartbreak, but my plural hubby would be called a creep. Nice!

          • Ed Sumner

            Polygyny (more than one wife at the same time) is Biblically permitted. Polyandry (a woman having more than one husband at the same time) is not. Ministers may NOT have more than one wife at a time (per Paul). If a woman is divorced, any man who marries her commits adultery. If a man remarries, as long as he doesn’t marry a divorced woman, he’s committed no wrong, near as I can tell from Scripture. That’s why Jesus told the Jews not to marry a woman who was divorced, because covenantally, she still belongs to her husband. If HE broke the covenant by committing adultery, he’d be stoned, so the woman would be a widow. If she committed adultery, she would be stoned, he’d be a widower and could remarry. A man could divorce a woman privately (as Yusef was about to do with Miryam) if he loved her so much that he couldn’t bear her being stoned.

            The lines are fuzzier now. We don’t stone adulterers. They used to receive heavy penalties though. If man has children, and HE was responsible for adultery, I think he should still have to support the children and the wife, whether or not she refuses to remain in the household with him. That is how he bears his shame. If he repents, I believe that she is obligated to forgive him, the question would be, does she have to return to his home?

            And then there is question, does a man who wants to take a second wife have to have his first wife’s permission? It was always a patriarchal thing in Israel, if a woman’s father said “No,” then that was the end of it. Women today would see themselves as somehow inadequate if a man wanted more than one wife, because we have a different culture. So then polygyny is also affected by culture, as well as law.

          • Ed Sumner

            Polygyny (more than one wife at the same time) is Biblically permitted. Polyandry (a woman having more than one husband at the same time) is not. Ministers may NOT have more than one wife at a time (per Paul). If a woman is divorced, any man who marries her commits adultery. If a man remarries, as long as he doesn’t marry a divorced woman, he’s committed no wrong, near as I can tell from Scripture. That’s why Jesus told the Jews not to marry a woman who was divorced, because covenantally, she still belongs to her husband. If HE broke the covenant by committing adultery, he’d be stoned, so the woman would be a widow. If she committed adultery, she would be stoned, he’d be a widower and could remarry. A man could divorce a woman privately (as Yusef was about to do with Miryam) if he loved her so much that he couldn’t bear her being stoned.

            The lines are fuzzier now. We don’t stone adulterers. They used to receive heavy penalties though. If man has children, and HE was responsible for adultery, I think he should still have to support the children and the wife, whether or not she refuses to remain in the household with him. That is how he bears his shame. If he repents, I believe that she is obligated to forgive him, the question would be, does she have to return to his home?

            And then there is question, does a man who wants to take a second wife have to have his first wife’s permission? It was always a patriarchal thing in Israel, if a woman’s father said “No,” then that was the end of it. Women today would see themselves as somehow inadequate if a man wanted more than one wife, because we have a different culture. So then polygyny is also affected by culture, as well as law.

          • Ed Sumner

            Polygyny (more than one wife at the same time) is Biblically permitted. Polyandry (a woman having more than one husband at the same time) is not. Ministers may NOT have more than one wife at a time (per Paul). If a woman is divorced, any man who marries her commits adultery. If a man remarries, as long as he doesn’t marry a divorced woman, he’s committed no wrong, near as I can tell from Scripture. That’s why Jesus told the Jews not to marry a woman who was divorced, because covenantally, she still belongs to her husband. If HE broke the covenant by committing adultery, he’d be stoned, so the woman would be a widow. If she committed adultery, she would be stoned, he’d be a widower and could remarry. A man could divorce a woman privately (as Yusef was about to do with Miryam) if he loved her so much that he couldn’t bear her being stoned.

            The lines are fuzzier now. We don’t stone adulterers. They used to receive heavy penalties though. If man has children, and HE was responsible for adultery, I think he should still have to support the children and the wife, whether or not she refuses to remain in the household with him. That is how he bears his shame. If he repents, I believe that she is obligated to forgive him, the question would be, does she have to return to his home?

            And then there is question, does a man who wants to take a second wife have to have his first wife’s permission? It was always a patriarchal thing in Israel, if a woman’s father said “No,” then that was the end of it. Women today would see themselves as somehow inadequate if a man wanted more than one wife, because we have a different culture. So then polygyny is also affected by culture, as well as law.

          • Rella Vaughn

            Amen! Ed, thank you. How many men do any of us know who have children w/ more than one woman? How many men complain that they have to pay child support for the children from previous relationships? How many of us only got to visit our fathers once in awhile because he had moved on to another woman and made a new family? These men are accepted as ordinary and decent, but when a man has more than one wife and children w/ each, that he fully supports and has a daily relationship w/ all of them, he’s a creep?! Really?

            This is all a double standard. When my first husband left for another woman and left three children under 5 w/ a mother w/out any skills to support them no one called him a creep. My previous plural hubby took on me and my kids and because of his fears of public scrutiny we hid and lied. This destroyed a wonderful family and caused great heartbreak, but my plural hubby would be called a creep. Nice!

          • Rella Vaughn

            Amen! Ed, thank you. How many men do any of us know who have children w/ more than one woman? How many men complain that they have to pay child support for the children from previous relationships? How many of us only got to visit our fathers once in awhile because he had moved on to another woman and made a new family? These men are accepted as ordinary and decent, but when a man has more than one wife and children w/ each, that he fully supports and has a daily relationship w/ all of them, he’s a creep?! Really?

            This is all a double standard. When my first husband left for another woman and left three children under 5 w/ a mother w/out any skills to support them no one called him a creep. My previous plural hubby took on me and my kids and because of his fears of public scrutiny we hid and lied. This destroyed a wonderful family and caused great heartbreak, but my plural hubby would be called a creep. Nice!

          • Randal Deese

            It is a sin to falsely accuse people. I know him, and he is no moocher, and now your character has been revealed with your own words!!

          • Randal Deese

            It is a sin to falsely accuse people. I know him, and he is no moocher, and now your character has been revealed with your own words!!

          • Randal Deese

            It is a sin to falsely accuse people. I know him, and he is no moocher, and now your character has been revealed with your own words!!

        • January24

          Here’s a message to FC, the creep with the one wife and the one concubine and who knows how many children — who’s been on here defending his polygamous way of life, even though he’s sucking government teat to support his mob:

          1 Timothy 5:8: “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

          So FC (and all you other polygamists): Get off the freaking computer and get a job. You’ll probably need two jobs.

          You’re worse than an unbeliever, so you can stop quoting any Bible to me.

        • January24

          Here’s a message to FC, the creep with the one wife and the one concubine and who knows how many children — who’s been on here defending his polygamous way of life, even though he’s sucking government teat to support his mob:

          1 Timothy 5:8: “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

          So FC (and all you other polygamists): Get off the freaking computer and get a job. You’ll probably need two jobs.

          You’re worse than an unbeliever, so you can stop quoting any Bible to me.

      • fliteking

        Best post on the page Jubilee.

      • fliteking

        Best post on the page Jubilee.

      • fliteking

        Best post on the page Jubilee.

      • R.W. Deese

        I true, Biblical understanding man would allow his daughter in a polygynous relationship. He would be most concerned about the character of the husband, not whether he had more than one wife.

    • jubilee

      you may be right about that one, but you, i think, wouldn’t have a father in law. A read dad wouldn’t let his daughter get into jams like this—if they have a close relationship

    • mac12sam12

      I wonder if they have the same cycle?

      • FC

        I have heard that some can link up that way, After a year, that hasn’t happened in our situation though.

      • FC

        I have heard that some can link up that way, After a year, that hasn’t happened in our situation though.

        • January24

          Gross. Get out of here with your wack-job blathering.

          (And by the way, how much in government “entitlements” do you and your concubines and spawn get each month? Everybody knows that the taxpayers always end up footing the bill for the multiple wives and dozens of offspring.)

          • FC

            LOL. I agree everyone should be responsible for their children.

            What do you suppose the break down is between single mothers with multiple baby daddies and polygamists on welfare?

            Are you seriously saying that a man who is at least trying to support his wife or wives and children is worse then all the men out there who create babies with women and then leave them, leaving someone else to pick up the check? Why would you go after polygamists for doing this when they make up such a small portion of the % paid out of these programs?

          • January24

            Sorry, FC.

            I must have missed your statement that your family isn’t getting government benefits.

            You can’t say it because it isn’t true, is it? You ARE getting government benefits. Just admit it.

            You’re one of those men are are “at least trying to support” your wives and children, aren’t you? But you’re not succeeding one hundred percent, are you? Sorry, bub. “Trying” isn’t good enough. I don’t want to support any part of your brood in any way whatsoever.

            1 Timothy 5:8 says that YOU ARE WORSE THAN AN UNBELIEVER AND THAT YOU HAVE DENIED THE FAITH.
            Tell us about your job. Why do you have time to be on here during the middle of the day?

          • January24

            Sorry, FC.

            I must have missed your statement that your family isn’t getting government benefits.

            You can’t say it because it isn’t true, is it? You ARE getting government benefits. Just admit it.

            You’re one of those men are are “at least trying to support” your wives and children, aren’t you? But you’re not succeeding one hundred percent, are you? Sorry, bub. “Trying” isn’t good enough. I don’t want to support any part of your brood in any way whatsoever.

            1 Timothy 5:8 says that YOU ARE WORSE THAN AN UNBELIEVER AND THAT YOU HAVE DENIED THE FAITH.
            Tell us about your job. Why do you have time to be on here during the middle of the day?

          • FC’s Wife

            OH the ignorance is astounding! No. There I said it NO we are not nor ever have been on Government assistance of any kind. You?

          • FC’s Wife

            OH the ignorance is astounding! No. There I said it NO we are not nor ever have been on Government assistance of any kind. You?

          • Cory Hicks

            24, I am sorry, but your arguements are not persuading anyone. You keep asking the same questions and expect different answers. Lawyers do this, but MOST are smart enough to ask the question differently. 1 they are not on government assistance, 2 they have no children, 3 drop the god card if you want to have a reasonable debate.
            I hope you are not one of those Baptist that protest funerals, but it would explain a lot.
            Good night.

          • FC’s Wife

            Thank you Cory but to be clear I never said we had no children I was just pointing out that he had never asked. Just assumed

          • Cory Hicks

            Sorry, I also stand corrected.

          • Cory Hicks

            Sorry, I also stand corrected.

          • Cory Hicks

            Sorry, I also stand corrected.

          • Cory Hicks

            24, I am sorry, but your arguements are not persuading anyone. You keep asking the same questions and expect different answers. Lawyers do this, but MOST are smart enough to ask the question differently. 1 they are not on government assistance, 2 they have no children, 3 drop the god card if you want to have a reasonable debate.
            I hope you are not one of those Baptist that protest funerals, but it would explain a lot.
            Good night.

          • Cory Hicks

            24, I am sorry, but your arguements are not persuading anyone. You keep asking the same questions and expect different answers. Lawyers do this, but MOST are smart enough to ask the question differently. 1 they are not on government assistance, 2 they have no children, 3 drop the god card if you want to have a reasonable debate.
            I hope you are not one of those Baptist that protest funerals, but it would explain a lot.
            Good night.

          • January24

            Sorry, FC.

            I must have missed your statement that your family isn’t getting government benefits.

            You can’t say it because it isn’t true, is it? You ARE getting government benefits. Just admit it.

            You’re one of those men are are “at least trying to support” your wives and children, aren’t you? But you’re not succeeding one hundred percent, are you? Sorry, bub. “Trying” isn’t good enough. I don’t want to support any part of your brood in any way whatsoever.

            1 Timothy 5:8 says that YOU ARE WORSE THAN AN UNBELIEVER AND THAT YOU HAVE DENIED THE FAITH.
            Tell us about your job. Why do you have time to be on here during the middle of the day?

          • FC

            LOL. I agree everyone should be responsible for their children.

            What do you suppose the break down is between single mothers with multiple baby daddies and polygamists on welfare?

            Are you seriously saying that a man who is at least trying to support his wife or wives and children is worse then all the men out there who create babies with women and then leave them, leaving someone else to pick up the check? Why would you go after polygamists for doing this when they make up such a small portion of the % paid out of these programs?

          • FC

            LOL. I agree everyone should be responsible for their children.

            What do you suppose the break down is between single mothers with multiple baby daddies and polygamists on welfare?

            Are you seriously saying that a man who is at least trying to support his wife or wives and children is worse then all the men out there who create babies with women and then leave them, leaving someone else to pick up the check? Why would you go after polygamists for doing this when they make up such a small portion of the % paid out of these programs?

          • John Whitten

            ” Everybody knows that the taxpayers always end up footing the bill for the multiple wives and dozens of offspring.)” …January24. Good job of presenting unsubstantiated generalizations, can we please deal with factual issues?

          • January24

            John,

            I suggest that if you haven’t read Carolyn Jessop’s book, “Escape,” that you do so immediately. It’s an excellent education in polygamous practices.

            When she was 18 years old, Carolyn was forced to marry the vile Merril Jessop, who already had three “wives” and more than 40 children. Oh, and he was also 32 years older than Carolyn.

            By the time Carolyn escaped from his evil grasp, she herself had produced eight children in the midst of a hellish lifestyle that she portrays in great detail.

            The whole mob of Jessops were being supported by the government. “King daddy” Merril didn’t want or need a job because of all the government money rolling in for the “wives,” who were legally single mothers with children.

            Of course, Merril had total control and grabbed all the money himself. He spent it on trips for himself and his favorite wife, while the rest of the Jessop mob lived on scraps of food.

            This is not about religious freedom or love for his “wives.” It is a sordid scam of taxpayers and abuse of women and children. If you dare to read it, it will open your eyes.

          • January24

            John,

            I suggest that if you haven’t read Carolyn Jessop’s book, “Escape,” that you do so immediately. It’s an excellent education in polygamous practices.

            When she was 18 years old, Carolyn was forced to marry the vile Merril Jessop, who already had three “wives” and more than 40 children. Oh, and he was also 32 years older than Carolyn.

            By the time Carolyn escaped from his evil grasp, she herself had produced eight children in the midst of a hellish lifestyle that she portrays in great detail.

            The whole mob of Jessops were being supported by the government. “King daddy” Merril didn’t want or need a job because of all the government money rolling in for the “wives,” who were legally single mothers with children.

            Of course, Merril had total control and grabbed all the money himself. He spent it on trips for himself and his favorite wife, while the rest of the Jessop mob lived on scraps of food.

            This is not about religious freedom or love for his “wives.” It is a sordid scam of taxpayers and abuse of women and children. If you dare to read it, it will open your eyes.

          • January24

            John,

            I suggest that if you haven’t read Carolyn Jessop’s book, “Escape,” that you do so immediately. It’s an excellent education in polygamous practices.

            When she was 18 years old, Carolyn was forced to marry the vile Merril Jessop, who already had three “wives” and more than 40 children. Oh, and he was also 32 years older than Carolyn.

            By the time Carolyn escaped from his evil grasp, she herself had produced eight children in the midst of a hellish lifestyle that she portrays in great detail.

            The whole mob of Jessops were being supported by the government. “King daddy” Merril didn’t want or need a job because of all the government money rolling in for the “wives,” who were legally single mothers with children.

            Of course, Merril had total control and grabbed all the money himself. He spent it on trips for himself and his favorite wife, while the rest of the Jessop mob lived on scraps of food.

            This is not about religious freedom or love for his “wives.” It is a sordid scam of taxpayers and abuse of women and children. If you dare to read it, it will open your eyes.

          • John Whitten

            ” Everybody knows that the taxpayers always end up footing the bill for the multiple wives and dozens of offspring.)” …January24. Good job of presenting unsubstantiated generalizations, can we please deal with factual issues?

        • January24

          Gross. Get out of here with your wack-job blathering.

          (And by the way, how much in government “entitlements” do you and your concubines and spawn get each month? Everybody knows that the taxpayers always end up footing the bill for the multiple wives and dozens of offspring.)

        • January24

          Gross. Get out of here with your wack-job blathering.

          (And by the way, how much in government “entitlements” do you and your concubines and spawn get each month? Everybody knows that the taxpayers always end up footing the bill for the multiple wives and dozens of offspring.)

    • mac12sam12

      I wonder if they have the same cycle?

    • mac12sam12

      I wonder if they have the same cycle?

    • Frank W Brown

      lmao

    • Frank W Brown

      lmao

    • sovereigntyofone

      Worse than that, is when they (all the wives ) wants to divorce you all at the same time. It’s bad enough when only one wife takes you to the cleaners.

    • sovereigntyofone

      Worse than that, is when they (all the wives ) wants to divorce you all at the same time. It’s bad enough when only one wife takes you to the cleaners.

    • sovereigntyofone

      Worse than that, is when they (all the wives ) wants to divorce you all at the same time. It’s bad enough when only one wife takes you to the cleaners.

      • January24

        One,

        All of the wives except the first one are not wives in the legal sense. They’re just single mothers. Single mothers who are being supported by government welfare.

      • January24

        One,

        All of the wives except the first one are not wives in the legal sense. They’re just single mothers. Single mothers who are being supported by government welfare.

        • jerrycollie

          Yeah, and even wife #1 probably is not married to him. She gets a welfare check as a single mom also.

        • jerrycollie

          Yeah, and even wife #1 probably is not married to him. She gets a welfare check as a single mom also.

        • jerrycollie

          Yeah, and even wife #1 probably is not married to him. She gets a welfare check as a single mom also.

      • January24

        One,

        All of the wives except the first one are not wives in the legal sense. They’re just single mothers. Single mothers who are being supported by government welfare.

    • 7papa7

      Once the polygamists get what they want then the pedophiles and then into bestiality and any other perversion you can think of. This is going to run us down the slippery slope at warp speed.

      • bob machaffy

        we are there already

        • monacall

          your right …the lesbians and homos I totally forgot about them, thanks for reminding me
          y

        • monacall

          your right …the lesbians and homos I totally forgot about them, thanks for reminding me
          y

        • 7papa7

          The only difference is it will be legalized instead of illegal.

        • 7papa7

          The only difference is it will be legalized instead of illegal.

          • LoreneFairchild

            Many polygynyists do not care if polygyny (the correct term) is legalized. What is illegal is taking out more than one marriage license at one time. Many families don’t use marriage licenses at all and there is no law against cohabitation.

          • Ed Sumner

            I like Pastor Matt Trewhalla on marriage licensing. (mercyseat.net) His sermons on many things are excellent, but I’m not sure of his stance of polygyny.

          • LoreneFairchild

            Many polygynyists do not care if polygyny (the correct term) is legalized. What is illegal is taking out more than one marriage license at one time. Many families don’t use marriage licenses at all and there is no law against cohabitation.

          • LoreneFairchild

            Many polygynyists do not care if polygyny (the correct term) is legalized. What is illegal is taking out more than one marriage license at one time. Many families don’t use marriage licenses at all and there is no law against cohabitation.

        • 7papa7

          The only difference is it will be legalized instead of illegal.

      • bob machaffy

        we are there already

      • bob machaffy

        we are there already

      • LoreneFairchild

        You’re comparing polygyny along side of bestiality ??? Wow ! I wonder what the Biblical patriarchs would say to that ?

      • LoreneFairchild

        You’re comparing polygyny along side of bestiality ??? Wow ! I wonder what the Biblical patriarchs would say to that ?

      • LoreneFairchild

        You’re comparing polygyny along side of bestiality ??? Wow ! I wonder what the Biblical patriarchs would say to that ?

      • Chris Nystrom

        One major difference is that polygamy is supported by the Bible but sex with children and animals is not. Just thought I would point that out.

        • 7papa7

          It was never condoned. The Bible always teaches that marriage between one man and one woman for life.

        • 7papa7

          It was never condoned. The Bible always teaches that marriage between one man and one woman for life.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Biblical polygamists also believe that the Bible teaches that marriage is between one man and one women for life. They just do not believe that the Bible teaches that you can only do this with one person at a time.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Biblical polygamists also believe that the Bible teaches that marriage is between one man and one women for life. They just do not believe that the Bible teaches that you can only do this with one person at a time.

          • 7papa7

            If you follow that you can not say they believe in one woman and one man for life. If you marry a second woman then it is 2 woman and one man. That is some really heavy spinning on what Scripture says. Their are only 2 instances where a man or woman can marry again and that is after the death of their spouse or for adultery.

          • Chris Nystrom

            3 People in a marriage would be a group marriage. Polygamist do not believe in that. When a man dies the women are free to marry other men separately. They are not married to each other. There are no scriptures that say a man can not marry another wife. Notice, for example, Romans 7 specifies a woman, not a person.

          • 7papa7

            The definition of polygamy according to Merriam Websters dictionary is

            marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time

            Therefore what you call group marriage is polygamy. Remember poly means multiple monogamy is only one spouse.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Semantics aside, in any case nowhere does the Bible teach that a man can have only one spouse. Polygamist believe that each relationship is an individual relationship that is for life and that they are not married as a group.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Semantics aside, in any case nowhere does the Bible teach that a man can have only one spouse. Polygamist believe that each relationship is an individual relationship that is for life and that they are not married as a group.

          • 7papa7

            It teaches that a man can only have one wife at a time. Like I said before Scripture only allows 2 reasons why you can remarry and that is if your spouse dies or if you divorce due to adultery, period.

          • FC

            If only we could put “period” at the end of every statement and it actually make it a fact. lol..

            There are so many places in scripture that goes against this statement, but really, all one needs to do is read the laws given by God on taking multiple wives, So I’m sorry but Scripture does not support this statement at all.

          • FC

            If only we could put “period” at the end of every statement and it actually make it a fact. lol..

            There are so many places in scripture that goes against this statement, but really, all one needs to do is read the laws given by God on taking multiple wives, So I’m sorry but Scripture does not support this statement at all.

          • FC

            If only we could put “period” at the end of every statement and it actually make it a fact. lol..

            There are so many places in scripture that goes against this statement, but really, all one needs to do is read the laws given by God on taking multiple wives, So I’m sorry but Scripture does not support this statement at all.

          • Chris Nystrom

            How many wives did David have?

          • 7papa7

            It teaches that a man can only have one wife at a time. Like I said before Scripture only allows 2 reasons why you can remarry and that is if your spouse dies or if you divorce due to adultery, period.

          • 7papa7

            It teaches that a man can only have one wife at a time. Like I said before Scripture only allows 2 reasons why you can remarry and that is if your spouse dies or if you divorce due to adultery, period.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Semantics aside, in any case nowhere does the Bible teach that a man can have only one spouse. Polygamist believe that each relationship is an individual relationship that is for life and that they are not married as a group.

          • LoreneFairchild

            “polygamy” is simply an umbrella term which would include “polygyny” (one man/multiple wives), “polyandry” (one woman/multiple husbands), “polyamory” (open marriage, swinging, etc.).

            The only “polygamy” in the Bible was specifically “polygyny” (one man/multiple wives)….any other variety would be considered immoral, Biblically speaking. FTR, I only support “polygyny”.

          • LoreneFairchild

            “polygamy” is simply an umbrella term which would include “polygyny” (one man/multiple wives), “polyandry” (one woman/multiple husbands), “polyamory” (open marriage, swinging, etc.).

            The only “polygamy” in the Bible was specifically “polygyny” (one man/multiple wives)….any other variety would be considered immoral, Biblically speaking. FTR, I only support “polygyny”.

          • Katie Miller

            The proper biblical term would be polygyny,when a man has multiple wives, in covenant with each of them separately.

          • 7papa7

            It should be obvious I was using the umbrella term for multiple spouses.

          • 7papa7

            It should be obvious I was using the umbrella term for multiple spouses.

          • 7papa7

            It should be obvious I was using the umbrella term for multiple spouses.

          • Katie Miller

            The proper biblical term would be polygyny,when a man has multiple wives, in covenant with each of them separately.

          • Chris Nystrom

            3 People in a marriage would be a group marriage. Polygamist do not believe in that. When a man dies the women are free to marry other men separately. They are not married to each other. There are no scriptures that say a man can not marry another wife. Notice, for example, Romans 7 specifies a woman, not a person.

          • Katie Miller

            Not so. There is no law disallowing a man having more than one wife at a time. If fact, if a man’s brother died without a male heir, the brother was required to take his sister-in-law as his wife, whether he was married or not.

            Also, if a man deflowered a virgin, he was required to marry her, there was no “already married” escape clause.

          • Katie Miller

            Not so. There is no law disallowing a man having more than one wife at a time. If fact, if a man’s brother died without a male heir, the brother was required to take his sister-in-law as his wife, whether he was married or not.

            Also, if a man deflowered a virgin, he was required to marry her, there was no “already married” escape clause.

          • Katie Miller

            Not so. There is no law disallowing a man having more than one wife at a time. If fact, if a man’s brother died without a male heir, the brother was required to take his sister-in-law as his wife, whether he was married or not.

            Also, if a man deflowered a virgin, he was required to marry her, there was no “already married” escape clause.

          • 7papa7

            If you follow that you can not say they believe in one woman and one man for life. If you marry a second woman then it is 2 woman and one man. That is some really heavy spinning on what Scripture says. Their are only 2 instances where a man or woman can marry again and that is after the death of their spouse or for adultery.

          • 7papa7

            If you follow that you can not say they believe in one woman and one man for life. If you marry a second woman then it is 2 woman and one man. That is some really heavy spinning on what Scripture says. Their are only 2 instances where a man or woman can marry again and that is after the death of their spouse or for adultery.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Biblical polygamists also believe that the Bible teaches that marriage is between one man and one women for life. They just do not believe that the Bible teaches that you can only do this with one person at a time.

          • LoreneFairchild

            The practice was regulated in the Old Testament….God does not regulate sin.

          • LoreneFairchild

            The practice was regulated in the Old Testament….God does not regulate sin.

          • LoreneFairchild

            The practice was regulated in the Old Testament….God does not regulate sin.

          • Katie Miller

            A marriage is between one man and one woman. A man can have more than one marriage at a time, though, which would make him polygamous. Search the scriptures, God speaks of marriage, he never speaks of monogamy or polygamy. It is all marriage to God.

          • Katie Miller

            A marriage is between one man and one woman. A man can have more than one marriage at a time, though, which would make him polygamous. Search the scriptures, God speaks of marriage, he never speaks of monogamy or polygamy. It is all marriage to God.

          • Katie Miller

            A marriage is between one man and one woman. A man can have more than one marriage at a time, though, which would make him polygamous. Search the scriptures, God speaks of marriage, he never speaks of monogamy or polygamy. It is all marriage to God.

          • John Whitten

            7papa7, you are correct that marriage as taught in the Bible is between one man and one woman, but you miss the point that one man did often have more than one of those marriages simultaneously and they were blessed of God and never condemned. At least one if not more of the ancestors of Christ Jesus line were polygynists and God never spoke against it.

          • 7papa7

            Something can be allowed with OUT being condoned. If you have children you know what I am talking about. You choose your battles so to speak. When you go against God’s plan it is never a good outcome. Take for example Abraham he had a child out of wedlock before he had a child with his wife. Ever since then their has been hatred between the 2, muslim and jew hate each other and are always at each others throat because Abraham defied God. We just don’t always see the problems created by defying what God says is right.

          • 7papa7

            Something can be allowed with OUT being condoned. If you have children you know what I am talking about. You choose your battles so to speak. When you go against God’s plan it is never a good outcome. Take for example Abraham he had a child out of wedlock before he had a child with his wife. Ever since then their has been hatred between the 2, muslim and jew hate each other and are always at each others throat because Abraham defied God. We just don’t always see the problems created by defying what God says is right.

          • John Whitten

            7papa7, you are correct that marriage as taught in the Bible is between one man and one woman, but you miss the point that one man did often have more than one of those marriages simultaneously and they were blessed of God and never condemned. At least one if not more of the ancestors of Christ Jesus line were polygynists and God never spoke against it.

        • 7papa7

          It was never condoned. The Bible always teaches that marriage between one man and one woman for life.

    • 7papa7

      Once the polygamists get what they want then the pedophiles and then into bestiality and any other perversion you can think of. This is going to run us down the slippery slope at warp speed.

    • Deguello Morte

      Oh, hell; just marry them too!

    • January24

      The main trouble with polygamy . . . all those huge, polygamous families with the umpteen children are being supported by TAXPAYERS. And as a taxpayer, I am bloody sick of it.

      They need to read the part of the Bible which has some not-very-nice things to say about people who don’t support their families. And then they need to get off the government teat.

      • Katie Miller

        Do you have proof of this or do you just expect to say something and think that saying it makes it true?

      • Katie Miller

        Do you have proof of this or do you just expect to say something and think that saying it makes it true?

    • January24

      The main trouble with polygamy . . . all those huge, polygamous families with the umpteen children are being supported by TAXPAYERS. And as a taxpayer, I am bloody sick of it.

      They need to read the part of the Bible which has some not-very-nice things to say about people who don’t support their families. And then they need to get off the government teat.

    • Stephen

      Not if you marry sisters…..

    • Stephen

      Not if you marry sisters…..

    • Stephen

      Not if you marry sisters…..

  • jb80538

    The main trouble with polygamy…More than one mother in law!

  • jb80538

    The main trouble with polygamy…More than one mother in law!

  • CPQ121552

    Polygamy was once acceptable but that was also thousands of years ago to and not now,In this day and age it is not recognized as being legal and It shouldn’t be legal either,It go’s against everything our country and people stand for.Ya they even have their own reality show that from what I’v see of it so far is rather stupid and is extremely degrading to the women that are in it too,I am very against it

    • Ben Pincus

      For Jews, polygamy was nearly non-existent after the early Medieval period. In the 11th Century it was outlawed by Rabbinic decree. But curious as to who needs official polygamy when in today’s Atheist secular world everyone has sex with anyone they wish to? This is just a publicity stunt by someone with nothing else to do. BTW since about half the marriages end in divorce, this guy is in big trouble.

      • Chris Nystrom

        Christians need polygamy (marriage) for it to be moral and not fornication. The commitment (marriage) is what makes it not fornication which is a sin.

      • Chris Nystrom

        Christians need polygamy (marriage) for it to be moral and not fornication. The commitment (marriage) is what makes it not fornication which is a sin.

    • Ben Pincus

      For Jews, polygamy was nearly non-existent after the early Medieval period. In the 11th Century it was outlawed by Rabbinic decree. But curious as to who needs official polygamy when in today’s Atheist secular world everyone has sex with anyone they wish to? This is just a publicity stunt by someone with nothing else to do. BTW since about half the marriages end in divorce, this guy is in big trouble.

    • Ben Pincus

      For Jews, polygamy was nearly non-existent after the early Medieval period. In the 11th Century it was outlawed by Rabbinic decree. But curious as to who needs official polygamy when in today’s Atheist secular world everyone has sex with anyone they wish to? This is just a publicity stunt by someone with nothing else to do. BTW since about half the marriages end in divorce, this guy is in big trouble.

    • JTL

      There is a principle discerned in Scripture that the mechanisms by which God initiates a process aren’t necessarily the same as those He uses to maintain the process.

      The earliest marriages were obviously incestuous–they had to be. Later this practice was strictly forbidden. (The dangers were not manifest early in the human race.) No one would seriously use this to justify incest today. (Well, I shouldn’t say no one: Incestuous marriage is now legal in France, Belgium and Holland.)

      So while it true that God tolerated (and even enabled!) the practice of polygamy during very primitive tribal phases–and even codified it in the Mosaic Law, that doesn’t advise us of His long-term intent concerning the institution. Part of the reason He permitted it was due to the nature and circumstances of the (fallen!) human societies at the time.

      This is equally true with levirate marriages–such were necessary to ensure the survival of the woman, who would otherwise be without sustenance. But would we really justify such marriages today on those grounds?

      The long-term goal, once men had formed distinct nations was clear: One man with one woman, selected from outside the immediate family but within the larger ethnic/racial/national group as needed to perpetuate said group, forming solid families as the building block with two parents giving full attention to their children as a semi-autonomous unit.

      ALL of these principles are under attack. Conservatives still defend some of them; they have already abandoned others–the rest will inevitably follow.

      • FC

        Are you talking about the same God who gave David multiple wives?
        2 Samuel 12:8

        “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”

        At the time God gave David his masters WIVES, David was already married to more then one wife. Are we seriously to believe God thought this was adultery and forced David to commit adultery by giving him plural wives?
        No where in scripture is taking multiple wives called adultery,
        Scripture does not say David was committing adultery in having multiple wives, it does however say he committed adultery when he slept with the wife of another man. So unless people are trying to say the Creator is a complete hypocrite, its pretty easy to conclude what adultery is.

        Further, Scripture gives the same title to plural wives as was given to Eve. Their relationship to the husband was seen exactly the same as the relationship mono wives had to a husband.

        • JTL

          Insofar as this is supposed to be a reply to what I wrote, I did claim the Scriptures ever taught that polygamy is equated with adultery.

          (The verse you quoted is indeed the one I rely on to show that God even enabled the practice.)

          I argued instead that the fact of this practice having been permitted at one point in human history doesn’t mean that it is appropriate today, and I cited the earliest marriages and also levirate marriages as parallel examples.

        • JTL

          Insofar as this is supposed to be a reply to what I wrote, I did claim the Scriptures ever taught that polygamy is equated with adultery.

          (The verse you quoted is indeed the one I rely on to show that God even enabled the practice.)

          I argued instead that the fact of this practice having been permitted at one point in human history doesn’t mean that it is appropriate today, and I cited the earliest marriages and also levirate marriages as parallel examples.

          • FC

            God giving a man multiple wives is a bit more then permitting it, wouldn’t you think? Did God simply permit Adam to take Eve as his wife when he also gave her to Adam?

            There is a couple big problems with the argument that it somehow later became wrong or sin, first is that there is no difference in scripture between plural wives and mono wives. No difference in scripture between plural marriages and mono marriages. With that being the case, how could marriage be no longer allowed while marriage was still allowed? How could it be no longer ok for a man to take a wife and it still be ok for a man to take a wife?

            2nd, this would require a changing God and changing laws that Scripture clearly says do not change. Christ himself said He didn’t change even the dotting of an i to the law or Scripture.

            3rd, where abouts would we find this changing of the law or forbidding of taking multiple wives in scripture? Gods laws are clear, if this changed had happened, where is the statement from God that this was now wrong or sin? And who did He pass this down through? Are we to believe this is something that is left out of the Bible?

            In Leviticus 18:17-18 it gives laws on not taking plural wives of your wife’s close kin. There would be no need at all for restrictions on certain plural wives a man couldn’t take if there were a law against men having plural wives. Likewise, if this had been adultery, then again why list certain close kin you couldn’t take as plural wives? It would be adultery and any and all plural wives would be restricted.

            I get that some don’t care what the bible says, but those who do care what it says, have no reason to be against something in Gods name when He himself was never against it. We have an account of Him giving A man one wife and we have an account of Him giving a man plural wives. There is 0 proof that God was any more for or against monogamy then He was for or against polygamy/polygyny. If anything, beings the 2nd account was Him giving David plural wives, wouldn’t that suggest if there was a change in His thinking, it was changing from monogamy to polygamy?

          • FC

            God giving a man multiple wives is a bit more then permitting it, wouldn’t you think? Did God simply permit Adam to take Eve as his wife when he also gave her to Adam?

            There is a couple big problems with the argument that it somehow later became wrong or sin, first is that there is no difference in scripture between plural wives and mono wives. No difference in scripture between plural marriages and mono marriages. With that being the case, how could marriage be no longer allowed while marriage was still allowed? How could it be no longer ok for a man to take a wife and it still be ok for a man to take a wife?

            2nd, this would require a changing God and changing laws that Scripture clearly says do not change. Christ himself said He didn’t change even the dotting of an i to the law or Scripture.

            3rd, where abouts would we find this changing of the law or forbidding of taking multiple wives in scripture? Gods laws are clear, if this changed had happened, where is the statement from God that this was now wrong or sin? And who did He pass this down through? Are we to believe this is something that is left out of the Bible?

            In Leviticus 18:17-18 it gives laws on not taking plural wives of your wife’s close kin. There would be no need at all for restrictions on certain plural wives a man couldn’t take if there were a law against men having plural wives. Likewise, if this had been adultery, then again why list certain close kin you couldn’t take as plural wives? It would be adultery and any and all plural wives would be restricted.

            I get that some don’t care what the bible says, but those who do care what it says, have no reason to be against something in Gods name when He himself was never against it. We have an account of Him giving A man one wife and we have an account of Him giving a man plural wives. There is 0 proof that God was any more for or against monogamy then He was for or against polygamy/polygyny. If anything, beings the 2nd account was Him giving David plural wives, wouldn’t that suggest if there was a change in His thinking, it was changing from monogamy to polygamy?

          • Kevin F. Casey

            So your position is if God allowed it then he does not allow it now. So then the same could be said about gay marriage Just because it was Justifiably a sin so as to Create the Jewish Nation & The christian Religion it is no longer a valid ban as we have LOTS Of Jewish & Christian people.

          • Kevin F. Casey

            So your position is if God allowed it then he does not allow it now. So then the same could be said about gay marriage Just because it was Justifiably a sin so as to Create the Jewish Nation & The christian Religion it is no longer a valid ban as we have LOTS Of Jewish & Christian people.

          • Kevin F. Casey

            So your position is if God allowed it then he does not allow it now. So then the same could be said about gay marriage Just because it was Justifiably a sin so as to Create the Jewish Nation & The christian Religion it is no longer a valid ban as we have LOTS Of Jewish & Christian people.

          • Chris Nystrom

            How do you know it is not appropriate today if the Bible does not say so?

          • Chris Nystrom

            How do you know it is not appropriate today if the Bible does not say so?

          • Chris Nystrom

            How do you know it is not appropriate today if the Bible does not say so?

        • JTL

          Insofar as this is supposed to be a reply to what I wrote, I did claim the Scriptures ever taught that polygamy is equated with adultery.

          (The verse you quoted is indeed the one I rely on to show that God even enabled the practice.)

          I argued instead that the fact of this practice having been permitted at one point in human history doesn’t mean that it is appropriate today, and I cited the earliest marriages and also levirate marriages as parallel examples.

        • JTL

          I mean to say, “I did NOT claim . . .” ;-)

        • JTL

          I mean to say, “I did NOT claim . . .” ;-)

      • FC

        Are you talking about the same God who gave David multiple wives?
        2 Samuel 12:8

        “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”

        At the time God gave David his masters WIVES, David was already married to more then one wife. Are we seriously to believe God thought this was adultery and forced David to commit adultery by giving him plural wives?
        No where in scripture is taking multiple wives called adultery,
        Scripture does not say David was committing adultery in having multiple wives, it does however say he committed adultery when he slept with the wife of another man. So unless people are trying to say the Creator is a complete hypocrite, its pretty easy to conclude what adultery is.

        Further, Scripture gives the same title to plural wives as was given to Eve. Their relationship to the husband was seen exactly the same as the relationship mono wives had to a husband.

      • Kevin F. Casey

        Umm Read about Lot after Sodom & Gomorrah… His DAUGHTERS layed with him as would a wife . Rather than strike them dead & turn them into pillars of salt like their Mother GOD BLESSES the THREE as Husband & Wives. I find it interesting how so many so called Christians Create a god that agrees with THEIR version of how the world should be.Your God is a FALSE god.

      • Kevin F. Casey

        Umm Read about Lot after Sodom & Gomorrah… His DAUGHTERS layed with him as would a wife . Rather than strike them dead & turn them into pillars of salt like their Mother GOD BLESSES the THREE as Husband & Wives. I find it interesting how so many so called Christians Create a god that agrees with THEIR version of how the world should be.Your God is a FALSE god.

      • LoreneFairchild

        JTL….You’re right about the issue of incest BUT later God made a clear prohibition against it in His Word.

        Where is the prohibition against polygyny ?
        In Leviticus 18 we have what is probably the most comprehensive list of sexual sins found anywhere in the Bible…but polygyny wasn’t listed among them.

      • LoreneFairchild

        JTL….You’re right about the issue of incest BUT later God made a clear prohibition against it in His Word.

        Where is the prohibition against polygyny ?
        In Leviticus 18 we have what is probably the most comprehensive list of sexual sins found anywhere in the Bible…but polygyny wasn’t listed among them.

    • JTL

      There is a principle discerned in Scripture that the mechanisms by which God initiates a process aren’t necessarily the same as those He uses to maintain the process.

      The earliest marriages were obviously incestuous–they had to be. Later this practice was strictly forbidden. (The dangers were not manifest early in the human race.) No one would seriously use this to justify incest today. (Well, I shouldn’t say no one: Incestuous marriage is now legal in France, Belgium and Holland.)

      So while it true that God tolerated (and even enabled!) the practice of polygamy during very primitive tribal phases–and even codified it in the Mosaic Law, that doesn’t advise us of His long-term intent concerning the institution. Part of the reason He permitted it was due to the nature and circumstances of the (fallen!) human societies at the time.

      This is equally true with levirate marriages–such were necessary to ensure the survival of the woman, who would otherwise be without sustenance. But would we really justify such marriages today on those grounds?

      The long-term goal, once men had formed distinct nations was clear: One man with one woman, selected from outside the immediate family but within the larger ethnic/racial/national group as needed to perpetuate said group, forming solid families as the building block with two parents giving full attention to their children as a semi-autonomous unit.

      ALL of these principles are under attack. Conservatives still defend some of them; they have already abandoned others–the rest will inevitably follow.

    • JTL

      There is a principle discerned in Scripture that the mechanisms by which God initiates a process aren’t necessarily the same as those He uses to maintain the process.

      The earliest marriages were obviously incestuous–they had to be. Later this practice was strictly forbidden. (The dangers were not manifest early in the human race.) No one would seriously use this to justify incest today. (Well, I shouldn’t say no one: Incestuous marriage is now legal in France, Belgium and Holland.)

      So while it true that God tolerated (and even enabled!) the practice of polygamy during very primitive tribal phases–and even codified it in the Mosaic Law, that doesn’t advise us of His long-term intent concerning the institution. Part of the reason He permitted it was due to the nature and circumstances of the (fallen!) human societies at the time.

      This is equally true with levirate marriages–such were necessary to ensure the survival of the woman, who would otherwise be without sustenance. But would we really justify such marriages today on those grounds?

      The long-term goal, once men had formed distinct nations was clear: One man with one woman, selected from outside the immediate family but within the larger ethnic/racial/national group as needed to perpetuate said group, forming solid families as the building block with two parents giving full attention to their children as a semi-autonomous unit.

      ALL of these principles are under attack. Conservatives still defend some of them; they have already abandoned others–the rest will inevitably follow.

    • Chris Nystrom

      “It go’s against everything our country and people stand for” – like freedom and the pursuit of happiness?

    • Chris Nystrom

      “It go’s against everything our country and people stand for” – like freedom and the pursuit of happiness?

  • Brad Johnson

    This guy is super creepy. I don’t trust him.

    • FC

      ok… and?? Seriously, what does that have to do with anything? Pretty sure I can find a “super creepy” man who only wants one wife, What would that have to do with people being able to choose mono marriage or not?.

      • Brad Johnson

        My point being… sin leads to creepiness, and it’s revealed in his facial expressions and his eyes – creepy. The condition has to do with a clouded conscience because of unconfessed, habitual sin. The sinner’s conscience becomes guilty, and the eyes attempt to shut out the light of the gospel (Matthew 6:22-23). This man needs full-blown, complete repentance to restore his standing with God. Marrying five women and not correcting the error will not allow him to be restored.

      • Brad Johnson

        My point being… sin leads to creepiness, and it’s revealed in his facial expressions and his eyes – creepy. The condition has to do with a clouded conscience because of unconfessed, habitual sin. The sinner’s conscience becomes guilty, and the eyes attempt to shut out the light of the gospel (Matthew 6:22-23). This man needs full-blown, complete repentance to restore his standing with God. Marrying five women and not correcting the error will not allow him to be restored.

        • FC

          It could be that he does have some things he needs to work out and clear his conscious or he could have just been nerves? Regardless, he is just one man, and he like everyone else has to answer for himself. He is no more the example of all men who have/support plural wives then any one man could be a representation of all mono husbands.

          Taking a women to wife is not a sin. Proverbs 18:22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.

          • Brad Johnson

            Notice the singularity in the passage you contributed. It’s fine to be married, but sin to be married to more than one person at any given time. Even Paul said it’s better to be like him, not married at all, because he can concentrate on living for Christ. But, he said, if you’ll burn with passion, get married.

          • FC

            You mean in the use of wife instead of wives? The meaning of the word translated is one or many.. Not singular at all

          • FC

            You mean in the use of wife instead of wives? The meaning of the word translated is one or many.. Not singular at all

          • FC

            You mean in the use of wife instead of wives? The meaning of the word translated is one or many.. Not singular at all

          • Brad Johnson

            Notice the singularity in the passage you contributed. It’s fine to be married, but sin to be married to more than one person at any given time. Even Paul said it’s better to be like him, not married at all, because he can concentrate on living for Christ. But, he said, if you’ll burn with passion, get married.

          • Brad Johnson

            Notice the singularity in the passage you contributed. It’s fine to be married, but sin to be married to more than one person at any given time. Even Paul said it’s better to be like him, not married at all, because he can concentrate on living for Christ. But, he said, if you’ll burn with passion, get married.

          • January24

            Yeah.

            But taking on more “wives” and children than you can pay for IS a sin. Check it out. It’s in the Bible.

            The taxpayers among us are sick and tired of funding your lifestyle. Get off the government welfare teat.

          • January24

            Yeah.

            But taking on more “wives” and children than you can pay for IS a sin. Check it out. It’s in the Bible.

            The taxpayers among us are sick and tired of funding your lifestyle. Get off the government welfare teat.

        • FC

          It could be that he does have some things he needs to work out and clear his conscious or he could have just been nerves? Regardless, he is just one man, and he like everyone else has to answer for himself. He is no more the example of all men who have/support plural wives then any one man could be a representation of all mono husbands.

          Taking a women to wife is not a sin. Proverbs 18:22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.

      • January24

        He’s right, FC.

        You ARE a creep. You’re a creep for taking on more wives and producing more children than you can provide for.

        Everybody knows that the taxpayers are forced to pay for your many “wives” (who are legally single women) and spawn.

        Pay your own d amn freight and I don’t care what you do. But stay the h ell out of my wallet, would you?

        • windskisong

          Has FC implied or stated that he has produced more children than he can provide for? I skimmed his arguments, and while I disagree with his lifestyle choice, and don’t find any historical precedent in the Christian communities all the way back to Jesus, I haven’t heard him imply that he’s a government leach?

          • January24

            Just watch, Wind.

            FC won’t come back on here and state that his mob isn’t on welfare. (He did come back on here, and he didn’t deny that his family is getting government benefits. You can certainly presume that means they are.)

            They all are. All those big, unwieldy polygamous families are ALWAYS on welfare. The second, third, fourth and fifth wives are, legally, single mothers.

            There’s only one way to support all that, and it’s government handouts. I am sick and tired of paying for ALL of the lazy layabouts who have so little self-respect that they don’t mind the taxpayers paying for their every need.

            The way it works in the huge polygamous families is that the “king daddy” is unemployed. He hangs out with his favorite “wife” or “wives” — and uses the rest of them to collect welfare. That’s the whole point.

          • jerrycollie

            Playboys who run around town never marrying any woman; but fathering a multitude are just as bad.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Maybe even worse. A lot worse.

          • Katie Miller

            I’ve read through the comments and counted four times that either he or his wife denied taking public assistance.

          • Katie Miller

            I’ve read through the comments and counted four times that either he or his wife denied taking public assistance.

          • Katie Miller

            I’ve read through the comments and counted four times that either he or his wife denied taking public assistance.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Maybe even worse. A lot worse.

          • jerrycollie

            Playboys who run around town never marrying any woman; but fathering a multitude are just as bad.

          • jerrycollie

            Playboys who run around town never marrying any woman; but fathering a multitude are just as bad.

          • Chris Nystrom

            You might try googling Martin Luther and polygamy if you are looking for Christian historical precedent.

          • Chris Nystrom

            You might try googling Martin Luther and polygamy if you are looking for Christian historical precedent.

          • Chris Nystrom

            You might try googling Martin Luther and polygamy if you are looking for Christian historical precedent.

        • windskisong

          Has FC implied or stated that he has produced more children than he can provide for? I skimmed his arguments, and while I disagree with his lifestyle choice, and don’t find any historical precedent in the Christian communities all the way back to Jesus, I haven’t heard him imply that he’s a government leach?

        • windskisong

          Has FC implied or stated that he has produced more children than he can provide for? I skimmed his arguments, and while I disagree with his lifestyle choice, and don’t find any historical precedent in the Christian communities all the way back to Jesus, I haven’t heard him imply that he’s a government leach?

        • FC’s Wife

          You assume a whole lot and have no facts to support any of it!

        • FC’s Wife

          You assume a whole lot and have no facts to support any of it!

        • FC’s Wife

          You assume a whole lot and have no facts to support any of it!

      • January24

        He’s right, FC.

        You ARE a creep. You’re a creep for taking on more wives and producing more children than you can provide for.

        Everybody knows that the taxpayers are forced to pay for your many “wives” (who are legally single women) and spawn.

        Pay your own d amn freight and I don’t care what you do. But stay the h ell out of my wallet, would you?

      • January24

        He’s right, FC.

        You ARE a creep. You’re a creep for taking on more wives and producing more children than you can provide for.

        Everybody knows that the taxpayers are forced to pay for your many “wives” (who are legally single women) and spawn.

        Pay your own d amn freight and I don’t care what you do. But stay the h ell out of my wallet, would you?

  • Andrea Smith

    But having more than one wife constitute as adultery, does it not? Having more than one wife isn’t of God; adultery is a sin if I remember correctly. God said “thou shall not commit adultery”, if you don’t believe me, grab a bible and look it up in the book of Exodus.

    • Ben Pincus

      Actually, according to the Bible, adultery is when a woman who is married has relations with a man who is not her husband. The Bible allows a man to have more than one wife if he can support them. Note, that anyone who actually had more than one wife was not happy. The word for “co-wife” in Hebrew comes from the same root as the word for “trouble.” –Ben Pincus

      • Kevin F. Casey

        and as we have discovered many many times our translations of certain words are not always correct.

        • Wesley Speck

          Yep,
          Wife? The word is “woman”.
          H802
          נשׁים אשּׁה
          ‘ishshâh nâshı̂ym
          ish-shaw’, naw-sheem’
          The first form is the feminine of H376 or H582; the second form is an irregular plural; a woman (used in the same wide sense as H582).

          In Love

        • Wesley Speck

          Yep,
          Wife? The word is “woman”.
          H802
          נשׁים אשּׁה
          ‘ishshâh nâshı̂ym
          ish-shaw’, naw-sheem’
          The first form is the feminine of H376 or H582; the second form is an irregular plural; a woman (used in the same wide sense as H582).

          In Love

        • Wesley Speck

          Yep,
          Wife? The word is “woman”.
          H802
          נשׁים אשּׁה
          ‘ishshâh nâshı̂ym
          ish-shaw’, naw-sheem’
          The first form is the feminine of H376 or H582; the second form is an irregular plural; a woman (used in the same wide sense as H582).

          In Love

      • Kevin F. Casey

        and as we have discovered many many times our translations of certain words are not always correct.

      • Kevin F. Casey

        and as we have discovered many many times our translations of certain words are not always correct.

      • FC

        Co-wife? where is that word ever used to describe a wife in Scripture? Scripture simply calls them a wife. Wife number 2, 3 and so on were called the exact same thing as Eve was called.

        • January24

          Go get a job, freaktard. Support your brood. The Bible condemns those who do not support their families. Get off government welfare. We’re sick of funding your self-indulgence.

        • January24

          Go get a job, freaktard. Support your brood. The Bible condemns those who do not support their families. Get off government welfare. We’re sick of funding your self-indulgence.

        • January24

          Go get a job, freaktard. Support your brood. The Bible condemns those who do not support their families. Get off government welfare. We’re sick of funding your self-indulgence.

      • Wesley Speck

        H5916
        עכר
        ‛âkar
        aw-kar’
        A primitive root; properly to roil water; figuratively to disturb or afflict

        Mmmm, it’s not the same word as wife. There’s no Biblical Hebrew word for “wife”. The word is “Woman”

        H802
        נשׁים אשּׁה
        ‘ishshâh nâshı̂ym
        ish-shaw’, naw-sheem’
        The first form is the feminine of H376 or H582; the second form is an irregular plural; a woman (used in the same wide sense as H582).

        In Love

      • Wesley Speck

        H5916
        עכר
        ‛âkar
        aw-kar’
        A primitive root; properly to roil water; figuratively to disturb or afflict

        Mmmm, it’s not the same word as wife. There’s no Biblical Hebrew word for “wife”. The word is “Woman”

        H802
        נשׁים אשּׁה
        ‘ishshâh nâshı̂ym
        ish-shaw’, naw-sheem’
        The first form is the feminine of H376 or H582; the second form is an irregular plural; a woman (used in the same wide sense as H582).

        In Love

      • Wesley Speck

        H5916
        עכר
        ‛âkar
        aw-kar’
        A primitive root; properly to roil water; figuratively to disturb or afflict

        Mmmm, it’s not the same word as wife. There’s no Biblical Hebrew word for “wife”. The word is “Woman”

        H802
        נשׁים אשּׁה
        ‘ishshâh nâshı̂ym
        ish-shaw’, naw-sheem’
        The first form is the feminine of H376 or H582; the second form is an irregular plural; a woman (used in the same wide sense as H582).

        In Love

      • January24

        IF HE CAN SUPPORT THEM.

        Show me the modern-day polygamous brood that’s not sucking government welfare teat and I’ll buy you dinner.

      • January24

        IF HE CAN SUPPORT THEM.

        Show me the modern-day polygamous brood that’s not sucking government welfare teat and I’ll buy you dinner.

        • LoreneFairchild

          I know several….

        • LoreneFairchild

          I know several….

      • January24

        IF HE CAN SUPPORT THEM.

        Show me the modern-day polygamous brood that’s not sucking government welfare teat and I’ll buy you dinner.

      • Katie Miller

        Ben, would you be willing to share that Hebrew word with us? Also, are you aware of the multitudes of polynous men in scripture that make no mention of whether they were “happy”?

        Secondly, I’m sure you can list many monogamous men in scripture that also weren’t happy. Your argument is weak and full of holes :)

      • Katie Miller

        Ben, would you be willing to share that Hebrew word with us? Also, are you aware of the multitudes of polynous men in scripture that make no mention of whether they were “happy”?

        Secondly, I’m sure you can list many monogamous men in scripture that also weren’t happy. Your argument is weak and full of holes :)

      • Katie Miller

        Ben, would you be willing to share that Hebrew word with us? Also, are you aware of the multitudes of polynous men in scripture that make no mention of whether they were “happy”?

        Secondly, I’m sure you can list many monogamous men in scripture that also weren’t happy. Your argument is weak and full of holes :)

    • Ben Pincus

      Actually, according to the Bible, adultery is when a woman who is married has relations with a man who is not her husband. The Bible allows a man to have more than one wife if he can support them. Note, that anyone who actually had more than one wife was not happy. The word for “co-wife” in Hebrew comes from the same root as the word for “trouble.” –Ben Pincus

    • mort_f

      The Bible does not equate polygamy with adultery. In fact there is NO prohibition against polygamy, and many of the Patriarchs multiple wives are ennumerated. Adultery is having seual relations with another man’s wife. The Bible does prohibit homosexual sexual relations. Read your Bible, I doubt if it has been redacted to eliminate those passages.

      • Cami W

        Actually, adultery is any married persons having sexual relations with another person, fornication is when two unmarried people have sex with each other, both are sin.

        • Chris Nystrom

          You are confusing the Websters definition with the Biblical definition. Why did God send a prophet to rebuke David for Bathsheba but not for Abigail?

          • Cami W

            What about Abigail, what was her and David’s sin? The Bible doesn’t say that Abigail and David had an affair before they married.David and Bathsheba did.

          • Chris Nystrom

            The point is that David was already married when he took Abigail as a wife. If adultery is “adultery is any married persons having sexual relations with another person” as you claim then David was guilty and God would have sent a prophet to rebuke him. God did not. I do not think God agrees with your definition.

          • Cami W

            I’ve never said polygamy was adultery, I said sex outside marriage is adultery, David committed adultery with Bathsheba, he didn’t with Abigail.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Technically it depends on the marital status of the women. If she is married it is adultery. If she is single it is fornication. This is true for married men and unmarried men.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Technically it depends on the marital status of the women. If she is married it is adultery. If she is single it is fornication. This is true for married men and unmarried men.

          • Chris Nystrom

            Technically it depends on the marital status of the women. If she is married it is adultery. If she is single it is fornication. This is true for married men and unmarried men.

          • FC

            you said
            “Actually, adultery is any married persons having sexual relations with
            another person, fornication is when two unmarried people have sex with
            each other, both are sin.”

            If that definition was correct, polygyny would be adultery because the man is married upon sleeping with his other wife. But from the case with David, its clear it wasn’t adultery when he married and slept with Abigail while having other wives. It would have only been adultery if Abigail had been married.

          • FC

            you said
            “Actually, adultery is any married persons having sexual relations with
            another person, fornication is when two unmarried people have sex with
            each other, both are sin.”

            If that definition was correct, polygyny would be adultery because the man is married upon sleeping with his other wife. But from the case with David, its clear it wasn’t adultery when he married and slept with Abigail while having other wives. It would have only been adultery if Abigail had been married.

          • Chris Nystrom

            The point is that David was already married when he took Abigail as a wife. If adultery is “adultery is any married persons having sexual relations with another person” as you claim then David was guilty and God would have sent a prophet to rebuke him. God did not. I do not think God agrees with your definition.

          • Chris Nystrom

            The point is that David was already married when he took Abigail as a wife. If adultery is “adultery is any married persons having sexual relations with another person” as you claim then David was guilty and God would have sent a prophet to rebuke him. God did not. I do not think God agrees with your definition.

          • Chris Nystrom

            The reasons is because the Biblical definition of adultery is sexual relations with a married women who is not your wife. Why the double standard in the Bible? The inescapable conclusion is that the Bible supports polygyny.

          • Cami W

            The man married or not who sleeps with another woman (not his wife) also commits adultrey, not only that, a man even after a divorce -except for adultrey of his wife- commits adultery. No, the new Testament does not support polygamy. “the husband of one wife.” I Tim, 3;2 for one example.

          • Chris Nystrom

            We both agree that a man who sleeps with a woman not his wife is a sin, so no reason to argue semantics. As others have stated here 1 Tim 3:2 is for leadership. There is no evidence that it was a general command. Also, there is no evidence that God changed his mind on the issue from the Old Testament to the New. The Parable of the Ten Virgins, for example. Romans 7 is another.

          • Chris Nystrom

            We both agree that a man who sleeps with a woman not his wife is a sin, so no reason to argue semantics. As others have stated here 1 Tim 3:2 is for leadership. There is no evidence that it was a general command. Also, there is no evidence that God changed his mind on the issue from the Old Testament to the New. The Parable of the Ten Virgins, for example. Romans 7 is another.

          • Cami W

            The man married or not who sleeps with another woman (not his wife) also commits adultrey, not only that, a man even after a divorce -except for adultrey of his wife- commits adultery. No, the new Testament does not support polygamy. “the husband of one wife.” I Tim, 3;2 for one example.

          • Cami W

            The man married or not who sleeps with another woman (not his wife) also commits adultrey, not only that, a man even after a divorce -except for adultrey of his wife- commits adultery. No, the new Testament does not support polygamy. “the husband of one wife.” I Tim, 3;2 for one example.

          • Chris Nystrom

            The reasons is because the Biblical definition of adultery is sexual relations with a married women who is not your wife. Why the double standard in the Bible? The inescapable conclusion is that the Bible supports polygyny.

          • Chris Nystrom

            The reasons is because the Biblical definition of adultery is sexual relations with a married women who is not your wife. Why the double standard in the Bible? The inescapable conclusion is that the Bible supports polygyny.

          • FC

            David had wives when he married Abigail.. if your definition of adultery was correct, that too would have been adultery but it was not. Therefore that understanding of adultery can’t be Biblicaly correct.

          • Cami W

            Please pay attention, David had other wives permissable by God, when he married Abigail, how could that have been adultery? The wisest king ever, Solomon had 700 wives, was he committing adultrey?

          • Cami W

            Please pay attention, David had other wives permissable by God, when he married Abigail, how could that have been adultery? The wisest king ever, Solomon had 700 wives, was he committing adultrey?

          • FC

            David had wives when he married Abigail.. if your definition of adultery was correct, that too would have been adultery but it was not. Therefore that understanding of adultery can’t be Biblicaly correct.

          • FC

            David had wives when he married Abigail.. if your definition of adultery was correct, that too would have been adultery but it was not. Therefore that understanding of adultery can’t be Biblicaly correct.

          • Cami W

            What about Abigail, what was her and David’s sin? The Bible doesn’t say that Abigail and David had an affair before they married.David and Bathsheba did.

          • Cami W

            What about Abigail, what was her and David’s sin? The Bible doesn’t say that Abigail and David had an affair before they married.David and Bathsheba did.

        • Chris Nystrom

          You are confusing the Websters definition with the Biblical definition. Why did God send a prophet to rebuke David for Bathsheba but not for Abigail?

        • Chris Nystrom

          You are confusing the Websters definition with the Biblical definition. Why did God send a prophet to rebuke David for Bathsheba but not for Abigail?

      • Cami W

        Actually, adultery is any married persons having sexual relations with another person, fornication is when two unmarried people have sex with each other, both are sin.

      • Cami W

        You will notice that when God created Adam and Eve, God created only ‘one wife,’ Eve.

        • Kevin F. Casey

          So in your world God obeys you Not you obey God?

          • Cami W

            How does God creating one wife for Adam equate to God obeying me?

          • Cami W

            How does God creating one wife for Adam equate to God obeying me?

          • Cami W

            How does God creating one wife for Adam equate to God obeying me?

          • January24

            No. Those wishing to obey God must obey all of His Word. And guess what? His Word says that people who don’t support their families are bad, bad people.

            Everybody knows that all the modern-day polygamous families are living off government welfare. Justify THAT from the Bible. You can’t. You lose.

          • January24

            No. Those wishing to obey God must obey all of His Word. And guess what? His Word says that people who don’t support their families are bad, bad people.

            Everybody knows that all the modern-day polygamous families are living off government welfare. Justify THAT from the Bible. You can’t. You lose.

          • January24

            No. Those wishing to obey God must obey all of His Word. And guess what? His Word says that people who don’t support their families are bad, bad people.

            Everybody knows that all the modern-day polygamous families are living off government welfare. Justify THAT from the Bible. You can’t. You lose.

        • Kevin F. Casey

          So in your world God obeys you Not you obey God?

        • Kevin F. Casey

          So in your world God obeys you Not you obey God?

        • FC

          You will notice that God first created man alone.. Are you suggesting that His perfect plan from the very beginning was for man to be alone and not to marry at all?

          Does that then mean God permitted man to marry but he would rather he be alone?

        • FC

          You will notice that God first created man alone.. Are you suggesting that His perfect plan from the very beginning was for man to be alone and not to marry at all?

          Does that then mean God permitted man to marry but he would rather he be alone?

          • January24

            Get a job, FC, so you can get your big polygamous brood off government welfare. Remove your mouth from the government teat, bub.

          • January24

            Get a job, FC, so you can get your big polygamous brood off government welfare. Remove your mouth from the government teat, bub.

          • Cami W

            No, God created Adam first, woman second; notice also that took a rib from adam, so that she couldn’t be ‘above’ him, nor ‘below’ him, but ‘even’ with him, both ‘equal.’

          • Cami W

            No, God created Adam first, woman second; notice also that took a rib from adam, so that she couldn’t be ‘above’ him, nor ‘below’ him, but ‘even’ with him, both ‘equal.’

          • Cami W

            No, God created Adam first, woman second; notice also that took a rib from adam, so that she couldn’t be ‘above’ him, nor ‘below’ him, but ‘even’ with him, both ‘equal.’

        • Rosa

          Are you forgetting Lilleth?

        • Rosa

          Are you forgetting Lilleth?

        • Rosa

          Are you forgetting Lilleth?

      • January24

        Mort,

        Guess what? The Bible DOES mention a sin which is related to modern -day polygamous families. It’s failure to support one’s family.

        Everybody knows that today’s polygamous families live on welfare from the government. And you know what? We taxpayers are pretty d amn sick and tired of footing the bill.

        YOU read YOUR Bible, bub.

        • mort_f

          Guess what, the Bible does not say a single word about the GOVERNMENT supporting charity. And polygamy does not equate to a requirement for welfare assistance. Polygamy, by those who could afford it, is rampant throughout biblical text. Btw, I fully agree that government welfare is an anathema, and should be declared unconstitutional.

        • mort_f

          Guess what, the Bible does not say a single word about the GOVERNMENT supporting charity. And polygamy does not equate to a requirement for welfare assistance. Polygamy, by those who could afford it, is rampant throughout biblical text. Btw, I fully agree that government welfare is an anathema, and should be declared unconstitutional.

        • mort_f

          Guess what, the Bible does not say a single word about the GOVERNMENT supporting charity. And polygamy does not equate to a requirement for welfare assistance. Polygamy, by those who could afford it, is rampant throughout biblical text. Btw, I fully agree that government welfare is an anathema, and should be declared unconstitutional.

      • January24

        Mort,

        Guess what? The Bible DOES mention a sin which is related to modern -day polygamous families. It’s failure to support one’s family.

        Everybody knows that today’s polygamous families live on welfare from the government. And you know what? We taxpayers are pretty d amn sick and tired of footing the bill.

        YOU read YOUR Bible, bub.

      • January24

        Mort,

        Guess what? The Bible DOES mention a sin which is related to modern -day polygamous families. It’s failure to support one’s family.

        Everybody knows that today’s polygamous families live on welfare from the government. And you know what? We taxpayers are pretty d amn sick and tired of footing the bill.

        YOU read YOUR Bible, bub.

    • mort_f

      The Bible does not equate polygamy with adultery. In fact there is NO prohibition against polygamy, and many of the Patriarchs multiple wives are ennumerated. Adultery is having seual relations with another man’s wife. The Bible does prohibit homosexual sexual relations. Read your Bible, I doubt if it has been redacted to eliminate those passages.

    • mort_f

      The Bible does not equate polygamy with adultery. In fact there is NO prohibition against polygamy, and many of the Patriarchs multiple wives are ennumerated. Adultery is having seual relations with another man’s wife. The Bible does prohibit homosexual sexual relations. Read your Bible, I doubt if it has been redacted to eliminate those passages.

    • Cami W

      Andrea, not neccessarily, polygamy was legal in biblical times, homosexual activity was not just sin, it was/is an obmination. I don’t suppot polygamy and I believe same-sex marriage and polygamy will unravel the moral fabric of society. Did you hear about the British woman who married her pet dolphin? what next, bestiality?

      • pappap42

        yea right on.there is a dog down the street I have my eye on. Ha-ha-ha.

      • pappap42

        yea right on.there is a dog down the street I have my eye on. Ha-ha-ha.

      • pappap42

        yea right on.there is a dog down the street I have my eye on. Ha-ha-ha.

      • Andrea Smith

        If it’s a different woman, then yes, polygamy should be considered adultery, God said not to commit adultery. I believe that polygamy and homosexuality are a plain and simple obminations that shouldn’t have happened in the first place and yet does; I will not support anyone that wants more than one wife, biblical marriage should contain just one man and one woman…as for the British woman and the pet dolphin…you got me on that.

        • Cami W

          Andrea, oh, I don’t support polygamy anymore than I would same-sex marriage. We live within 100 miles of one of Tony Alamo’s churches where children were abused (according to the newspaper) and forced to submit….Alamo is still in prison, but we read in the paper how he keeps trying to legally get out, and in my opinion, he needs to stay locked up the rest of his life…..I can’t understand the woman who married her pet dolphin, but she did. Legal bestiality is right down the road of the USSC rules in favor of same-sex marriage. Justice Roberts caved in on Obamacare, and I have no doubt he will cave on same-sex marriage.

          • January24

            He didn’t though, Cami.

            Justice Roberts voted with the minority against homosexual marriage.

            Except for Kennedy, all five justices who voted for the abomination of homosexual marriage were appointed by Democrat presidents.

            All four of the justices who voted against homosexual marriage were appointed by Bush II and Reagan.

            This happened because Obama was elected. Obama appointed Kagan and Sotomayor (who both voted for homosexual marriage). McCain would not have appointed either of them.

          • January24

            He didn’t though, Cami.

            Justice Roberts voted with the minority against homosexual marriage.

            Except for Kennedy, all five justices who voted for the abomination of homosexual marriage were appointed by Democrat presidents.

            All four of the justices who voted against homosexual marriage were appointed by Bush II and Reagan.

            This happened because Obama was elected. Obama appointed Kagan and Sotomayor (who both voted for homosexual marriage). McCain would not have appointed either of them.

          • January24

            He didn’t though, Cami.

            Justice Roberts voted with the minority against homosexual marriage.

            Except for Kennedy, all five justices who voted for the abomination of homosexual marriage were appointed by Democrat presidents.

            All four of the justices who voted against homosexual marriage were appointed by Bush II and Reagan.

            This happened because Obama was elected. Obama appointed Kagan and Sotomayor (who both voted for homosexual marriage). McCain would not have appointed either of them.

        • Cami W

          Andrea, oh, I don’t support polygamy anymore than I would same-sex marriage. We live within 100 miles of one of Tony Alamo’s churches where children were abused (according to the newspaper) and forced to submit….Alamo is still in prison, but we read in the paper how he keeps trying to legally get out, and in my opinion, he needs to stay locked up the rest of his life…..I can’t understand the woman who married her pet dolphin, but she did. Legal bestiality is right down the road of the USSC rules in favor of same-sex marriage. Justice Roberts caved in on Obamacare, and I have no doubt he will cave on same-sex marriage.

        • Michael

          No, It is Homosexuality and USURY that are the Abominations in the Bible. And how many people have “debt” they are paying interest (Usury) on. Many in the “church” love one and hate the other picking… and doing so reject God and His Authority.

          Polygamy is not a sin before God in the Bible, only in man’s church and tradition. But, there are statutes that are required to be followed. Just picking women/girls at random is not justified before God, and there are many relationships that are outlawed.

          • January24

            Michael,

            Guess what? Failing to support your family IS a sin, according to the Bible. Look it up.

            And who supports those huge polygamous families? The taxpayers, that’s who. They’re all on welfare while the “king daddy” lazes around without a job and lets the government pay for the needs of his family.

            I can assure you that God does NOT support any man having more “wives” and producing more children than he can pay for.

          • FC’s Wife

            Agreed 24. No one Poly or not should have more children then they can support.

          • FC’s Wife

            Agreed 24. No one Poly or not should have more children then they can support.

          • FC’s Wife

            Agreed 24. No one Poly or not should have more children then they can support.

          • jerrycollie

            You don’t understand, with 4 wives the husband does not have time to work; and would not have that much energy left anyway.

          • jerrycollie

            You don’t understand, with 4 wives the husband does not have time to work; and would not have that much energy left anyway.

          • January24

            Michael,

            Guess what? Failing to support your family IS a sin, according to the Bible. Look it up.

            And who supports those huge polygamous families? The taxpayers, that’s who. They’re all on welfare while the “king daddy” lazes around without a job and lets the government pay for the needs of his family.

            I can assure you that God does NOT support any man having more “wives” and producing more children than he can pay for.

          • January24

            Michael,

            Guess what? Failing to support your family IS a sin, according to the Bible. Look it up.

            And who supports those huge polygamous families? The taxpayers, that’s who. They’re all on welfare while the “king daddy” lazes around without a job and lets the government pay for the needs of his family.

            I can assure you that God does NOT support any man having more “wives” and producing more children than he can pay for.

        • Kevin F. Casey

          Then God should have Condemned Abraham Lot & many otf the other Biblical Patriarchs for committing the sin of adultery. YET he REWARDED them So are you saying in your view the god of the bible is really Satan & the Snake who gave Morality to Eve is Really God? No wonder folks like me are leaving your false religions in droves.

          • January24

            You’re a slow learner, aren’t you, Kevin?

            Abraham never had more than one wife at a time. He was married to Sarah. Then she died. After that, Abraham married Keturah.

            While Abraham was married to Sarah, he fathered a son by Sarah’s maid, Hagar, who was never Abraham’s wife. It turned out very badly.

            The illegitimate son, Ishmael, was a jerk — too stupid to realize that taunting Isaac, Sarah’s son, would get him ejected from the camp. It ended badly, as you would know if you knew anything about the Bible or anything about history.

            The foolish Ishmael is the father of the entire nasty race of Arabs — most of whom are members of the vile cult of Islam.

            You should spend less time on the internet and more time with the Bible and history books.

          • Katie Miller

            January, Hagar was Abraham’s wife. After Sarah died, Abraham was married to more than one woman at the same time (Gen 25:6).

          • Katie Miller

            January, Hagar was Abraham’s wife. After Sarah died, Abraham was married to more than one woman at the same time (Gen 25:6).

          • Katie Miller

            January, Hagar was Abraham’s wife. After Sarah died, Abraham was married to more than one woman at the same time (Gen 25:6).

        • Kevin F. Casey

          Then God should have Condemned Abraham Lot & many otf the other Biblical Patriarchs for committing the sin of adultery. YET he REWARDED them So are you saying in your view the god of the bible is really Satan & the Snake who gave Morality to Eve is Really God? No wonder folks like me are leaving your false religions in droves.

        • jerrycollie

          Well, if dogs, cats and dolphins can vote in Chicago, why shouldn’t they be able to get married? With all the dead voting in Chicago, they should also be able to marry.

        • jerrycollie

          Well, if dogs, cats and dolphins can vote in Chicago, why shouldn’t they be able to get married? With all the dead voting in Chicago, they should also be able to marry.

        • jerrycollie

          Well, if dogs, cats and dolphins can vote in Chicago, why shouldn’t they be able to get married? With all the dead voting in Chicago, they should also be able to marry.

        • Katie Miller

          Andrea, does the Bible say the polygamy is wrong?

        • Katie Miller

          Andrea, does the Bible say the polygamy is wrong?

        • Katie Miller

          Andrea, does the Bible say the polygamy is wrong?

      • Andrea Smith

        If it’s a different woman, then yes, polygamy should be considered adultery, God said not to commit adultery. I believe that polygamy and homosexuality are a plain and simple obminations that shouldn’t have happened in the first place and yet does; I will not support anyone that wants more than one wife, biblical marriage should contain just one man and one woman…as for the British woman and the pet dolphin…you got me on that.

      • edc

        It was legal but NOT approved by God and was a constant cause of problems, even with Jacob( aka Israel).

        • Kevin F. Casey

          Cite please… Starting with Gods condemnation of Abraham for taking more than one wife.

          • January24

            Are you retarded, Kevin?

            Abraham had only ONE wife at a time. He foolishly impregnated his wife’s maid and produced an illegitimate son, Ishmael.

            Ishmael produced a race of people, the Arabs (who are virtually all Muslims) who have been tormenting the Jewish and Christian worlds since the very beginning of Islam.

            Does THAT sound like it was a smart thing for Abraham to do? You don’t know much about the Bible, do you?

            God made it clear that Ishmael was NOT His plan for founding the Jewish race. The son of promise was Isaac. The descendants of Ishmael have been nothing but a curse throughout earth since the very beginning.

          • January24

            Are you retarded, Kevin?

            Abraham had only ONE wife at a time. He foolishly impregnated his wife’s maid and produced an illegitimate son, Ishmael.

            Ishmael produced a race of people, the Arabs (who are virtually all Muslims) who have been tormenting the Jewish and Christian worlds since the very beginning of Islam.

            Does THAT sound like it was a smart thing for Abraham to do? You don’t know much about the Bible, do you?

            God made it clear that Ishmael was NOT His plan for founding the Jewish race. The son of promise was Isaac. The descendants of Ishmael have been nothing but a curse throughout earth since the very beginning.

          • January24

            Are you retarded, Kevin?

            Abraham had only ONE wife at a time. He foolishly impregnated his wife’s maid and produced an illegitimate son, Ishmael.

            Ishmael produced a race of people, the Arabs (who are virtually all Muslims) who have been tormenting the Jewish and Christian worlds since the very beginning of Islam.

            Does THAT sound like it was a smart thing for Abraham to do? You don’t know much about the Bible, do you?

            God made it clear that Ishmael was NOT His plan for founding the Jewish race. The son of promise was Isaac. The descendants of Ishmael have been nothing but a curse throughout earth since the very beginning.

          • Katie Miller

            January, Hagar is called Abraham’s wife. Is the Bible wrong while you are right? Abraham was also married to Keturah and to other concubines. And just to help you out a bit, a concubine was a wife, her children just didn’t have the same inheritance rights.

          • Katie Miller

            January, Hagar is called Abraham’s wife. Is the Bible wrong while you are right? Abraham was also married to Keturah and to other concubines. And just to help you out a bit, a concubine was a wife, her children just didn’t have the same inheritance rights.

        • Kevin F. Casey

          Cite please… Starting with Gods condemnation of Abraham for taking more than one wife.

        • Kevin F. Casey

          Cite please… Starting with Gods condemnation of Abraham for taking more than one wife.

        • FC

          Please point me to the monogamist man in the Bible who didn’t have “constant problems”? We can find stories of mono marriages and there being problems. Does that mean God doesn’t approve of mono marriages?

          • January24

            Please point me to the polygamist in the Bible who failed to provide for his multiple wives and children.

            Get off the freaking internet and go to work providing for your brood. We taxpayers are sick of footing the bill for your irresponsibility. Get off welfare, you leech.

          • January24

            Please point me to the polygamist in the Bible who failed to provide for his multiple wives and children.

            Get off the freaking internet and go to work providing for your brood. We taxpayers are sick of footing the bill for your irresponsibility. Get off welfare, you leech.

          • January24

            Please point me to the polygamist in the Bible who failed to provide for his multiple wives and children.

            Get off the freaking internet and go to work providing for your brood. We taxpayers are sick of footing the bill for your irresponsibility. Get off welfare, you leech.

        • FC

          Please point me to the monogamist man in the Bible who didn’t have “constant problems”? We can find stories of mono marriages and there being problems. Does that mean God doesn’t approve of mono marriages?

        • FC

          Please point me to the monogamist man in the Bible who didn’t have “constant problems”? We can find stories of mono marriages and there being problems. Does that mean God doesn’t approve of mono marriages?

      • dclkeller

        Cami, yes, and then pedophilia such as what NAMBLA wants. It is all the start of moral decay of our society.

      • dclkeller

        Cami, yes, and then pedophilia such as what NAMBLA wants. It is all the start of moral decay of our society.

      • dclkeller

        Cami, yes, and then pedophilia such as what NAMBLA wants. It is all the start of moral decay of our society.

    • pappap42

      You are right but the courts think another way then real people.

    • pappap42

      You are right but the courts think another way then real people.

    • pappap42

      You are right but the courts think another way then real people.

    • DeMann

      The polygamy issue has been edited out of the bible in its current form. In point of fact, the bible is a much different document than its original, intended form … much of the original would be illegal in almost every country on the planet …

    • DeMann

      The polygamy issue has been edited out of the bible in its current form. In point of fact, the bible is a much different document than its original, intended form … much of the original would be illegal in almost every country on the planet …

    • DeMann

      The polygamy issue has been edited out of the bible in its current form. In point of fact, the bible is a much different document than its original, intended form … much of the original would be illegal in almost every country on the planet …

      • Kevin F. Casey

        So they edit out things they don’t believe irregardless of what was taught? I bet they edit out the Gospels & all that socialist PC crap Jesus taught too? Sorry but that is as much the word of God as the Satainic Bible is.

      • Kevin F. Casey

        So they edit out things they don’t believe irregardless of what was taught? I bet they edit out the Gospels & all that socialist PC crap Jesus taught too? Sorry but that is as much the word of God as the Satainic Bible is.

      • FC

        Are you saying a part that condemns polygamy was taken out? If your saying the part that promotes polygamy was taken out, they sure missed a lot! If man attempted to remove everything about and everyone who came from polygamy from the Bible. There would be no Bible. Christ himself was a descendent of polygamy, as well as every writer or every book in the Bible.

        • windskisong

          FC and Kevin – many in this chain have claimed that you are dependent on the state, and you have not addressed this as far as I could find in your comments. Have you said something to indicate this, or are they just using their anointed imaginations?
          I don’t agree with the polygamist lifestyle, but that has more to do with social issues and pressures and the very bad ending of most of the multiple marriages I saw in the Bible, not any outright condemnation as there is for fornication, adultery, or homosexual behaviors (basically any sex outside of God-ordained marriage).

          • FC

            I said right off the bat that I didn’t agree with assistance programs. He has posted the same crap in every comment to me lol. I don’t see a reason to get into a debate on rather or not polygamists use the system. I’m sure some do, just like everyone else does. Why would that be a polygamist issue? I know a lot of polygamist men talk about taking care of the fatherless and widows to get them off of the programs and provide a father for their children. That is one of the reasons some men feel called to have multiple wives. I have never heard a single man say he was looking for a wife who had a lot of children so he could help take care of them. Although I know some do and have done just that.

            The Tactic by 24 as far as I can see (If he even has one) is to keep saying it over and over to get everyone to think of welfare abuse when they think of polygamy. People don’t become polygamist to get welfare, I’m sure some have used it, but I have seen a lot of proud monogamists have to use it too. Regardless, polygamists having the right to marry or not, has nothing to do with welfare. Anyone that thinks it does, should be pushing for all the single babies daddies to be thrown in jail for not marring the mothers of their babies because they are a far greater burden on the system then polygamists are.

          • windskisong

            Well said. Thank you for answering.

          • Katie Miller

            I have read through the comments and have found 4 instances where either FC or his wife specifically declared that they do not take government assistance. How many more times do they have to answer a personal question that has nothing to do with the subject at hand?

          • windskisong

            Sorry. I missed those. Thank you for finding them. I was giving them the opportunity to answer what seemed like a spurious charge.

          • windskisong

            Sorry. I missed those. Thank you for finding them. I was giving them the opportunity to answer what seemed like a spurious charge.

          • Katie Miller

            I have read through the comments and have found 4 instances where either FC or his wife specifically declared that they do not take government assistance. How many more times do they have to answer a personal question that has nothing to do with the subject at hand?

        • windskisong

          FC and Kevin – many in this chain have claimed that you are dependent on the state, and you have not addressed this as far as I could find in your comments. Have you said something to indicate this, or are they just using their anointed imaginations?
          I don’t agree with the polygamist lifestyle, but that has more to do with social issues and pressures and the very bad ending of most of the multiple marriages I saw in the Bible, not any outright condemnation as there is for fornication, adultery, or homosexual behaviors (basically any sex outside of God-ordained marriage).

      • FC

        Are you saying a part that condemns polygamy was taken out? If your saying the part that promotes polygamy was taken out, they sure missed a lot! If man attempted to remove everything about and everyone who came from polygamy from the Bible. There would be no Bible. Christ himself was a descendent of polygamy, as well as every writer or every book in the Bible.

      • FC

        Are you saying a part that condemns polygamy was taken out? If your saying the part that promotes polygamy was taken out, they sure missed a lot! If man attempted to remove everything about and everyone who came from polygamy from the Bible. There would be no Bible. Christ himself was a descendent of polygamy, as well as every writer or every book in the Bible.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Lets see Abraham & Lot had more than one wife Both were BLESSED BY GOD. Maybe you should read more than the few verses you believe in & read the ENTIRE book.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Lets see Abraham & Lot had more than one wife Both were BLESSED BY GOD. Maybe you should read more than the few verses you believe in & read the ENTIRE book.

    • Chris Nystrom

      Actually no. There are many men in the Bible who had more than one wife and it was never considered adultery. It was just considered marriage. For example, David and Abigail were man and wife (even though he was already married), but David and Bathsheba was adultery (she was married to someone else).

    • Chris Nystrom

      Actually no. There are many men in the Bible who had more than one wife and it was never considered adultery. It was just considered marriage. For example, David and Abigail were man and wife (even though he was already married), but David and Bathsheba was adultery (she was married to someone else).

  • jubilee

    TA DAH!!!
    thanks alot, radical feminists, who think women need not be married, and have children back in the 1970s.
    Now, we have way too many manchildren, or sons who aren’t as ambitious to get married, or work up to his potential…they could just live off of their wife, or wives (Isaiah 4:1)
    Women are outearning, and men simply don’t mind it…
    When the daughters get tired of holding everything down, they just may start to settle or wifey number five or six
    This isn’t happening everywhere, if you are ahead of this, it may NOT happen to your family,

    • Kevin F. Casey

      if you was in my family we would kick you to the curb & deny you was ever born… Please DO NOT breed.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      if you was in my family we would kick you to the curb & deny you was ever born… Please DO NOT breed.

  • jubilee

    TA DAH!!!
    thanks alot, radical feminists, who think women need not be married, and have children back in the 1970s.
    Now, we have way too many manchildren, or sons who aren’t as ambitious to get married, or work up to his potential…they could just live off of their wife, or wives (Isaiah 4:1)
    Women are outearning, and men simply don’t mind it…
    When the daughters get tired of holding everything down, they just may start to settle or wifey number five or six
    This isn’t happening everywhere, if you are ahead of this, it may NOT happen to your family,

  • stevo

    Damn! Just because Obama got re-elected, now everybody’s gotta get crazy. Socially acceptable faggotry is bad enough. Next, there’ll be MARRY YER PETS.com.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Can you show me ANY animal that can give informed consent in English? Considering your use of insults I’d say your a Christian in name only as you find all that socialist PC crap it teaches against your views.

      • Chris

        You lost me after informed consent… RU saying that the Bible teaches socialist PC crap? Really?

      • Chris

        You lost me after informed consent… RU saying that the Bible teaches socialist PC crap? Really?

      • Estoban

        Informed Consent is gone. Obama mandated that anyone, even a girl 5 or 6 years old can purchase Plan B pills with no questions asked.

      • Estoban

        Informed Consent is gone. Obama mandated that anyone, even a girl 5 or 6 years old can purchase Plan B pills with no questions asked.

      • Estoban

        Informed Consent is gone. Obama mandated that anyone, even a girl 5 or 6 years old can purchase Plan B pills with no questions asked.

      • Strangerinastangeland

        Baa

      • Strangerinastangeland

        Baa

      • jerrycollie

        it is obvious when a dog loves its master.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Can you show me ANY animal that can give informed consent in English? Considering your use of insults I’d say your a Christian in name only as you find all that socialist PC crap it teaches against your views.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Can you show me ANY animal that can give informed consent in English? Considering your use of insults I’d say your a Christian in name only as you find all that socialist PC crap it teaches against your views.

  • monacall

    One more. Pedophile. When will they ask for it?

    • larrygrant876

      Heard of NAMBLA?

      • monacall

        no maybe I don’t know….do I really want to know….ignorance is bliss sometimes..

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Joseph the husband of Mary was a pedophile by today’s standards. Maybe you should become an atheist… they are Biblical Pedophiles free.

      • monacall

        Kevin r u trying to recruit me in to becoming an atheist ?

      • monacall

        Kevin r u trying to recruit me in to becoming an atheist ?

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Joseph the husband of Mary was a pedophile by today’s standards. Maybe you should become an atheist… they are Biblical Pedophiles free.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Joseph the husband of Mary was a pedophile by today’s standards. Maybe you should become an atheist… they are Biblical Pedophiles free.

    • windskisong

      Already happening.

  • monacall

    One more. Pedophile. When will they ask for it?

  • Twitch

    Why the heck would a guy want more than one woman nagging him? Isn’t one enough?

    • Kevin F. Casey

      For the same reason Many of the Patriarchs in your bible did People like Abraham the guy who God asked to sacrifice his son as a test of faith then stopped him. That guy had FOUR wives.

      • Twitch

        Where did you get that? I only count three: Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah.

        And you never actually answered my question.

        • January24

          Hagar was never Abraham’s wife. She was Sarah’s maid whom Abraham (foolishly) impregnated — thus “treating” the world to the curse of the Arab Muslims, a group founded by Ishmael, the illegitimate son of Hagar and Abraham.

        • January24

          Hagar was never Abraham’s wife. She was Sarah’s maid whom Abraham (foolishly) impregnated — thus “treating” the world to the curse of the Arab Muslims, a group founded by Ishmael, the illegitimate son of Hagar and Abraham.

        • January24

          Hagar was never Abraham’s wife. She was Sarah’s maid whom Abraham (foolishly) impregnated — thus “treating” the world to the curse of the Arab Muslims, a group founded by Ishmael, the illegitimate son of Hagar and Abraham.

          • FC

            What is your take on the 12 sons of Jacob from his 4 wives? You know, the ones God called His people and made His covenant with, the one that brought us the 10 commandments and every other law we find in the Bible.

          • FC

            What is your take on the 12 sons of Jacob from his 4 wives? You know, the ones God called His people and made His covenant with, the one that brought us the 10 commandments and every other law we find in the Bible.

          • FC

            What is your take on the 12 sons of Jacob from his 4 wives? You know, the ones God called His people and made His covenant with, the one that brought us the 10 commandments and every other law we find in the Bible.

          • January24

            FC,

            My take on it is that Jacob wasn’t sucking the government welfare teat. He worked hard to support his brood — just like you are NOT doing.

            What job do you have that allows you to be on here all the time when you should be working to fund your alternative lifestyle?

            We know; we know. You’re the “king daddy” that all the “wives” fight over. And you have a lot of leisure since the taxpayers are funding your family.

            GET A JOB. Or get two jobs. I’m sick of paying your freight.

          • FC

            None of the monogamists at the time were on welfare either.. Yet plenty are today, far more then polygamists are. So whats your point?

          • January24

            FC.

            Does that stand for Fake Christian or Fearless Chiseler?

            One of your mistresses said that you’d gone to work and couldn’t answer for awhile. Wow; that was quick. Not anywhere near an eight-hour shift.

            So what is it that you do to support your family?

            Here’s my point, as I have previously expressed it. I am calling you out specifically on the issue of accepting welfare because you claim to be a Christian.

            By the way, one of your mistresses posted that “sure (polygamists) may also need help at times.” So she was excusing what is strictly prohibited by the Bible.

            Polygamy can easily be avoided — and to the extent that it is, it reduces a person’s chance of having to go to the government for help. Please keep in mind that “the government” is your fellow citizens who are taxpayers and have their own families to support — and no interest whatsoever in supporting yours.

            To the extent that you end up with too many mouths to feed as a result of taking on more mistresses and producing more children and thereby end up on welfare, you will be in direct violation of God’s command as expressed through Timothy who said that those who do not support those in their own households “have denied the faith and are worse than unbelievers.”

            I understand that far, far too many Americans (besides polygamists) are on welfare. We expect bad behavior from pagans. We expect adherence to God’s Word from people professing to be Christian.

          • January24

            FC.

            Does that stand for Fake Christian or Fearless Chiseler?

            One of your mistresses said that you’d gone to work and couldn’t answer for awhile. Wow; that was quick. Not anywhere near an eight-hour shift.

            So what is it that you do to support your family?

            Here’s my point, as I have previously expressed it. I am calling you out specifically on the issue of accepting welfare because you claim to be a Christian.

            By the way, one of your mistresses posted that “sure (polygamists) may also need help at times.” So she was excusing what is strictly prohibited by the Bible.

            Polygamy can easily be avoided — and to the extent that it is, it reduces a person’s chance of having to go to the government for help. Please keep in mind that “the government” is your fellow citizens who are taxpayers and have their own families to support — and no interest whatsoever in supporting yours.

            To the extent that you end up with too many mouths to feed as a result of taking on more mistresses and producing more children and thereby end up on welfare, you will be in direct violation of God’s command as expressed through Timothy who said that those who do not support those in their own households “have denied the faith and are worse than unbelievers.”

            I understand that far, far too many Americans (besides polygamists) are on welfare. We expect bad behavior from pagans. We expect adherence to God’s Word from people professing to be Christian.

          • FC

            Everything you say about a man being able to take care of his children is said to every man who has children. mono or polygamist, married or not. In the Eyes of God, A man with 1 wife who has 7 children who can’t take care of them, is no different then a man with 2 wives and 5 children who can’t take care of them.. Its simply not a polygamist issue, no matter how much you wish it to be.

            “I understand that far, far too many Americans (besides polygamists) are
            on welfare. We expect bad behavior from pagans. We expect adherence to
            God’s Word from people professing to be Christian.”

            You are now calling every husband who has ever had to use welfare a pagan?

          • January24

            Reading comprehension. Work on it!

            To your last question — no. And I thought I was sufficiently clear that you wouldn’t need to ask it.

            What I said was that any Christian man should be ready, willing and able to do whatever it takes (within the bounds of the law) to provide for his family without government assistance.

            There always seems to be some kind of work for the willing worker. As I said, I believe that God will open doors for a Christian man who is striving to work to provide for his family — and especially those who have the faith and commitment to God to tithe ten percent of whatever meager earnings they have.

            I read a comment once. I can’t remember quite where I read it. Perhaps you can help me find its source. Here it is: “I’ve never seen the righteous begging bread.” WHERE is that from?

          • MadMagyar

            Guess you’ve never heard of St. Francis.

          • MadMagyar

            Guess you’ve never heard of St. Francis.

          • MadMagyar

            Guess you’ve never heard of St. Francis.

          • January24

            Reading comprehension. Work on it!

            To your last question — no. And I thought I was sufficiently clear that you wouldn’t need to ask it.

            What I said was that any Christian man should be ready, willing and able to do whatever it takes (within the bounds of the law) to provide for his family without government assistance.

            There always seems to be some kind of work for the willing worker. As I said, I believe that God will open doors for a Christian man who is striving to work to provide for his family — and especially those who have the faith and commitment to God to tithe ten percent of whatever meager earnings they have.

            I read a comment once. I can’t remember quite where I read it. Perhaps you can help me find its source. Here it is: “I’ve never seen the righteous begging bread.” WHERE is that from?

          • January24

            Reading comprehension. Work on it!

            To your last question — no. And I thought I was sufficiently clear that you wouldn’t need to ask it.

            What I said was that any Christian man should be ready, willing and able to do whatever it takes (within the bounds of the law) to provide for his family without government assistance.

            There always seems to be some kind of work for the willing worker. As I said, I believe that God will open doors for a Christian man who is striving to work to provide for his family — and especially those who have the faith and commitment to God to tithe ten percent of whatever meager earnings they have.

            I read a comment once. I can’t remember quite where I read it. Perhaps you can help me find its source. Here it is: “I’ve never seen the righteous begging bread.” WHERE is that from?

          • January24

            FC.

            Does that stand for Fake Christian or Fearless Chiseler?

            One of your mistresses said that you’d gone to work and couldn’t answer for awhile. Wow; that was quick. Not anywhere near an eight-hour shift.

            So what is it that you do to support your family?

            Here’s my point, as I have previously expressed it. I am calling you out specifically on the issue of accepting welfare because you claim to be a Christian.

            By the way, one of your mistresses posted that “sure (polygamists) may also need help at times.” So she was excusing what is strictly prohibited by the Bible.

            Polygamy can easily be avoided — and to the extent that it is, it reduces a person’s chance of having to go to the government for help. Please keep in mind that “the government” is your fellow citizens who are taxpayers and have their own families to support — and no interest whatsoever in supporting yours.

            To the extent that you end up with too many mouths to feed as a result of taking on more mistresses and producing more children and thereby end up on welfare, you will be in direct violation of God’s command as expressed through Timothy who said that those who do not support those in their own households “have denied the faith and are worse than unbelievers.”

            I understand that far, far too many Americans (besides polygamists) are on welfare. We expect bad behavior from pagans. We expect adherence to God’s Word from people professing to be Christian.

          • FC

            None of the monogamists at the time were on welfare either.. Yet plenty are today, far more then polygamists are. So whats your point?

          • LoreneFairchild

            Please support your allegations against FC with actual proof ! If you have credible proof that FC is on the dole then show us what you have. If you’re just voicing your own personal opinion then please stop. When it comes to accusations, the burden of proof is on the accuser. As an attorney, I would think you would already know that.

          • January24

            FC,

            My take on it is that Jacob wasn’t sucking the government welfare teat. He worked hard to support his brood — just like you are NOT doing.

            What job do you have that allows you to be on here all the time when you should be working to fund your alternative lifestyle?

            We know; we know. You’re the “king daddy” that all the “wives” fight over. And you have a lot of leisure since the taxpayers are funding your family.

            GET A JOB. Or get two jobs. I’m sick of paying your freight.

          • January24

            FC,

            My take on it is that Jacob wasn’t sucking the government welfare teat. He worked hard to support his brood — just like you are NOT doing.

            What job do you have that allows you to be on here all the time when you should be working to fund your alternative lifestyle?

            We know; we know. You’re the “king daddy” that all the “wives” fight over. And you have a lot of leisure since the taxpayers are funding your family.

            GET A JOB. Or get two jobs. I’m sick of paying your freight.

          • Twitch

            Genesis 16: 1-3: Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had born him no children. But she had an Egyptian servant named Hagar, so she said to Abram, “The LORD has kept me from having children; perhaps I can build a family through her.” Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian servant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.” (TNIV)
            Seems pretty clear to me.

          • Twitch

            Genesis 16: 1-3: Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had born him no children. But she had an Egyptian servant named Hagar, so she said to Abram, “The LORD has kept me from having children; perhaps I can build a family through her.” Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian servant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.” (TNIV)
            Seems pretty clear to me.

          • January24

            Twitch,

            I don’t want to argue about this, but if you do a search for, “Was Hagar Abraham’s wife?” — the first search result will be an article dealing with that by an organization called “Answering Islam.”

            The article makes the case that it is clear from the context that the use of “wife” here was just a euphemism for sexual intercourse.

            After Ishmael became a problem and Sarah was asking Abraham to do something about it, Abraham told her that Hagar was Sarah’s servant and that therefore Sarah could do with Hagar as she pleased. As you know, Sarah sent Hagar away, with Abraham’s approval.

            Also, after the one reference to Hagar as Abraham’s wife, the text references her as his “mistress.”

            Whatever status she may have had with Abraham, it was clearly secondary to Hagar’s status as the maidservant of Sarah. I think that if Hagar had been a true wife — in the same sense that Sarah was Abraham’s wife — it would have been impossible for Sarah to make the decision to send her away.

          • Chris Nystrom

            That Hagar had less status than Sarah does not make her not a wife if the Bible says she was a wife.

          • Chris Nystrom

            That Hagar had less status than Sarah does not make her not a wife if the Bible says she was a wife.

          • January24

            Twitch,

            I don’t want to argue about this, but if you do a search for, “Was Hagar Abraham’s wife?” — the first search result will be an article dealing with that by an organization called “Answering Islam.”

            The article makes the case that it is clear from the context that the use of “wife” here was just a euphemism for sexual intercourse.

            After Ishmael became a problem and Sarah was asking Abraham to do something about it, Abraham told her that Hagar was Sarah’s servant and that therefore Sarah could do with Hagar as she pleased. As you know, Sarah sent Hagar away, with Abraham’s approval.

            Also, after the one reference to Hagar as Abraham’s wife, the text references her as his “mistress.”

            Whatever status she may have had with Abraham, it was clearly secondary to Hagar’s status as the maidservant of Sarah. I think that if Hagar had been a true wife — in the same sense that Sarah was Abraham’s wife — it would have been impossible for Sarah to make the decision to send her away.

          • January24

            Twitch,

            I don’t want to argue about this, but if you do a search for, “Was Hagar Abraham’s wife?” — the first search result will be an article dealing with that by an organization called “Answering Islam.”

            The article makes the case that it is clear from the context that the use of “wife” here was just a euphemism for sexual intercourse.

            After Ishmael became a problem and Sarah was asking Abraham to do something about it, Abraham told her that Hagar was Sarah’s servant and that therefore Sarah could do with Hagar as she pleased. As you know, Sarah sent Hagar away, with Abraham’s approval.

            Also, after the one reference to Hagar as Abraham’s wife, the text references her as his “mistress.”

            Whatever status she may have had with Abraham, it was clearly secondary to Hagar’s status as the maidservant of Sarah. I think that if Hagar had been a true wife — in the same sense that Sarah was Abraham’s wife — it would have been impossible for Sarah to make the decision to send her away.

          • Twitch

            Genesis 16: 1-3: Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had born him no children. But she had an Egyptian servant named Hagar, so she said to Abram, “The LORD has kept me from having children; perhaps I can build a family through her.” Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian servant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.” (TNIV)
            Seems pretty clear to me.

      • David Vrotney

        Hey, Kevin, You’re stupid! Abraham had 1. Sarah, 2. Hagar, and 3. Keturah. Where does that make 4? Perhaps in your stupidity you were thinking of Jacob, Abraham’s Grandson, who had 1. Leah, 2. Rachel, 3. Bilhah, and 4. Zilpah. If you are humble enough to apologize, you are forgiven. The correct word is not “polygamy,” but polygyny, which is “not” a sin. Homosexuality is not only a sin, but an abomination to God.

        • David Vrotney

          I need to add the Biblical fact that sex between women is not mentioned in Scripture, except in a rather fuzzy way in the 1st Chapter of Romans. The “abomination” of which I spoke is sex between men.

          • calmo

            Check Romans again . . . sex between women is included in things being condemned in that passage. It’s referred to as “vile affections” and “against nature.”

          • calmo

            Check Romans again . . . sex between women is included in things being condemned in that passage. It’s referred to as “vile affections” and “against nature.”

          • January24

            You are correct, Calmo. It’s very clear that homosexuality — whether between two men or two woman — is prohibited by the Bible.

          • January24

            You are correct, Calmo. It’s very clear that homosexuality — whether between two men or two woman — is prohibited by the Bible.

          • LoreneFairchild

            I’m finally agreeing with you! :)

          • calmo

            Check Romans again . . . sex between women is included in things being condemned in that passage. It’s referred to as “vile affections” and “against nature.”

        • David Vrotney

          I need to add the Biblical fact that sex between women is not mentioned in Scripture, except in a rather fuzzy way in the 1st Chapter of Romans. The “abomination” of which I spoke is sex between men.

        • David Vrotney

          I need to add the Biblical fact that sex between women is not mentioned in Scripture, except in a rather fuzzy way in the 1st Chapter of Romans. The “abomination” of which I spoke is sex between men.

      • David Vrotney

        Hey, Kevin, You’re stupid! Abraham had 1. Sarah, 2. Hagar, and 3. Keturah. Where does that make 4? Perhaps in your stupidity you were thinking of Jacob, Abraham’s Grandson, who had 1. Leah, 2. Rachel, 3. Bilhah, and 4. Zilpah. If you are humble enough to apologize, you are forgiven. The correct word is not “polygamy,” but polygyny, which is “not” a sin. Homosexuality is not only a sin, but an abomination to God.

      • David Vrotney

        Hey, Kevin, You’re stupid! Abraham had 1. Sarah, 2. Hagar, and 3. Keturah. Where does that make 4? Perhaps in your stupidity you were thinking of Jacob, Abraham’s Grandson, who had 1. Leah, 2. Rachel, 3. Bilhah, and 4. Zilpah. If you are humble enough to apologize, you are forgiven. The correct word is not “polygamy,” but polygyny, which is “not” a sin. Homosexuality is not only a sin, but an abomination to God.

      • boone1

        Abraham had only one wife and Sarah was his only wife.

        • LoreneFairchild

          WRONG ! Abraham was married to Sarah, Hagar and Keturah. Hagar was a concubine, which was a slave wife with no inheritance rights. Keturah bore Abraham several children, It’s all written right there in the Bible.

        • LoreneFairchild

          WRONG ! Abraham was married to Sarah, Hagar and Keturah. Hagar was a concubine, which was a slave wife with no inheritance rights. Keturah bore Abraham several children, It’s all written right there in the Bible.

        • R.W. Deese

          Scripture is clear: Genesis 16:3 affirms that Hagar was Abraham’s wife. My battle cry: Let’s get back to the Bible!

      • boone1

        Abraham had only one wife and Sarah was his only wife.

      • boone1

        Abraham had only one wife and Sarah was his only wife.

      • January24

        Really?

        What wife did Abraham have besides Sarah? His wife had a maid that he (foolishly) impregnated. She was never his wife.

        And Abraham married Keturah only after the death of Sarah. So he only ever had one wife at any given time.

        • LoreneFairchild

          Sarah was not his only wife. His other wife was “Keturah” who bore him several children. Hagar was a concubine, which was a wife without any inheritance rights.

      • January24

        Really?

        What wife did Abraham have besides Sarah? His wife had a maid that he (foolishly) impregnated. She was never his wife.

        And Abraham married Keturah only after the death of Sarah. So he only ever had one wife at any given time.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      For the same reason Many of the Patriarchs in your bible did People like Abraham the guy who God asked to sacrifice his son as a test of faith then stopped him. That guy had FOUR wives.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      For the same reason Many of the Patriarchs in your bible did People like Abraham the guy who God asked to sacrifice his son as a test of faith then stopped him. That guy had FOUR wives.

    • FC

      Why would a man want one nagging him? He wouldn’t want that at all! lol

      If that is what a wife is to someone, I can understand why they wouldn’t want even one. Obviously for those who see a wife as a bad thing, why would they ever want two bad things? For those who know and see their wife as an amazing and precious gift, why wouldn’t they want another?

      That is one of the biggest misconceptions about polygamist men by the way. Those I know value their wives and wives in general much higher then most mono men. Which is why a lot of mono men will say, why on earth would I ever want another of those? and a polygamist man will say, why on earth wouldn’t I want another of those?

    • FC

      Why would a man want one nagging him? He wouldn’t want that at all! lol

      If that is what a wife is to someone, I can understand why they wouldn’t want even one. Obviously for those who see a wife as a bad thing, why would they ever want two bad things? For those who know and see their wife as an amazing and precious gift, why wouldn’t they want another?

      That is one of the biggest misconceptions about polygamist men by the way. Those I know value their wives and wives in general much higher then most mono men. Which is why a lot of mono men will say, why on earth would I ever want another of those? and a polygamist man will say, why on earth wouldn’t I want another of those?

      • Twitch

        Well it’s not just a misconception, there is some truth to it. Ahem, Jacob, who valued Rachel far more than Leah. Ahem, Abraham, who valued Sarah more than Hagar or Keturah. Ahem, David, who valued Bathsheeba–the wife he stole from another man–over all his other ones. Then, of course, there’s Solomon….

        I’m not denying that women can be amazing and precious and wonderful and all that but they can also be handful to handle at times.

        • FC

          lol.. Everyone that has ever been married knows that to be true.. But either the good outweighs the bad or it does not. for those where it does not, they seek to be single. for those where it does, the seek to be married.

          God was upset at Jacob for loving Rachel more. He closed her womb because of it. Which suggests that husbands are to love all wives equally and that husbands must also have the ability to do this. If we didn’t have the ability to do this, God would have been upset at Jacob for something that was not his fault because what was being asked of him was beyond the abilities God created man with.

          Later we see God opened her whom, which can only mean the problem had been corrected and Jacob had learned to love his wives equally.

          • sreynolds

            It’s great that it works out for you, guess what will come in the future? Fair is fair, a woman with 5 husbands, would you still feel the same way if you were one of 5 husbands? If so, you are not a hypocrite, if not, then you are….

          • sreynolds

            It’s great that it works out for you, guess what will come in the future? Fair is fair, a woman with 5 husbands, would you still feel the same way if you were one of 5 husbands? If so, you are not a hypocrite, if not, then you are….

          • TexasLady

            Oh, on second thought….five men supporting me?….money, money, money and never another night sleeping alone…I like that….

          • TexasLady

            Oh, on second thought….five men supporting me?….money, money, money and never another night sleeping alone…I like that….

          • TexasLady

            Oh, on second thought….five men supporting me?….money, money, money and never another night sleeping alone…I like that….

          • bob machaffy

            Wow for an over-sexed woman that would be an ideal situation, and think she would never have to cheat on her spouses.

          • bob machaffy

            Wow for an over-sexed woman that would be an ideal situation, and think she would never have to cheat on her spouses.

          • FC

            It doesn’t matter if I support it or not. Women go on tv and do all sorts of sexual things for money. Does it matter if I support it? They still are given the freedom to do it. So why wouldn’t a women be given the right to be a plural wife?

          • FC

            It doesn’t matter if I support it or not. Women go on tv and do all sorts of sexual things for money. Does it matter if I support it? They still are given the freedom to do it. So why wouldn’t a women be given the right to be a plural wife?

          • FC

            It doesn’t matter if I support it or not. Women go on tv and do all sorts of sexual things for money. Does it matter if I support it? They still are given the freedom to do it. So why wouldn’t a women be given the right to be a plural wife?

          • LoreneFairchild

            The Biblical definition of adultery was predicated on the marital status of the woman, not the man. Therefore, “polyandry” (one woman w/ several husbands) would be considered adultery by Biblical standards.

          • LoreneFairchild

            The Biblical definition of adultery was predicated on the marital status of the woman, not the man. Therefore, “polyandry” (one woman w/ several husbands) would be considered adultery by Biblical standards.

          • sreynolds

            It’s great that it works out for you, guess what will come in the future? Fair is fair, a woman with 5 husbands, would you still feel the same way if you were one of 5 husbands? If so, you are not a hypocrite, if not, then you are….

          • January24

            Jacob paid the bills for his big family. Not the government.

            That’s not how it is today with polygamists, is it, you government teat-sucking leech?

          • January24

            Jacob paid the bills for his big family. Not the government.

            That’s not how it is today with polygamists, is it, you government teat-sucking leech?

          • January24

            Jacob paid the bills for his big family. Not the government.

            That’s not how it is today with polygamists, is it, you government teat-sucking leech?

          • NoLibLiz

            FC, You say “God was upset at Jacob for loving Rachel more.” I’m curious where you read that in the Bible. He was upset at Jacob for MANY things but I’ve never seen that in the Bible. It seems as if you are projecting your acceptance of polygamy onto the Bible and in the process twisting was is actually in it.

          • FC

            Genesis Chapter 29: 30-31

            30. And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.

            31. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

          • NoLibLiz

            You are extrapolating God’s love for Leah to mean that He was punishing Jacob. One does not automatically follow the other. God in His greatness and love grants us many blessings but we should be very careful not to make of them something they are not.

          • FC

            Sure reads like cause and effect to me. but you have a point in that I should have worded it differently. I should have said, because Jacob loved Rachel more God blessed Leah with children and left Rachel barren, It doesn’t say He cursed Jacob, it says he blessed Leah and not Rachel. and not being blessed isn’t the same thing as being cursed..

          • FC

            Sure reads like cause and effect to me. but you have a point in that I should have worded it differently. I should have said, because Jacob loved Rachel more God blessed Leah with children and left Rachel barren, It doesn’t say He cursed Jacob, it says he blessed Leah and not Rachel. and not being blessed isn’t the same thing as being cursed..

          • NoLibLiz

            You are extrapolating God’s love for Leah to mean that He was punishing Jacob. One does not automatically follow the other. God in His greatness and love grants us many blessings but we should be very careful not to make of them something they are not.

          • NoLibLiz

            You are extrapolating God’s love for Leah to mean that He was punishing Jacob. One does not automatically follow the other. God in His greatness and love grants us many blessings but we should be very careful not to make of them something they are not.

          • FC

            Genesis Chapter 29: 30-31

            30. And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.

            31. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

          • FC

            Genesis Chapter 29: 30-31

            30. And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.

            31. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

          • NoLibLiz

            FC, You say “God was upset at Jacob for loving Rachel more.” I’m curious where you read that in the Bible. He was upset at Jacob for MANY things but I’ve never seen that in the Bible. It seems as if you are projecting your acceptance of polygamy onto the Bible and in the process twisting was is actually in it.

          • NoLibLiz

            FC, You say “God was upset at Jacob for loving Rachel more.” I’m curious where you read that in the Bible. He was upset at Jacob for MANY things but I’ve never seen that in the Bible. It seems as if you are projecting your acceptance of polygamy onto the Bible and in the process twisting was is actually in it.

          • January24

            Get a job to support your brood, FC. The Bible says that you are worse than an unbeliever.

            1 Timothy 5:8: “BUT IF ANYONE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR HIS RELATIVES, AND ESPECIALLY FOR MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD, HE HAS DENIED THE FAITH AND IS WORSE THAN AN UNBELIEVER.”

          • January24

            Get a job to support your brood, FC. The Bible says that you are worse than an unbeliever.

            1 Timothy 5:8: “BUT IF ANYONE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR HIS RELATIVES, AND ESPECIALLY FOR MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD, HE HAS DENIED THE FAITH AND IS WORSE THAN AN UNBELIEVER.”

          • January24

            Get a job to support your brood, FC. The Bible says that you are worse than an unbeliever.

            1 Timothy 5:8: “BUT IF ANYONE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR HIS RELATIVES, AND ESPECIALLY FOR MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD, HE HAS DENIED THE FAITH AND IS WORSE THAN AN UNBELIEVER.”

        • FC

          lol.. Everyone that has ever been married knows that to be true.. But either the good outweighs the bad or it does not. for those where it does not, they seek to be single. for those where it does, the seek to be married.

          God was upset at Jacob for loving Rachel more. He closed her womb because of it. Which suggests that husbands are to love all wives equally and that husbands must also have the ability to do this. If we didn’t have the ability to do this, God would have been upset at Jacob for something that was not his fault because what was being asked of him was beyond the abilities God created man with.

          Later we see God opened her whom, which can only mean the problem had been corrected and Jacob had learned to love his wives equally.

        • FC

          lol.. Everyone that has ever been married knows that to be true.. But either the good outweighs the bad or it does not. for those where it does not, they seek to be single. for those where it does, the seek to be married.

          God was upset at Jacob for loving Rachel more. He closed her womb because of it. Which suggests that husbands are to love all wives equally and that husbands must also have the ability to do this. If we didn’t have the ability to do this, God would have been upset at Jacob for something that was not his fault because what was being asked of him was beyond the abilities God created man with.

          Later we see God opened her whom, which can only mean the problem had been corrected and Jacob had learned to love his wives equally.

        • calmo

          And of course men never are!

        • calmo

          And of course men never are!

      • January24

        You may be laughing out loud, you toad. But I’m not. I’m reasonably certain that as a taxpayer, I am the one footing the bill — through government welfare — for your second wife (who is legally a single woman) and all of your spawn. And I’m not very effing happy about it, you freak.

        • FC

          Please keep on posting, People want to know why polygamist live in secret, But even when there is a real chance to talk to one to find out what its all about, to actually learn something about it. instead people act like a bunch of 6th grade bullies on the play ground. Now they have an example of that.

          I realize there is no point in trying to reason with you, you are free to believe and feel however you want. Just know that not everyone is as much in the fringe with their reasoning skills as you are. ;)

          • January24

            FC, you government teat-sucking scum.

            Get a freaking job and stop supporting you oversized brood with my tax dollars. You welfare leech.

          • Chris Nystrom

            You are a lawyer and a Christian?

          • Chris Nystrom

            You are a lawyer and a Christian?

          • Chris Nystrom

            You are a lawyer and a Christian?

          • LoreneFairchild

            January…provide credible proof that FC is what you called him. If you can’t do that, then please shut your rude mouth !

          • January24

            Guess what, little wifey. I don’t take orders from either you or your baby daddy . . . or your “sister wives.”

            FC, the Fake Christian, has been challenged dozens of times — and by people other than me — to state unequivocally that neither he nor his mistresses nor any of their children have ever received government assistance in any form.

            He has failed to do that. If he hadn’t taken government assistance, he would have shouted that from the rooftops.

            Now, go back to your cozy little pile of humanity. I’m sure Clash will never publish another article on polygamy since Clash now realizes that all it does is act as a magnet for you people.

            I’m done here. All of you icky people can carry on talking about the wonders of several women fighting over one loser guy — and the joys of raising 20 or 30 children (or more) communally.

            (If there are any non-polygamists on here, I recommend the book, “Escape,” by Carolyn Jessop. Carolyn was forced at age 18 to marry a man who was 32 years older than she and who already had more than 40 children by the time Carolyn became his fourth “wife.” Carolyn herself had 8 children by the filthy Merril Jessop before she escaped from his evil clutches. The whole mob of them in the “family” lived on government welfare. I’ve rarely known of a situation more grotesque.)

          • LoreneFairchild

            Wrong again, January ! I’m not any man’s “wifey” ! And I have never met FC or any of his family……..AND once again, I’m not a Mormon and I don’t see any Mormons posting here (yet). John Whitten is a Baptist pastor, Chris is not Mormon, Ed isn’t a Mormon and neither are FC and his wife.
            I also recommend Carolyn Jessop’s book. I’ve read it and I felt very bad for her. She was involved with the FLDS and their community is rife with abuses. Her book is a good example of how NOT to live polygyny.

          • FC

            I guess we are now married because 24 wills it, and if he said it, it must be true because he is all knowing, just read all his insightful posts! Apparently to be right in his world, all one needs to do is keep saying the same nonsense, over and over and don’t read any of the many replies to said nonsense. Then rinse lather and repeat.

          • LoreneFairchild

            FC I read all your comments and you repeatedly denied being on welfare. If January24 had bothered to read them he would have seen them too….
            For anyone else reading this….I’m not married.

          • LoreneFairchild

            FC I read all your comments and you repeatedly denied being on welfare. If January24 had bothered to read them he would have seen them too….
            For anyone else reading this….I’m not married.

          • LoreneFairchild

            FC I read all your comments and you repeatedly denied being on welfare. If January24 had bothered to read them he would have seen them too….
            For anyone else reading this….I’m not married.

          • FC

            I guess we are now married because 24 wills it, and if he said it, it must be true because he is all knowing, just read all his insightful posts! Apparently to be right in his world, all one needs to do is keep saying the same nonsense, over and over and don’t read any of the many replies to said nonsense. Then rinse lather and repeat.

          • LoreneFairchild

            Wrong again, January ! I’m not any man’s “wifey” ! And I have never met FC or any of his family……..AND once again, I’m not a Mormon and I don’t see any Mormons posting here (yet). John Whitten is a Baptist pastor, Chris is not Mormon, Ed isn’t a Mormon and neither are FC and his wife.
            I also recommend Carolyn Jessop’s book. I’ve read it and I felt very bad for her. She was involved with the FLDS and their community is rife with abuses. Her book is a good example of how NOT to live polygyny.

          • FC’s Wife

            Choosing to ignore all of the times we answered that question I take it?! I guess I am not (or should not be) surprised that you have decided to remove yourself since you are failing as the bully on the playground now. Funny you had so much to say when you thought we were outnumbered! Now it’s… I don’t even wanna play anyways, I’m takin my ball and goin home

          • FC’s Wife

            Choosing to ignore all of the times we answered that question I take it?! I guess I am not (or should not be) surprised that you have decided to remove yourself since you are failing as the bully on the playground now. Funny you had so much to say when you thought we were outnumbered! Now it’s… I don’t even wanna play anyways, I’m takin my ball and goin home

          • LoreneFairchild

            January…provide credible proof that FC is what you called him. If you can’t do that, then please shut your rude mouth !

          • LoreneFairchild

            January…provide credible proof that FC is what you called him. If you can’t do that, then please shut your rude mouth !

          • January24

            FC, you government teat-sucking scum.

            Get a freaking job and stop supporting you oversized brood with my tax dollars. You welfare leech.

        • FC

          Please keep on posting, People want to know why polygamist live in secret, But even when there is a real chance to talk to one to find out what its all about, to actually learn something about it. instead people act like a bunch of 6th grade bullies on the play ground. Now they have an example of that.

          I realize there is no point in trying to reason with you, you are free to believe and feel however you want. Just know that not everyone is as much in the fringe with their reasoning skills as you are. ;)

        • FC

          Please keep on posting, People want to know why polygamist live in secret, But even when there is a real chance to talk to one to find out what its all about, to actually learn something about it. instead people act like a bunch of 6th grade bullies on the play ground. Now they have an example of that.

          I realize there is no point in trying to reason with you, you are free to believe and feel however you want. Just know that not everyone is as much in the fringe with their reasoning skills as you are. ;)

      • January24

        You may be laughing out loud, you toad. But I’m not. I’m reasonably certain that as a taxpayer, I am the one footing the bill — through government welfare — for your second wife (who is legally a single woman) and all of your spawn. And I’m not very effing happy about it, you freak.

    • FC

      Why would a man want one nagging him? He wouldn’t want that at all! lol

      If that is what a wife is to someone, I can understand why they wouldn’t want even one. Obviously for those who see a wife as a bad thing, why would they ever want two bad things? For those who know and see their wife as an amazing and precious gift, why wouldn’t they want another?

      That is one of the biggest misconceptions about polygamist men by the way. Those I know value their wives and wives in general much higher then most mono men. Which is why a lot of mono men will say, why on earth would I ever want another of those? and a polygamist man will say, why on earth wouldn’t I want another of those?

    • Thomas Sharp

      Just don’t marry a woman named 3 Ponies.
      She will nag, nag, nag you to death.

      • boone1

        LOL

      • boone1

        LOL

      • Chris Nystrom

        OK that was funny.

      • Chris Nystrom

        OK that was funny.

      • Chris Nystrom

        OK that was funny.

    • Thomas Sharp

      Just don’t marry a woman named 3 Ponies.
      She will nag, nag, nag you to death.

    • January24

      Well, for one thing, the guy plays the women off against each other. That way, even somebody who’s as much of a loser as FC (see photo above) gets fought over like he’s some great prize.

      Secondly, the taxpayers always end up footing the bill for polygamy since all those “wives” (who are legally single mothers) and all those spawn allow the dirtball who creates such degenerate households to collect big bucks — allowing him to avoid work and get treated like a big kahuna at home, even though he’s just another loser sucking at the government teat.

      • FC

        I am picking up a tad bit of jealousy 24. I’m sure you have a lot to offer to the right person. As the old saying goes, good things come to those who wait.

        • January24

          Trying to side-step the issue won’t get you anywhere.

          Just admit that you’re supporting your lifestyle through government welfare.

          Then, get off the freaking computer and get a job, you bum. Taxpayers like me are sick of paying for your one wife, your multiple concubines and your way-too-many children.

          1 Timothy 5:8: “BUT IF ANYONE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR HIS RELATIVES, AND ESPECIALLY FOR MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD, HE HAD DENIED THE FAITH AND IS WORSE THAN AN UNBELIEVER.”

          That’s you, FC. Worse than an unbeliever. Get a job.

          • FC’s Wife

            And you? How are you on the comp right now? Working diff hours then 9 to 5 maybe? NO WAY!! That would make too much sense!

          • FC’s Wife

            And you? How are you on the comp right now? Working diff hours then 9 to 5 maybe? NO WAY!! That would make too much sense!

          • FC’s Wife

            And you? How are you on the comp right now? Working diff hours then 9 to 5 maybe? NO WAY!! That would make too much sense!

          • FC

            Lol.. I am not side stepping anything. We are not on any assistance but it isn’t even relevant. Everyone abuses the system. The system is set in such a way that it benefits people to sit home and get what they are told they are “entitled” to. They aren’t entitled to anything other then a free Country where they have the ability to go get a job and take care of themselves. If I had my way, the entire welfare system would be scrapped. But again, that is another debate for another time. abusing the system isn’t a polygamy only issue, so it offers nothing relevant to the discussion.

          • FC

            Lol.. I am not side stepping anything. We are not on any assistance but it isn’t even relevant. Everyone abuses the system. The system is set in such a way that it benefits people to sit home and get what they are told they are “entitled” to. They aren’t entitled to anything other then a free Country where they have the ability to go get a job and take care of themselves. If I had my way, the entire welfare system would be scrapped. But again, that is another debate for another time. abusing the system isn’t a polygamy only issue, so it offers nothing relevant to the discussion.

          • FC

            Lol.. I am not side stepping anything. We are not on any assistance but it isn’t even relevant. Everyone abuses the system. The system is set in such a way that it benefits people to sit home and get what they are told they are “entitled” to. They aren’t entitled to anything other then a free Country where they have the ability to go get a job and take care of themselves. If I had my way, the entire welfare system would be scrapped. But again, that is another debate for another time. abusing the system isn’t a polygamy only issue, so it offers nothing relevant to the discussion.

          • LoreneFairchild

            If you really were an attorney, January, you should know that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

          • LoreneFairchild

            If you really were an attorney, January, you should know that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

      • FC

        I am picking up a tad bit of jealousy 24. I’m sure you have a lot to offer to the right person. As the old saying goes, good things come to those who wait.

    • January24

      Well, for one thing, the guy plays the women off against each other. That way, even somebody who’s as much of a loser as FC (see photo above) gets fought over like he’s some great prize.

      Secondly, the taxpayers always end up footing the bill for polygamy since all those “wives” (who are legally single mothers) and all those spawn allow the dirtball who creates such degenerate households to collect big bucks — allowing him to avoid work and get treated like a big kahuna at home, even though he’s just another loser sucking at the government teat.

    • sadnana

      And why would any self-respecting woman want to share her husband with other women? I don’t understand the allure of polygamy, for men or women, at all.

      • Mark Smith

        come on now you do not have to understand any of it. All that is required now is to cheer their perverted actions and let the government dictate what you think about the behavior…….after all our government believes it superseeds morality and God’s laws…….our new gods have spoken

        • Katie Miller

          Where does the Bible say that a man having more than one wife is perverted?

          • Mark Smith

            “man shall cleave to his “wife” and they shall become as one” the word used is wife not wives…..any guy wanting more than one wife is some kinda special……My point was not so much about multiple wives but more to the point that our new self declared “gods” in washington are trying to assume the role of moral leadership. which is a joke all of its own. The rumors of professors claiming the pedis are born that way so cannot be blamed for their behavior sounds very similar to what we have been hearing form the gay comunity for years.

          • Mark Smith

            “man shall cleave to his “wife” and they shall become as one” the word used is wife not wives…..any guy wanting more than one wife is some kinda special……My point was not so much about multiple wives but more to the point that our new self declared “gods” in washington are trying to assume the role of moral leadership. which is a joke all of its own. The rumors of professors claiming the pedis are born that way so cannot be blamed for their behavior sounds very similar to what we have been hearing form the gay comunity for years.

        • Katie Miller

          Where does the Bible say that a man having more than one wife is perverted?

      • Mark Smith

        come on now you do not have to understand any of it. All that is required now is to cheer their perverted actions and let the government dictate what you think about the behavior…….after all our government believes it superseeds morality and God’s laws…….our new gods have spoken

      • Mark Smith

        come on now you do not have to understand any of it. All that is required now is to cheer their perverted actions and let the government dictate what you think about the behavior…….after all our government believes it superseeds morality and God’s laws…….our new gods have spoken

      • Ed Sumner

        She doesn’t share her husband. It’s covenant between husband and each wife separately. And in Biblical polygamy, a wife doesn’t do the nasty with any of the other either, that’s perversion. Check out newcovenantpatriarchy.com

      • Ed Sumner

        She doesn’t share her husband. It’s covenant between husband and each wife separately. And in Biblical polygamy, a wife doesn’t do the nasty with any of the other either, that’s perversion. Check out newcovenantpatriarchy.com

      • Chris Nystrom

        For some women a large family with lots of children and the support she derives from that is very attractive, attractive enough to deal with and overcome issues she will have with jealousy. Read “Love Times Three” by the Dargers and see if that does not answer your question.

      • Chris Nystrom

        For some women a large family with lots of children and the support she derives from that is very attractive, attractive enough to deal with and overcome issues she will have with jealousy. Read “Love Times Three” by the Dargers and see if that does not answer your question.

      • Chris Nystrom

        For some women a large family with lots of children and the support she derives from that is very attractive, attractive enough to deal with and overcome issues she will have with jealousy. Read “Love Times Three” by the Dargers and see if that does not answer your question.

  • lynn263

    Why is it the we’re hearing and seeing more about polygamy, but absolutely nothing about polyandry (Women having plural husbands at the same time)? Just asking!

    • Cami W

      We can bet that once same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land there will be polygamy and bestiality activists demanding the same marriage rights. we know a Psychologist t who is legally married to one wife and later married (illegally) a second wife in Mexico…This is one reason I don’t trust Psychologists and phsyciatrists….

    • Cami W

      We can bet that once same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land there will be polygamy and bestiality activists demanding the same marriage rights. we know a Psychologist t who is legally married to one wife and later married (illegally) a second wife in Mexico…This is one reason I don’t trust Psychologists and phsyciatrists….

    • Cami W

      We can bet that once same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land there will be polygamy and bestiality activists demanding the same marriage rights. we know a Psychologist t who is legally married to one wife and later married (illegally) a second wife in Mexico…This is one reason I don’t trust Psychologists and phsyciatrists….

    • Kevin F. Casey

      That tends to be more on the Liberal Polyamory side of things. If we are strictly speaking of biblical as we know it today then it’s one man SEVERAL wives. Polyamory allows for Same sex polygamy as well as one women many men or group marriage.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      That tends to be more on the Liberal Polyamory side of things. If we are strictly speaking of biblical as we know it today then it’s one man SEVERAL wives. Polyamory allows for Same sex polygamy as well as one women many men or group marriage.

    • Chris Nystrom

      It comes up every time someone says something about polygyny. :)

    • Chris Nystrom

      It comes up every time someone says something about polygyny. :)

    • Chris Nystrom

      It comes up every time someone says something about polygyny. :)

    • LoreneFairchild

      Lynn263….According to the Biblical definition of adultery, Polyandry would be considered adulterous. The Biblical definition of adultery was always predicated on the marital status of the female, not the man. A good example of this is King David, who was judged by God for taking Bathsheba, even though he already had several wives at the time. David committed adultery with Bathsheba because she was the wife of another man and David had no right to touch her.

    • LoreneFairchild

      Lynn263….According to the Biblical definition of adultery, Polyandry would be considered adulterous. The Biblical definition of adultery was always predicated on the marital status of the female, not the man. A good example of this is King David, who was judged by God for taking Bathsheba, even though he already had several wives at the time. David committed adultery with Bathsheba because she was the wife of another man and David had no right to touch her.

    • LoreneFairchild

      Lynn263….According to the Biblical definition of adultery, Polyandry would be considered adulterous. The Biblical definition of adultery was always predicated on the marital status of the female, not the man. A good example of this is King David, who was judged by God for taking Bathsheba, even though he already had several wives at the time. David committed adultery with Bathsheba because she was the wife of another man and David had no right to touch her.

  • lynn263

    Why is it the we’re hearing and seeing more about polygamy, but absolutely nothing about polyandry (Women having plural husbands at the same time)? Just asking!

  • lynn263

    One wife for 44 years. Great gal. Don’t need another. You automatically go into the high maintenance mode.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Who cares what you think we should pass laws FORCING you to have other wives & Gay Marrages … You’d be ok with THAT now wouldn’t you??? No? So why do the opposite.

      • Chris Nystrom

        So what you are saying is that although monogamy may be terrific it is unfair to pass monogamy ONLY laws, and thus reduce freedom for everyone?

      • Chris Nystrom

        So what you are saying is that although monogamy may be terrific it is unfair to pass monogamy ONLY laws, and thus reduce freedom for everyone?

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Who cares what you think we should pass laws FORCING you to have other wives & Gay Marrages … You’d be ok with THAT now wouldn’t you??? No? So why do the opposite.

  • larrygrant876

    Whatever offends God is the new norm. I guess the silver lining is that once it’s acceptable to marry goats at least a few boys might be spared in the middle east.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Interesting God creates Man Nude & You say Nudity is an insult to your God. God Blesses many POLYGAMIST PATRIARCHS & you say Polygamy is an insult to your God. Well maybe you follow a FALSE god as you clearly do not believe in the Bible one. Now Show me One verse where God allowed one to marry an animal? Show me an animal that can speak english & give informed consent to marry a human? Anything to justify your hate of God.

      • larrygrant876

        I just realized why I can’t discus anything with Mormons, they don’t comprehend reality. Please cut and paste something I said to substantiate anything you said. Did you vote for obama? Just a thought

        • LoreneFairchild

          We’re not Mormons…..

          • larrygrant876

            I’m sorry, my intention was to point to the problem America has with crossing to many lines and I know your point regarding this is valid, some just are not.

          • larrygrant876

            I’m sorry, my intention was to point to the problem America has with crossing to many lines and I know your point regarding this is valid, some just are not.

        • LoreneFairchild

          We’re not Mormons…..

      • January24

        Kevin,

        The patriarchs in the Bible who had many wives and children PAID ALL THE EXPENSES OF THEIR FAMILIES THEMSELVES.

        Believe me; we taxpayers who are paying the freight for all of you freaking polygamists are sick of your sucking government teat to support your lifestyle.

      • January24

        Kevin,

        The patriarchs in the Bible who had many wives and children PAID ALL THE EXPENSES OF THEIR FAMILIES THEMSELVES.

        Believe me; we taxpayers who are paying the freight for all of you freaking polygamists are sick of your sucking government teat to support your lifestyle.

        • Katie Miller

          So as long as a man provides for all of his wives and children, he is moral in your eyes! Thanks for clearing that up. Since FC declared 4 different times that he didn’t take any government assistance, you should now be apologizing to him and speaking highly of him because he is following your protocol.

        • Katie Miller

          So as long as a man provides for all of his wives and children, he is moral in your eyes! Thanks for clearing that up. Since FC declared 4 different times that he didn’t take any government assistance, you should now be apologizing to him and speaking highly of him because he is following your protocol.

        • Katie Miller

          So as long as a man provides for all of his wives and children, he is moral in your eyes! Thanks for clearing that up. Since FC declared 4 different times that he didn’t take any government assistance, you should now be apologizing to him and speaking highly of him because he is following your protocol.

      • January24

        Kevin,

        The patriarchs in the Bible who had many wives and children PAID ALL THE EXPENSES OF THEIR FAMILIES THEMSELVES.

        Believe me; we taxpayers who are paying the freight for all of you freaking polygamists are sick of your sucking government teat to support your lifestyle.

      • NoLibLiz

        When created man was nude. When he sinned GOD covered him up.

        Yes God did bless patriarchs who had multiple wives but NOT because of it–only because he forgave them their sins and blessed them in spite of it. Christ told us that God created one man and one woman to be the basic family unit.

      • NoLibLiz

        When created man was nude. When he sinned GOD covered him up.

        Yes God did bless patriarchs who had multiple wives but NOT because of it–only because he forgave them their sins and blessed them in spite of it. Christ told us that God created one man and one woman to be the basic family unit.

      • NoLibLiz

        When created man was nude. When he sinned GOD covered him up.

        Yes God did bless patriarchs who had multiple wives but NOT because of it–only because he forgave them their sins and blessed them in spite of it. Christ told us that God created one man and one woman to be the basic family unit.

    • FC

      Which god do you serve and why is he offended by this? I follow the God spoken of in the Holy Bible, He blessed polygamist, He build His name on them and even chose one to write all his laws and the 1st 5 books of the Bible,That same man was chosen to lead His people out of captivity. The Creator spoken of in the Holy Bible is the same today and tomorrow, only an unjust god would give a man plural wives, bless him and then later condemn another man for having plural wives. Which is why you will find no such condemnation for polygamy in the Holy Bible.

      • larrygrant876

        Too many wives must keep you inside too much because my point was that the opening of too many doors just leads to any and everything being acceptable and normal when it is not. It doesn’t matter though because we’ve allready crossed to many boundrys that will not be undone.

        • FC

          I know what your point was, you included polygamy into everything that does offend God. In doing so you compared God giving David plural wives to sodomy for which God said was an abomination. Do you not see the problem with that? Really?

          • January24

            David paid the bills for all of his wives and children.

            You force your fellow taxpayers to fund your lifestyle. Get off the government teat, you leech.

          • January24

            David paid the bills for all of his wives and children.

            You force your fellow taxpayers to fund your lifestyle. Get off the government teat, you leech.

          • January24

            David paid the bills for all of his wives and children.

            You force your fellow taxpayers to fund your lifestyle. Get off the government teat, you leech.

        • FC

          I know what your point was, you included polygamy into everything that does offend God. In doing so you compared God giving David plural wives to sodomy for which God said was an abomination. Do you not see the problem with that? Really?

      • larrygrant876

        Too many wives must keep you inside too much because my point was that the opening of too many doors just leads to any and everything being acceptable and normal when it is not. It doesn’t matter though because we’ve allready crossed to many boundrys that will not be undone.

      • January24

        Pay all of the expenses for your “wives” and offspring and I don’t care how many you have. Grab as many stupid women as will agree to it.

        But I do very heartily object to having to foot the bill for your lifestyle. Everybody knows that the American taxpayers pay for your huge, polygamous family through welfare benefits.

        Get off the government teat, you leech.

      • January24

        Pay all of the expenses for your “wives” and offspring and I don’t care how many you have. Grab as many stupid women as will agree to it.

        But I do very heartily object to having to foot the bill for your lifestyle. Everybody knows that the American taxpayers pay for your huge, polygamous family through welfare benefits.

        Get off the government teat, you leech.

        • LoreneFairchild

          Prove FC is a leech…..without proof your accusations are groundless.

        • LoreneFairchild

          Prove FC is a leech…..without proof your accusations are groundless.

        • LoreneFairchild

          Prove FC is a leech…..without proof your accusations are groundless.

      • NoLibLiz

        FC – God never “GAVE” men plural wives. Man has always done that himself. The fact that God has chosen to use and bless men who had more than one wive does not mean HE approves of polygamy.

        • FC

          2 Samuel 12:8

          “And I GAVE thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”

          You are clearly mistaken. God did in fact GIVE men multiple wives and He said, if that had been to little, He would have GIVEN him even more.

        • FC

          2 Samuel 12:8

          “And I GAVE thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”

          You are clearly mistaken. God did in fact GIVE men multiple wives and He said, if that had been to little, He would have GIVEN him even more.

        • FC

          2 Samuel 12:8

          “And I GAVE thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”

          You are clearly mistaken. God did in fact GIVE men multiple wives and He said, if that had been to little, He would have GIVEN him even more.

      • NoLibLiz

        FC – God never “GAVE” men plural wives. Man has always done that himself. The fact that God has chosen to use and bless men who had more than one wive does not mean HE approves of polygamy.

      • NoLibLiz

        FC – God never “GAVE” men plural wives. Man has always done that himself. The fact that God has chosen to use and bless men who had more than one wive does not mean HE approves of polygamy.

    • FC

      Which god do you serve and why is he offended by this? I follow the God spoken of in the Holy Bible, He blessed polygamist, He build His name on them and even chose one to write all his laws and the 1st 5 books of the Bible,That same man was chosen to lead His people out of captivity. The Creator spoken of in the Holy Bible is the same today and tomorrow, only an unjust god would give a man plural wives, bless him and then later condemn another man for having plural wives. Which is why you will find no such condemnation for polygamy in the Holy Bible.

    • FC

      Which god do you serve and why is he offended by this? I follow the God spoken of in the Holy Bible, He blessed polygamist, He build His name on them and even chose one to write all his laws and the 1st 5 books of the Bible,That same man was chosen to lead His people out of captivity. The Creator spoken of in the Holy Bible is the same today and tomorrow, only an unjust god would give a man plural wives, bless him and then later condemn another man for having plural wives. Which is why you will find no such condemnation for polygamy in the Holy Bible.

    • Chris Nystrom

      How does polygamy offend God? Can you list any verses?

      P.S. I am not a Mormon.

    • Chris Nystrom

      How does polygamy offend God? Can you list any verses?

      P.S. I am not a Mormon.

    • Chris Nystrom

      How does polygamy offend God? Can you list any verses?

      P.S. I am not a Mormon.

  • larrygrant876

    Whatever offends God is the new norm. I guess the silver lining is that once it’s acceptable to marry goats at least a few boys might be spared in the middle east.

  • pappap42

    This is the next step, then comes marriage to children. You were told this would happen,

    • Kevin F. Casey

      SMH… too many ignorant people.

    • LoreneFairchild

      Are you aware that polygyny is one of the oldest forms of marriage around….dating back to Biblical times and still be practiced in many parts of the world ? It’s also being practiced here in the USA and has been since it’s beginning, albeit under-wraps. This is not new at all !

    • LoreneFairchild

      Are you aware that polygyny is one of the oldest forms of marriage around….dating back to Biblical times and still be practiced in many parts of the world ? It’s also being practiced here in the USA and has been since it’s beginning, albeit under-wraps. This is not new at all !

    • LoreneFairchild

      Are you aware that polygyny is one of the oldest forms of marriage around….dating back to Biblical times and still be practiced in many parts of the world ? It’s also being practiced here in the USA and has been since it’s beginning, albeit under-wraps. This is not new at all !

  • pappap42

    This is the next step, then comes marriage to children. You were told this would happen,

  • pappap42

    This is the next step, then comes marriage to children. You were told this would happen,

  • James

    I told you this. When homosexuals are allowed to marry
    next will be pedophiles and Bestiality. Polygamy
    has already started. The homsexual’s claim for the right to marry is the same for all these other perverts.

  • jdbixii

    There is a difference between Old and New Testament history and instruction on the issue of marriage. New Testament instruction, according to Titus 1:6 and I Timothy 3:2,( “must be the husband of ONE wife”). People who want to do what they want to do, which the church would qualify and characterize as “sin,” are free to do what they want to do. But they can’t pretend or purport to be in compliance with the teachings of the New Testament. People who don’t feel comfortable doing what they are doing and attempting to initiate changes in either society or the church are fundamentally dishonest. What is the meaning of the “unity of the Holy Spirit” if conviction of sin, relative to the specific teachings of Scripture, does not produce a unanimous agreement over what sin is, specifically?
    God gives people “over to a reprobate mind for the mortification of the flesh.” It happens. But who would make a church out of it?

    • Memphis Viking

      Those passages are part of the requirements for overseers in the church, not general commandments about marriage.

    • Memphis Viking

      Those passages are part of the requirements for overseers in the church, not general commandments about marriage.

    • Memphis Viking

      Those passages are part of the requirements for overseers in the church, not general commandments about marriage.

    • Chris Nystrom

      You might want to Google and find out Martin Luther’s and John Milton’s (Paradise Lost) opinions on polygamy to read counter arguments.

    • Chris Nystrom

      You might want to Google and find out Martin Luther’s and John Milton’s (Paradise Lost) opinions on polygamy to read counter arguments.

    • Chris Nystrom

      You might want to Google and find out Martin Luther’s and John Milton’s (Paradise Lost) opinions on polygamy to read counter arguments.

  • jdbixii

    There is a difference between Old and New Testament history and instruction on the issue of marriage. New Testament instruction, according to Titus 1:6 and I Timothy 3:2,( “must be the husband of ONE wife”). People who want to do what they want to do, which the church would qualify and characterize as “sin,” are free to do what they want to do. But they can’t pretend or purport to be in compliance with the teachings of the New Testament. People who don’t feel comfortable doing what they are doing and attempting to initiate changes in either society or the church are fundamentally dishonest. What is the meaning of the “unity of the Holy Spirit” if conviction of sin, relative to the specific teachings of Scripture, does not produce a unanimous agreement over what sin is, specifically?
    God gives people “over to a reprobate mind for the mortification of the flesh.” It happens. But who would make a church out of it?

  • jdbixii

    There is a difference between Old and New Testament history and instruction on the issue of marriage. New Testament instruction, according to Titus 1:6 and I Timothy 3:2,( “must be the husband of ONE wife”). People who want to do what they want to do, which the church would qualify and characterize as “sin,” are free to do what they want to do. But they can’t pretend or purport to be in compliance with the teachings of the New Testament. People who don’t feel comfortable doing what they are doing and attempting to initiate changes in either society or the church are fundamentally dishonest. What is the meaning of the “unity of the Holy Spirit” if conviction of sin, relative to the specific teachings of Scripture, does not produce a unanimous agreement over what sin is, specifically?
    God gives people “over to a reprobate mind for the mortification of the flesh.” It happens. But who would make a church out of it?

  • Badburro

    “Christian polygamy” is an oxymoron. God said one man and one woman. Sheesh..

  • Badburro

    “Christian polygamy” is an oxymoron. God said one man and one woman. Sheesh..

  • Badburro

    “Christian polygamy” is an oxymoron. God said one man and one woman. Sheesh..

  • ralphwylie

    If homosexuality and homosexual marriage are being forced on us by the Liberals then there should be no problem with those that advocate polygamy or even sex with animals or children, right?

    • fd2blk78

      Jesus Christ. What a stupid comment. Haha

    • fd2blk78

      Jesus Christ. What a stupid comment. Haha

    • jerrycollie

      Mu$lims already marry little underage girls.

    • jerrycollie

      Mu$lims already marry little underage girls.

  • ralphwylie

    If homosexuality and homosexual marriage are being forced on us by the Liberals then there should be no problem with those that advocate polygamy or even sex with animals or children, right?

  • Charles

    This nut is advocating polygamy by claiming civil rights, and using “women’s rights.” No doubt his cause will have full funding and support from the petrodollar nations.

  • Charles

    This nut is advocating polygamy by claiming civil rights, and using “women’s rights.” No doubt his cause will have full funding and support from the petrodollar nations.

  • molon labe

    Another false doctrine, we are in the “last days”, this Henkel is a minion of the dark one, laugh about it but hope you see what’s behind it! Keep looking up!

  • molon labe

    Another false doctrine, we are in the “last days”, this Henkel is a minion of the dark one, laugh about it but hope you see what’s behind it! Keep looking up!

  • DeMann

    99.99999 percent of the time, I am a strict conservative, but this issue is different. I don’t care if you marry a chair, as long as you don’t hurt anybody else (you can hurt yourself in a human/chair marriage all you want). I simply believe that if you allow gay marriage, you must allow marriage in all of its (non-life-form-hurting) many faces. If a gay couple can receive the benefits of marriage, then long-term cohabitors must be able to receive the same benefits. An example: Two sisters that have lived together for a long period of time (share bills, expenses, etc) should receive the SAME cohabitation benefits as any one else (like platonic cohabitation between friends, etc). If you are going to allow it for SOME people, you must allow it for all people … call it, I don’t know, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW!!!

  • DeMann

    99.99999 percent of the time, I am a strict conservative, but this issue is different. I don’t care if you marry a chair, as long as you don’t hurt anybody else (you can hurt yourself in a human/chair marriage all you want). I simply believe that if you allow gay marriage, you must allow marriage in all of its (non-life-form-hurting) many faces. If a gay couple can receive the benefits of marriage, then long-term cohabitors must be able to receive the same benefits. An example: Two sisters that have lived together for a long period of time (share bills, expenses, etc) should receive the SAME cohabitation benefits as any one else (like platonic cohabitation between friends, etc). If you are going to allow it for SOME people, you must allow it for all people … call it, I don’t know, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW!!!

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Damn PC liberal!

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Damn PC liberal!

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Damn PC liberal!

    • jerrycollie

      Such marriages do hurt others: Photographers have been sued for refusing to take pictures at such weddings. Churches cannot run adoption services and will have to shut down. Restaurants will be sued for not allowing such wedding receptions. Ministers will be sued for not marrying these couples.Schools will be sued for not teaching their children that these relationships are a good thing.

      • Bighoss

        You are correct. The homosexuals will not stop until they have filled in all the blanks on their agenda, and it will involve all that hostility and litigation you describe and much more.

      • Bighoss

        You are correct. The homosexuals will not stop until they have filled in all the blanks on their agenda, and it will involve all that hostility and litigation you describe and much more.

      • Bighoss

        You are correct. The homosexuals will not stop until they have filled in all the blanks on their agenda, and it will involve all that hostility and litigation you describe and much more.

    • jerrycollie

      Such marriages do hurt others: Photographers have been sued for refusing to take pictures at such weddings. Churches cannot run adoption services and will have to shut down. Restaurants will be sued for not allowing such wedding receptions. Ministers will be sued for not marrying these couples.Schools will be sued for not teaching their children that these relationships are a good thing.

    • Chris Nystrom

      Common sense! So refreshing!

    • Chris Nystrom

      Common sense! So refreshing!

    • Chris Nystrom

      Common sense! So refreshing!

  • DeMann

    99.99999 percent of the time, I am a strict conservative, but this issue is different. I don’t care if you marry a chair, as long as you don’t hurt anybody else (you can hurt yourself in a human/chair marriage all you want). I simply believe that if you allow gay marriage, you must allow marriage in all of its (non-life-form-hurting) many faces. If a gay couple can receive the benefits of marriage, then long-term cohabitors must be able to receive the same benefits. An example: Two sisters that have lived together for a long period of time (share bills, expenses, etc) should receive the SAME cohabitation benefits as any one else (like platonic cohabitation between friends, etc). If you are going to allow it for SOME people, you must allow it for all people … call it, I don’t know, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW!!!

  • DeMann

    If marriage IS an issue … it is a STATE issue, not a Federal issue … the Fed has no business ruling in this case … this issue is NOT covered under the enumerated powers outlined for the Federal government in the Constitution, therefore it is relegated to the STATES or the PEOPLE …

  • DeMann

    If marriage IS an issue … it is a STATE issue, not a Federal issue … the Fed has no business ruling in this case … this issue is NOT covered under the enumerated powers outlined for the Federal government in the Constitution, therefore it is relegated to the STATES or the PEOPLE …

  • barb patton

    What a load of hogwash…….Hell the men these days can’t even support 1 wife let alone 4 – stupid stupid.

  • barb patton

    What a load of hogwash…….Hell the men these days can’t even support 1 wife let alone 4 – stupid stupid.

  • barb patton

    What a load of hogwash…….Hell the men these days can’t even support 1 wife let alone 4 – stupid stupid.

  • Timur

    Remember the Oak Ridge Boys, “Trying to love two women is like a ball and chain”

  • Timur

    Remember the Oak Ridge Boys, “Trying to love two women is like a ball and chain”

  • Timur

    Remember the Oak Ridge Boys, “Trying to love two women is like a ball and chain”

  • Wesley Speck

    THE LAW,
    “Lo Na^’aph”–

    Exo 20:14 Thou shalt
    not commit adultery.H5003

    Adultery H5003
    נאף
    na^’aph
    naw-af’
    A primitive root; to
    commit adultery; figuratively to apostatize

    1. The word
    means—well, adultery. We let the scripture define “adultery”.

    2. Adultery is
    something that a man does with another man’s wife–

    Lev 20:10 And the man
    that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth
    adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall
    surely be put to death.

    3. The basic poison of
    adultery is the wife who takes strangers instead of her husband–

    Eze 16:32 But as a
    wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!

    It looks like the wife
    who takes a stranger instead of her husband, and the stranger she takes, are
    both guilty of adultery to the same degree.

    Sorry, the Law is specific, and the concept of what constitutes adultery is indeed sexist, uh I mean patriarchal.

    In Love

  • Wesley Speck

    THE LAW,
    “Lo Na^’aph”–

    Exo 20:14 Thou shalt
    not commit adultery.H5003

    Adultery H5003
    נאף
    na^’aph
    naw-af’
    A primitive root; to
    commit adultery; figuratively to apostatize

    1. The word
    means—well, adultery. We let the scripture define “adultery”.

    2. Adultery is
    something that a man does with another man’s wife–

    Lev 20:10 And the man
    that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth
    adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall
    surely be put to death.

    3. The basic poison of
    adultery is the wife who takes strangers instead of her husband–

    Eze 16:32 But as a
    wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!

    It looks like the wife
    who takes a stranger instead of her husband, and the stranger she takes, are
    both guilty of adultery to the same degree.

    Sorry, the Law is specific, and the concept of what constitutes adultery is indeed sexist, uh I mean patriarchal.

    In Love

  • Wesley Speck

    THE LAW,
    “Lo Na^’aph”–

    Exo 20:14 Thou shalt
    not commit adultery.H5003

    Adultery H5003
    נאף
    na^’aph
    naw-af’
    A primitive root; to
    commit adultery; figuratively to apostatize

    1. The word
    means—well, adultery. We let the scripture define “adultery”.

    2. Adultery is
    something that a man does with another man’s wife–

    Lev 20:10 And the man
    that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth
    adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall
    surely be put to death.

    3. The basic poison of
    adultery is the wife who takes strangers instead of her husband–

    Eze 16:32 But as a
    wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!

    It looks like the wife
    who takes a stranger instead of her husband, and the stranger she takes, are
    both guilty of adultery to the same degree.

    Sorry, the Law is specific, and the concept of what constitutes adultery is indeed sexist, uh I mean patriarchal.

    In Love

  • Wesley Speck

    MOSES—3 wives

    Exo 2:21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man:
    and he gave Moses ZIPPORAH his
    daughter.

    Num 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses
    because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an ETHIOPIAN WOMAN.

    Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words:
    If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto
    him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

    Num 12:7 My servant Moses is not
    so, WHO IS FAITHFUL IN ALL MINE HOUSE.

    The KENITE FATHER INLAW

    Jdg 1:16 And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father in law . . .

    In Love

  • Wesley Speck

    MOSES—3 wives

    Exo 2:21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man:
    and he gave Moses ZIPPORAH his
    daughter.

    Num 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses
    because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an ETHIOPIAN WOMAN.

    Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words:
    If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto
    him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

    Num 12:7 My servant Moses is not
    so, WHO IS FAITHFUL IN ALL MINE HOUSE.

    The KENITE FATHER INLAW

    Jdg 1:16 And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father in law . . .

    In Love

  • Wesley Speck

    MOSES—3 wives

    Exo 2:21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man:
    and he gave Moses ZIPPORAH his
    daughter.

    Num 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses
    because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an ETHIOPIAN WOMAN.

    Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words:
    If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto
    him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

    Num 12:7 My servant Moses is not
    so, WHO IS FAITHFUL IN ALL MINE HOUSE.

    The KENITE FATHER INLAW

    Jdg 1:16 And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father in law . . .

    In Love

  • Wesley Speck

    DAVID—at least 12 wives, at least 10 concubines

    1Sa 13:14 But . . . the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people . . .

    1Sa 16:13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward . . .

    1Sa 19:11 . . . and MICHAL David’s wife told him, saying, . . .

    1Sa 25:39 . . .And David sent and communed with ABIGAIL, to take her to him to wife.

    1Sa 30:5 And David’s two wives were taken captives, AHINOAM the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite.

    2Sa 32 And unto David were sons born in Hebron: and his firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess;

    2Sa 3:3 And his second, Chileab, of Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom the son of MAACAH the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur;

    2Sa 3:4 And the fourth, Adonijah the son of HAGGITH; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of ABITAL;

    2Sa 3:5 And the sixth, Ithream, by EGLAH David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron.

    2Sa 12:24 And David comforted BATHSHEBA his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him.

    2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and THY MASTER’S WIVES into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

    1Ch 14:3 And David took MORE wives at Jerusalem: and David begat more sons and daughters.

    2Sa 15:16 And the king went forth, and all his household after him. And the king left TEN WOMEN, WHICH WERE CONCUBINES, to keep the house.

    1Ki 15:5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

    David’s Master was SAUL—1 wife, 1 concubine

    1Sa 14:50 And the name of Saul’s wife was Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz . . .

    2Sa 3:7 And Saul had a concubine, whose name was RIZPAH, the daughter of Aiah . . .

    In Love

  • Wesley Speck

    DAVID—at least 12 wives, at least 10 concubines

    1Sa 13:14 But . . . the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people . . .

    1Sa 16:13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward . . .

    1Sa 19:11 . . . and MICHAL David’s wife told him, saying, . . .

    1Sa 25:39 . . .And David sent and communed with ABIGAIL, to take her to him to wife.

    1Sa 30:5 And David’s two wives were taken captives, AHINOAM the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite.

    2Sa 32 And unto David were sons born in Hebron: and his firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess;

    2Sa 3:3 And his second, Chileab, of Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom the son of MAACAH the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur;

    2Sa 3:4 And the fourth, Adonijah the son of HAGGITH; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of ABITAL;

    2Sa 3:5 And the sixth, Ithream, by EGLAH David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron.

    2Sa 12:24 And David comforted BATHSHEBA his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him.

    2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and THY MASTER’S WIVES into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

    1Ch 14:3 And David took MORE wives at Jerusalem: and David begat more sons and daughters.

    2Sa 15:16 And the king went forth, and all his household after him. And the king left TEN WOMEN, WHICH WERE CONCUBINES, to keep the house.

    1Ki 15:5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

    David’s Master was SAUL—1 wife, 1 concubine

    1Sa 14:50 And the name of Saul’s wife was Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz . . .

    2Sa 3:7 And Saul had a concubine, whose name was RIZPAH, the daughter of Aiah . . .

    In Love

  • http://www.facebook.com/chinaclipper Ronald Williamson

    Polygamy will not be the next civil right. It will be the broader term : sexual polymorphism. Polygamy will be a subset of this.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chinaclipper Ronald Williamson

    Polygamy will not be the next civil right. It will be the broader term : sexual polymorphism. Polygamy will be a subset of this.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chinaclipper Ronald Williamson

    Polygamy will not be the next civil right. It will be the broader term : sexual polymorphism. Polygamy will be a subset of this.

  • Roger

    Thom Hartman is TOTALLY WRONG. The “Mormons ” do NOT practice polygamy. They have not for at least 110 years. Polygamy will get you excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      they did that to become a state. so it was FORCED upon them Some like many Republicans choose different.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      they did that to become a state. so it was FORCED upon them Some like many Republicans choose different.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      they did that to become a state. so it was FORCED upon them Some like many Republicans choose different.

    • Bighoss

      The Salt Lake City bunch of Mormons don’t, but the so-called “fundamentalist Mormons” do. Mormonism is fractured in to about 6 or 7 factions, with one of the non-polygamist factions being the largest and headquartered in Salt Lake City.

    • Bighoss

      The Salt Lake City bunch of Mormons don’t, but the so-called “fundamentalist Mormons” do. Mormonism is fractured in to about 6 or 7 factions, with one of the non-polygamist factions being the largest and headquartered in Salt Lake City.

  • Roger

    Thom Hartman is TOTALLY WRONG. The “Mormons ” do NOT practice polygamy. They have not for at least 110 years. Polygamy will get you excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.

  • Roger

    Thom Hartman is TOTALLY WRONG. The “Mormons ” do NOT practice polygamy. They have not for at least 110 years. Polygamy will get you excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.

  • GrizzlyIX

    Now THAT’S what I’M TALKIN’ ABOUT! ! ! ! ! What do Ya’ think the Muzzilems are fightin’ so hard for? ! ? The Queeran says every self-defecatin’ Muzzie can have FOUR, (& some Saudis have EVEN MORE! ! ! !)

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Umm you are aware the Quran is the Arabic interpretation of our Bible in Arabic right? you ARE aware they devote a book to JESUS CHRIST? Do you know that they veiw him as THE Messiah? Granted their take is a bit different. To them he assended to heaven BEFORE he was nailed to the cross. As God would not allow such a thing. They also take the Fisrt commandment extremely literall. Therefore Jesus is NOT part oif a three person God there is only ONE God of abraham. So take your stupidity back to whertever…

      • Memphis Viking

        Umm you are aware that calling someone stupid while claiming the Quran is just an Arabic translation of the Bible is pretty ironic, right?

        • Thomas Jefferson

          I doubt Kevin understands the word ironic.

        • Thomas Jefferson

          I doubt Kevin understands the word ironic.

      • Memphis Viking

        Umm you are aware that calling someone stupid while claiming the Quran is just an Arabic translation of the Bible is pretty ironic, right?

      • stillsane

        The Quran, Muhammed considers Jesus a prophet.

      • stillsane

        The Quran, Muhammed considers Jesus a prophet.

      • stillsane

        The Quran, Muhammed considers Jesus a prophet.

      • windskisong

        Ok, here Kevin you’re just plain wrong. Quran is not an Arabic translation, it is a completely different understanding of God and His nature. Even if you are a unitarian, the Muslim understanding of God is COMPLETELY different from anything resembling the Christian or Jewish understandings of God/Yhwh.

        • Thomas Jefferson

          Did you not understand Kevin? He asked that you take your stupidity back to whertever…How could you argue with that?

        • Thomas Jefferson

          Did you not understand Kevin? He asked that you take your stupidity back to whertever…How could you argue with that?

      • windskisong

        Ok, here Kevin you’re just plain wrong. Quran is not an Arabic translation, it is a completely different understanding of God and His nature. Even if you are a unitarian, the Muslim understanding of God is COMPLETELY different from anything resembling the Christian or Jewish understandings of God/Yhwh.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Umm you are aware the Quran is the Arabic interpretation of our Bible in Arabic right? you ARE aware they devote a book to JESUS CHRIST? Do you know that they veiw him as THE Messiah? Granted their take is a bit different. To them he assended to heaven BEFORE he was nailed to the cross. As God would not allow such a thing. They also take the Fisrt commandment extremely literall. Therefore Jesus is NOT part oif a three person God there is only ONE God of abraham. So take your stupidity back to whertever…

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Umm you are aware the Quran is the Arabic interpretation of our Bible in Arabic right? you ARE aware they devote a book to JESUS CHRIST? Do you know that they veiw him as THE Messiah? Granted their take is a bit different. To them he assended to heaven BEFORE he was nailed to the cross. As God would not allow such a thing. They also take the Fisrt commandment extremely literall. Therefore Jesus is NOT part oif a three person God there is only ONE God of abraham. So take your stupidity back to whertever…

  • GrizzlyIX

    Now THAT’S what I’M TALKIN’ ABOUT! ! ! ! ! What do Ya’ think the Muzzilems are fightin’ so hard for? ! ? The Queeran says every self-defecatin’ Muzzie can have FOUR, (& some Saudis have EVEN MORE! ! ! !)

  • Stan Parrish

    Once you start redefining what all civilizations throughout human history have established as a marriage there will be no stopping how it is redefined again and again and again. One day you might wake up and find that everybody is married to everybody. No choice in the matter if your government makes it law.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Redefining? Wow you act as if this is something though t up in the last year NOt the last 6000 years. the ONLY ones redefining anything is folks like you.

    • Kevin F. Casey

      Redefining? Wow you act as if this is something though t up in the last year NOt the last 6000 years. the ONLY ones redefining anything is folks like you.

      • Memphis Viking

        The ones redefining marriage are the ones pushing gay marriage.

      • Memphis Viking

        The ones redefining marriage are the ones pushing gay marriage.

      • Stan Parrish

        How do you figure. Throughout history it been a man and a woman. Sometimes a man and several women though I think that was more an exercise in power. Homosexuality was always around but it has never been the foundation of a civilization. Now by redefining marriage we are saying that any 2 people can be that foundation. There are rumblings about 3 or more people to a marriage. When will the familial barrier be crossed? A lack of continuity will inevitably lead to chaos. Folks like me prefer to have marriage remain what it has always been. I do believe that accommodations can be made so that gay couples have the same rights as hetero. I don’t even have a problem with giving the same rights to polygamous groups. But I do think that each situation is separate and distinct and therefore should have their own names. Marriage has been taken for thousands of years.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Everybody is married to everybody? You really think that the entire world might end up married to everyone at some point? Thank you for the most absurd post of the day.

      • Stan Parrish

        I guess your mind is to linear to understand what that means. What that means is that marriage does not exist since it has been redefined out of existence and everyone lives in open relationships. Do I think it is likely. No. But I would have said the same thing about gay marriage 30 years ago or 3 thousand years ago.

        • Thomas Jefferson

          Being linear is besides the point. Everyone married to everyone is not the same as no one married to anyone. Even if everyone was in an open relationship, that is not the same as being married to everyone on the planet. Words have meaning. If you are unable to express yourself adequately, do not be surprised when people have no idea what you are trying to say.
          Gay marriage has occurred in the past. You should explore history more thoroughly.

          • Stan Parrish

            Boy you are really S L O W.

            Marriage is the foundation of every society. What society throughout history based their society the way you are suggesting. For that matter what civilization prior to our generation believed that there was no difference between married people of the opposite sex and any other combination.

          • Thomas Jefferson
          • Thomas Jefferson
          • Stan Parrish

            Same old. Same old. There is nothing there that disagrees with anything I said.

          • Thomas Jefferson

            Well, except that you claimed there no gay marriages in the past. Which is false.

          • Stan Parrish

            Look at my posts. I said no society defined marriage that way. That is not the same thing as having a ruler accept the life choice of someone close to him. A ruler is one man.

          • Thomas Jefferson

            If and when we allow gay marriage, we will not be defining marriage or society either as gay society. What exactly are you trying to say. Because I really have no idea.

          • Stan Parrish

            That makes 2 of us. I don’t know what to expect. There is no historical precedent for what if any impact a new definition of marriage will be. I do know that mankind is very unpredictable. Historically speaking, in days long gone areas that were more accepting of homosexual relationships swung around the other way so hard that today they would cut your head off if you were homosexual. I’m glad we live in a more enlightened side of the planet because nobody deserves that. I do think that one possible result of redefining marriage is that we will then be in a permanent state of war with Islam unless they seriously reform their religion. Various Imams of that faith have pushed their followers into moving to other countries to out breed the native populations so that they become the majority and can impose world wide Sharia. If you follow what has been happening in Europe, that is becoming more and more possible. I’m not making any judgements but it is kind of a hobby to observe long and short term trends.

          • Stan Parrish

            That makes 2 of us. I don’t know what to expect. There is no historical precedent for what if any impact a new definition of marriage will be. I do know that mankind is very unpredictable. Historically speaking, in days long gone areas that were more accepting of homosexual relationships swung around the other way so hard that today they would cut your head off if you were homosexual. I’m glad we live in a more enlightened side of the planet because nobody deserves that. I do think that one possible result of redefining marriage is that we will then be in a permanent state of war with Islam unless they seriously reform their religion. Various Imams of that faith have pushed their followers into moving to other countries to out breed the native populations so that they become the majority and can impose world wide Sharia. If you follow what has been happening in Europe, that is becoming more and more possible. I’m not making any judgements but it is kind of a hobby to observe long and short term trends.

          • Stan Parrish

            That makes 2 of us. I don’t know what to expect. There is no historical precedent for what if any impact a new definition of marriage will be. I do know that mankind is very unpredictable. Historically speaking, in days long gone areas that were more accepting of homosexual relationships swung around the other way so hard that today they would cut your head off if you were homosexual. I’m glad we live in a more enlightened side of the planet because nobody deserves that. I do think that one possible result of redefining marriage is that we will then be in a permanent state of war with Islam unless they seriously reform their religion. Various Imams of that faith have pushed their followers into moving to other countries to out breed the native populations so that they become the majority and can impose world wide Sharia. If you follow what has been happening in Europe, that is becoming more and more possible. I’m not making any judgements but it is kind of a hobby to observe long and short term trends.

          • Stan Parrish

            Look at my posts. I said no society defined marriage that way. That is not the same thing as having a ruler accept the life choice of someone close to him. A ruler is one man.

          • Stan Parrish

            Look at my posts. I said no society defined marriage that way. That is not the same thing as having a ruler accept the life choice of someone close to him. A ruler is one man.

          • Thomas Jefferson

            Well, except that you claimed there no gay marriages in the past. Which is false.

          • Stan Parrish

            Same old. Same old. There is nothing there that disagrees with anything I said.

          • Stan Parrish

            Same old. Same old. There is nothing there that disagrees with anything I said.

          • Stan Parrish

            Boy you are really S L O W.

            Marriage is the foundation of every society. What society throughout history based their society the way you are suggesting. For that matter what civilization prior to our generation believed that there was no difference between married people of the opposite sex and any other combination.

          • Stan Parrish

            Boy you are really S L O W.

            Marriage is the foundation of every society. What society throughout history based their society the way you are suggesting. For that matter what civilization prior to our generation believed that there was no difference between married people of the opposite sex and any other combination.

        • Thomas Jefferson

          Being linear is besides the point. Everyone married to everyone is not the same as no one married to anyone. Even if everyone was in an open relationship, that is not the same as being married to everyone on the planet. Words have meaning. If you are unable to express yourself adequately, do not be surprised when people have no idea what you are trying to say.
          Gay marriage has occurred in the past. You should explore history more thoroughly.

        • Thomas Jefferson

          Being linear is besides the point. Everyone married to everyone is not the same as no one married to anyone. Even if everyone was in an open relationship, that is not the same as being married to everyone on the planet. Words have meaning. If you are unable to express yourself adequately, do not be surprised when people have no idea what you are trying to say.
          Gay marriage has occurred in the past. You should explore history more thoroughly.

      • Stan Parrish

        I guess your mind is to linear to understand what that means. What that means is that marriage does not exist since it has been redefined out of existence and everyone lives in open relationships. Do I think it is likely. No. But I would have said the same thing about gay marriage 30 years ago or 3 thousand years ago.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Everybody is married to everybody? You really think that the entire world might end up married to everyone at some point? Thank you for the most absurd post of the day.

    • Chris Nystrom

      Polygamy is very common in history and even today around the world among humans.

      • Stan Parrish

        Agreed. Polygamy has occurred many times in the past for different reasons. Power is the most common reason. Men with power would use any coercive force including religion to get what they want, spread, their seed, or just to lord it over other men. Sometimes population just needed to expand and this was another way of doing that. But it has never been the bedrock of civilization.

        • FC

          I keep hearing this stuff about polygamy being for population growth, Why would one man and 3 wives create more population then 3 men with one wife each? Unless of course, the thinking is, that communal living is more conducive to creating more offspring then mono marriages because they are better equipped to raise the children…

          • Stan Parrish

            Population growth was one of the lesser reasons for polygamy. Way back when soldiers fought with swords, fewer men returned home from the wars but the threats remained so the need for a growing population was great. This caused a drastic shift in the number of men available while the number of women remained constant. Yes 3 men and 3 women could create the same number of children but the math wasn’t there. Women would greatly outnumber the men after devastating battles.

          • FC

            Understood, but that was at least as much as their not being enough men for all the women as it was about population. I think the two are different issues. I mean there not being enough men would always be a good reason for polygyny, even if not to try and grow the population.

            I think we have this reason now, there aren’t as many good husbands out there as need for, for all the women. Which is where the saying comes from, “All the good ones are taken” I also believe that because it opens up so many more options for women, it forces men to be better, to be good husbands and good Fathers because the chances of them finding someone to dump there sperm and then move on is less available. In other words, they had better value the ones who wants to be with them and treat them better, commit to them.

            I think the issue works itself out, if a women had to choose between two equal men, one who had a wife and one who was single, more women would choose the single guy. If this turned out to be the case, polygamy/polygyny wouldn’t be very common. but if the women had to choose between two man who were not equal, one was single but a loser who didn’t want to take care of her or their children and just run around and sleep with everyone who would let him and the other was a married man who would commit to love and take care of her and their children, being the best husband and father he could to them. I think a lot of women would choose the better man. If this turned out to be the case, polygamy/polygyny would be more common.

            The issue for me is that the women has this choice. She should not be forced by anyone to pick either one. She should be allowed to make up her mind, based on her needs and desires. The decision of which was better for her, should come down to her. Not anyone else forcing her to marry a married man or threatening her with a crime for choosing the married man.

          • FC

            Understood, but that was at least as much as their not being enough men for all the women as it was about population. I think the two are different issues. I mean there not being enough men would always be a good reason for polygyny, even if not to try and grow the population.

            I think we have this reason now, there aren’t as many good husbands out there as need for, for all the women. Which is where the saying comes from, “All the good ones are taken” I also believe that because it opens up so many more options for women, it forces men to be better, to be good husbands and good Fathers because the chances of them finding someone to dump there sperm and then move on is less available. In other words, they had better value the ones who wants to be with them and treat them better, commit to them.

            I think the issue works itself out, if a women had to choose between two equal men, one who had a wife and one who was single, more women would choose the single guy. If this turned out to be the case, polygamy/polygyny wouldn’t be very common. but if the women had to choose between two man who were not equal, one was single but a loser who didn’t want to take care of her or their children and just run around and sleep with everyone who would let him and the other was a married man who would commit to love and take care of her and their children, being the best husband and father he could to them. I think a lot of women would choose the better man. If this turned out to be the case, polygamy/polygyny would be more common.

            The issue for me is that the women has this choice. She should not be forced by anyone to pick either one. She should be allowed to make up her mind, based on her needs and desires. The decision of which was better for her, should come down to her. Not anyone else forcing her to marry a married man or threatening her with a crime for choosing the married man.

          • Stan Parrish

            Population growth was one of the lesser reasons for polygamy. Way back when soldiers fought with swords, fewer men returned home from the wars but the threats remained so the need for a growing population was great. This caused a drastic shift in the number of men available while the number of women remained constant. Yes 3 men and 3 women could create the same number of children but the math wasn’t there. Women would greatly outnumber the men after devastating battles.

          • Bighoss

            Wake up, FC. The polygamists practicing today produce on average far more children per union than normal decent people.

          • FC

            lol.. you wouldn’t go off “per union” you would have to go off per wife. Why would 1 man and 3 wives be able to produce more children the 3 man with 3 wives?

            And the question wasn’t who does produce more. it was said, it was practiced to grow the population. So again, why would 1 man and 3 wives BE ABLE to grow the population faster then 3 men and 3 wives?

          • Bighoss

            Because among the Mormon polygamists who are associated with the practice as it originated within Mormonism typically breed like rabbits and produce more offspring per man/woman union than the average number produced by monogamous Americans.

          • Bighoss

            Because among the Mormon polygamists who are associated with the practice as it originated within Mormonism typically breed like rabbits and produce more offspring per man/woman union than the average number produced by monogamous Americans.

          • Bighoss

            Because among the Mormon polygamists who are associated with the practice as it originated within Mormonism typically breed like rabbits and produce more offspring per man/woman union than the average number produced by monogamous Americans.

          • Bighoss

            Wake up, FC. The polygamists practicing today produce on average far more children per union than normal decent people.

          • Bighoss

            Wake up, FC. The polygamists practicing today produce on average far more children per union than normal decent people.

        • FC

          I keep hearing this stuff about polygamy being for population growth, Why would one man and 3 wives create more population then 3 men with one wife each? Unless of course, the thinking is, that communal living is more conducive to creating more offspring then mono marriages because they are better equipped to raise the children…

      • Stan Parrish

        Agreed. Polygamy has occurred many times in the past for different reasons. Power is the most common reason. Men with power would use any coercive force including religion to get what they want, spread, their seed, or just to lord it over other men. Sometimes population just needed to expand and this was another way of doing that. But it has never been the bedrock of civilization.

      • Stan Parrish

        Agreed. Polygamy has occurred many times in the past for different reasons. Power is the most common reason. Men with power would use any coercive force including religion to get what they want, spread, their seed, or just to lord it over other men. Sometimes population just needed to expand and this was another way of doing that. But it has never been the bedrock of civilization.

    • Chris Nystrom

      Polygamy is very common in history and even today around the world among humans.

    • Chris Nystrom

      Polygamy is very common in history and even today around the world among humans.

  • Stan Parrish

    Once you start redefining what all civilizations throughout human history have established as a marriage there will be no stopping how it is redefined again and again and again. One day you might wake up and find that everybody is married to everybody. No choice in the matter if your government makes it law.

  • Edward Ebersole

    You know something ladies and gentlemen Dr. Ben Carson made a good point when they asked him his position on gay marriage. We open that door and what else will slither on through.

  • Edward Ebersole

    You know something ladies and gentlemen Dr. Ben Carson made a good point when they asked him his position on gay marriage. We open that door and what else will slither on through.

    • $22091572

      how about pedophiles being legal now. and yes polygamy.. just to name two..

    • $22091572

      how about pedophiles being legal now. and yes polygamy.. just to name two..

      • Thomas Jefferson

        How does this allow pedophiles? Minors still cannot give consent.

        • $22091572

          gays wasn’t allowed to get married.. the rules have changed now and Pandora’s box has been opened.

          • Thomas Jefferson

            That does not answer the question. Pedophiles still cannot molest minors. A minor cannot give informed consent and therefore, will continue to be protected.

          • Thomas Jefferson

            That does not answer the question. Pedophiles still cannot molest minors. A minor cannot give informed consent and therefore, will continue to be protected.

          • Thomas Jefferson

            That does not answer the question. Pedophiles still cannot molest minors. A minor cannot give informed consent and therefore, will continue to be protected.

        • $22091572

          gays wasn’t allowed to get married.. the rules have changed now and Pandora’s box has been opened.

        • $22091572

          gays wasn’t allowed to get married.. the rules have changed now and Pandora’s box has been opened.

    • $22091572

      how about pedophiles being legal now. and yes polygamy.. just to name two..

    • Irma

      Unnatural sexual acts quite often result in diseases— proof that it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature! It will not bother me if they pay the ultimate price for their folly.

      • Thomas Jefferson

        Because there are no sexual diseases that only occur between men and women.

      • Thomas Jefferson

        Because there are no sexual diseases that only occur between men and women.

    • Irma

      Unnatural sexual acts quite often result in diseases— proof that it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature! It will not bother me if they pay the ultimate price for their folly.

    • Irma

      Unnatural sexual acts quite often result in diseases— proof that it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature! It will not bother me if they pay the ultimate price for their folly.

  • Edward Ebersole

    You know something ladies and gentlemen Dr. Ben Carson made a good point when they asked him his position on gay marriage. We open that door and what else will slither on through.

  • John Julian

    I wrote this before I saw the polygamy article, and as much as I want to go Dennis Miller on this, it is very, very sad. And reprehensible …oh, man the temptation for one liners!!
    http://www.ocdtexas.com/the-broken-heart-of-god/

  • John Julian

    I wrote this before I saw the polygamy article, and as much as I want to go Dennis Miller on this, it is very, very sad. And reprehensible …oh, man the temptation for one liners!!
    http://www.ocdtexas.com/the-broken-heart-of-god/

  • John Julian

    I wrote this before I saw the polygamy article, and as much as I want to go Dennis Miller on this, it is very, very sad. And reprehensible …oh, man the temptation for one liners!!
    http://www.ocdtexas.com/the-broken-heart-of-god/

  • gwedem5995

    I always supported polygamists because they just wanted to do their thing and live their lives without intruding on my beliefs. However, two men and two women are not normal in my opinion and I would have agreed with a civil union but not marriage.
    Wait until the HIV cases rise. I guess what the supreme court says is that pedophilia is ok now since that is their persuasion.

  • gwedem5995

    I always supported polygamists because they just wanted to do their thing and live their lives without intruding on my beliefs. However, two men and two women are not normal in my opinion and I would have agreed with a civil union but not marriage.
    Wait until the HIV cases rise. I guess what the supreme court says is that pedophilia is ok now since that is their persuasion.

  • gwedem5995

    I always supported polygamists because they just wanted to do their thing and live their lives without intruding on my beliefs. However, two men and two women are not normal in my opinion and I would have agreed with a civil union but not marriage.
    Wait until the HIV cases rise. I guess what the supreme court says is that pedophilia is ok now since that is their persuasion.

  • George Estepp

    polygamy would be for rich masochists living with one especialy at that time of month can be bad but this multiplies it

  • George Estepp

    polygamy would be for rich masochists living with one especialy at that time of month can be bad but this multiplies it

  • George Estepp

    polygamy would be for rich masochists living with one especialy at that time of month can be bad but this multiplies it

  • Kathleen

    I believe in traditional marriage, begun thousands of years ago and elevated to a Sacrament blessed by God. Why are we hearing all about Polygamy with men having multiple partners and not hearing about women having multiple men partners. I do wish folks would read and research the true reasons behind the LBGTT agenda. We will have hell to pay.

    • Chris Nystrom

      Most polygamists have nothing to do with the LBGTT agenda.

    • LoreneFairchild

      Kathleen….Authentic Christian polygyny has no association with the LBGTT agenda. We believe that homosexuality is sinful based on what the Bible says about it. It is an abomination and it is prohibited by God.

    • LoreneFairchild

      Kathleen….Authentic Christian polygyny has no association with the LBGTT agenda. We believe that homosexuality is sinful based on what the Bible says about it. It is an abomination and it is prohibited by God.

    • LoreneFairchild

      Kathleen….Authentic Christian polygyny has no association with the LBGTT agenda. We believe that homosexuality is sinful based on what the Bible says about it. It is an abomination and it is prohibited by God.

  • Kathleen

    I believe in traditional marriage, begun thousands of years ago and elevated to a Sacrament blessed by God. Why are we hearing all about Polygamy with men having multiple partners and not hearing about women having multiple men partners. I do wish folks would read and research the true reasons behind the LBGTT agenda. We will have hell to pay.

  • Kathleen

    I believe in traditional marriage, begun thousands of years ago and elevated to a Sacrament blessed by God. Why are we hearing all about Polygamy with men having multiple partners and not hearing about women having multiple men partners. I do wish folks would read and research the true reasons behind the LBGTT agenda. We will have hell to pay.

  • tom cook

    Polygamy? Ha–wait until the likes of ellen degenerate and rosie the immense posey show up with their dogs and goats.

  • tom cook

    Polygamy? Ha–wait until the likes of ellen degenerate and rosie the immense posey show up with their dogs and goats.

  • tom cook

    Polygamy? Ha–wait until the likes of ellen degenerate and rosie the immense posey show up with their dogs and goats.

  • sreynolds

    I said this a year ago, and got laughed at. Next will be marrying animals and inanimate objects, before you laugh, think about who pushes this garbage, liberals. It WILL be their next push to further destroy AMerica….

  • sreynolds

    I said this a year ago, and got laughed at. Next will be marrying animals and inanimate objects, before you laugh, think about who pushes this garbage, liberals. It WILL be their next push to further destroy AMerica….

  • sreynolds

    I said this a year ago, and got laughed at. Next will be marrying animals and inanimate objects, before you laugh, think about who pushes this garbage, liberals. It WILL be their next push to further destroy AMerica….

    • jerrycollie

      You have a good point there. Can I marry my pet rock; and use it as a tax deduction?

    • jerrycollie

      You have a good point there. Can I marry my pet rock; and use it as a tax deduction?

    • jerrycollie

      You have a good point there. Can I marry my pet rock; and use it as a tax deduction?

  • Denise Geahr

    I’ve been married 35 years , isn’t life hard enough , why ask for more trouble…

    • FC

      I don’t view my wives as trouble.. They are blessings.

    • Bighoss

      I’ve been married 51 years to a wonderful fine lady and my life is the richer for it. I need no more than this fine wife. I don’t have to crank out pseudo-theological claptrap to validate my marriage.

    • Bighoss

      I’ve been married 51 years to a wonderful fine lady and my life is the richer for it. I need no more than this fine wife. I don’t have to crank out pseudo-theological claptrap to validate my marriage.

    • Bighoss

      I’ve been married 51 years to a wonderful fine lady and my life is the richer for it. I need no more than this fine wife. I don’t have to crank out pseudo-theological claptrap to validate my marriage.

  • Denise Geahr

    I’ve been married 35 years , isn’t life hard enough , why ask for more trouble…

  • Denise Geahr

    I’ve been married 35 years , isn’t life hard enough , why ask for more trouble…

  • Ulfric Thorsson

    What about Polyandry (1 woman with multiple husbands)? Or Polyamory where a group consisting of both genders is involved? There are infinite combinations in the Poly spectrum

  • Ulfric Thorsson

    What about Polyandry (1 woman with multiple husbands)? Or Polyamory where a group consisting of both genders is involved? There are infinite combinations in the Poly spectrum

  • Ulfric Thorsson

    What about Polyandry (1 woman with multiple husbands)? Or Polyamory where a group consisting of both genders is involved? There are infinite combinations in the Poly spectrum

  • foxxybey

    How about a man and his dog or a women and her horse, coming soon to America? Speaking of it jubilee, how about a father and daughter since anything a person wants is called marriage, two penis’s can’t produce anything and two vagina’s on there own can’t be a marriage, it is a slap in Gods face and many will pay the price of immoral behavior. They even celebrate Gods covenant about not destroying the world by a flood by flying His flag but it is like the time’s of Noah and hope all like the heat.

  • foxxybey

    How about a man and his dog or a women and her horse, coming soon to America? Speaking of it jubilee, how about a father and daughter since anything a person wants is called marriage, two penis’s can’t produce anything and two vagina’s on there own can’t be a marriage, it is a slap in Gods face and many will pay the price of immoral behavior. They even celebrate Gods covenant about not destroying the world by a flood by flying His flag but it is like the time’s of Noah and hope all like the heat.

  • Jonathan Glass

    Polygamy is a sin and should be a crime. Check out the write up on Let Us Reason ministries.

    http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp75.htm

    • stillsane

      See post of Wesley Speck 2 days ago!

    • stillsane

      See post of Wesley Speck 2 days ago!

    • Guest

      How can it be a sin if it is not denounced in the Bible? Can you just make up things and call them sin? What is your basis?

    • Guest

      How can it be a sin if it is not denounced in the Bible? Can you just make up things and call them sin? What is your basis?

    • Guest

      How can it be a sin if it is not denounced in the Bible? Can you just make up things and call them sin? What is your basis?

    • Chris Nystrom

      You might want to read Martin Luther and John Milton (Paradise Lost) for other Christian views on polygamy.

    • Chris Nystrom

      You might want to read Martin Luther and John Milton (Paradise Lost) for other Christian views on polygamy.

    • Chris Nystrom

      You might want to read Martin Luther and John Milton (Paradise Lost) for other Christian views on polygamy.

    • R.W. Deese

      It is really too bad that “Let Us Reason” has thrown out Biblical hermeneutics on this topic. The Bible is really quite clear on the subject if one is objective.

    • R.W. Deese

      It is really too bad that “Let Us Reason” has thrown out Biblical hermeneutics on this topic. The Bible is really quite clear on the subject if one is objective.

    • R.W. Deese

      It is really too bad that “Let Us Reason” has thrown out Biblical hermeneutics on this topic. The Bible is really quite clear on the subject if one is objective.

  • Jonathan Glass

    Polygamy is a sin and should be a crime. Check out the write up on Let Us Reason ministries.

    http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp75.htm

  • Jonathan Glass

    Polygamy is a sin and should be a crime. Check out the write up on Let Us Reason ministries.

    http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp75.htm

  • Kenneth Kirkham

    Soloman should be consulted on this topic. See how it went for him.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Yeah, but cutting up the new wife really defeats the purpose of the new wife.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Yeah, but cutting up the new wife really defeats the purpose of the new wife.

  • Kenneth Kirkham

    Soloman should be consulted on this topic. See how it went for him.

  • Kenneth Kirkham

    Soloman should be consulted on this topic. See how it went for him.

  • guest

    ah, polygamy- goes to show females aren’t really that equal after all (oops, what blasphemy!@!) but hey, women are cheap now aren’t they? because I do NOT believe that when a man has more than one wife, that means they are more valued- if you can have one, they are so cheap, take two, three or hey, even 5- and the men that use the bible verses are just cheapening the bible anyway -cults like islam also devalue women

    • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

      I agree with this. The wife of the original marriage is likely being treated in an unequal fashion in front of the law. If she is “agreeing” to it, it is likely out of coercion.

      • Thomas Jefferson

        Maybe she is into it. Lesbianism is very trendy these days.

        • LoreneFairchild

          Lesbianism has no place in a truly Biblical marriage, polygynous or monogynous….Period !

          • Thomas Jefferson

            But a really hot one?

          • Thomas Jefferson

            But a really hot one?

          • FC

            Agreed, What would be Biblical lesbianism has no place in a marriage even between one man and one women, rather sexual fornication is going on outside the marriage or not.

            Men and women were not to assert themselves in the position or intended roll of the other gender outside of marriage or otherwise.

          • FC

            Agreed, What would be Biblical lesbianism has no place in a marriage even between one man and one women, rather sexual fornication is going on outside the marriage or not.

            Men and women were not to assert themselves in the position or intended roll of the other gender outside of marriage or otherwise.

          • FC

            Agreed, What would be Biblical lesbianism has no place in a marriage even between one man and one women, rather sexual fornication is going on outside the marriage or not.

            Men and women were not to assert themselves in the position or intended roll of the other gender outside of marriage or otherwise.

        • LoreneFairchild

          Lesbianism has no place in a truly Biblical marriage, polygynous or monogynous….Period !

      • Thomas Jefferson

        Maybe she is into it. Lesbianism is very trendy these days.

      • Chris Nystrom

        I know it may be difficult for you to understand, but there really are women who want a polygamous family. In fact, I have seen situations where they have dragged their reluctant husbands into it.

      • Chris Nystrom

        I know it may be difficult for you to understand, but there really are women who want a polygamous family. In fact, I have seen situations where they have dragged their reluctant husbands into it.

    • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

      I agree with this. The wife of the original marriage is likely being treated in an unequal fashion in front of the law. If she is “agreeing” to it, it is likely out of coercion.

    • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

      I agree with this. The wife of the original marriage is likely being treated in an unequal fashion in front of the law. If she is “agreeing” to it, it is likely out of coercion.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Kinda like Christians who get married 4 or 5 times?

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Kinda like Christians who get married 4 or 5 times?

  • guest

    ah, polygamy- goes to show females aren’t really that equal after all (oops, what blasphemy!@!) but hey, women are cheap now aren’t they? because I do NOT believe that when a man has more than one wife, that means they are more valued- if you can have one, they are so cheap, take two, three or hey, even 5- and the men that use the bible verses are just cheapening the bible anyway -cults like islam also devalue women

  • guest

    ah, polygamy- goes to show females aren’t really that equal after all (oops, what blasphemy!@!) but hey, women are cheap now aren’t they? because I do NOT believe that when a man has more than one wife, that means they are more valued- if you can have one, they are so cheap, take two, three or hey, even 5- and the men that use the bible verses are just cheapening the bible anyway -cults like islam also devalue women

  • sean murry

    One woman is enough for me.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Forget multiple wife’s. Can you imagine multiple mother-in-laws?

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Forget multiple wife’s. Can you imagine multiple mother-in-laws?

  • sean murry

    One woman is enough for me.

  • sean murry

    One woman is enough for me.

  • Dennis Spears

    Why does anyone care what consenting adult do with each other?

    • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

      My biggest qualm with polygamy is that one of the parties of the original marriage is receiving considerably less benefit from the new arrangement, but is likely “agreeing” out of a form of coercion.

    • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

      My biggest qualm with polygamy is that one of the parties of the original marriage is receiving considerably less benefit from the new arrangement, but is likely “agreeing” out of a form of coercion.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      The other consenting adult does, I assume.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      The other consenting adult does, I assume.

  • speedle24

    Can you imagine the mess you could get into in divorce court?

  • speedle24

    Can you imagine the mess you could get into in divorce court?

  • speedle24

    Can you imagine the mess you could get into in divorce court?

  • http://www.yahoo.com/ Dave the Barbarian

    All this leftist B.S. gives new meaning to the word TIRESOME! MOLON LABE!

    • Thomas Jefferson

      New meaning? What was the original meaning?

      • http://www.yahoo.com/ Dave the Barbarian

        I hope you’re being facetious because quite frankly your response is seriously p!$$ing me off! Molon Labe!

        • Thomas Jefferson

          Let me share a secret. I could not care less if you are pissed off.

        • Thomas Jefferson

          Let me share a secret. I could not care less if you are pissed off.

        • Thomas Jefferson

          Let me share a secret. I could not care less if you are pissed off.

      • http://www.yahoo.com/ Dave the Barbarian

        I hope you’re being facetious because quite frankly your response is seriously p!$$ing me off! Molon Labe!

      • http://www.yahoo.com/ Dave the Barbarian

        I hope you’re being facetious because quite frankly your response is seriously p!$$ing me off! Molon Labe!

    • Thomas Jefferson

      New meaning? What was the original meaning?

  • http://www.yahoo.com/ Dave the Barbarian

    All this leftist B.S. gives new meaning to the word TIRESOME! MOLON LABE!

  • http://www.yahoo.com/ Dave the Barbarian

    All this leftist B.S. gives new meaning to the word TIRESOME! MOLON LABE!

  • raccman

    I’ve also heard that it is NOW o.k. for us to switch hands while masturbating !
    But not, if you’re a muslim

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Our own hands?

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Our own hands?

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Our own hands?

  • raccman

    I’ve also heard that it is NOW o.k. for us to switch hands while masturbating !
    But not, if you’re a muslim

  • Nameless App 1989

    It appears the Golden Rule is so yesterday, too.

    • VirgoVince

      So is good old ‘common sense,’ it died when ugly idiot libturd garbage bags took control, in 2006 and started political correctness BS!! NOT their first huge mistake!!

    • VirgoVince

      So is good old ‘common sense,’ it died when ugly idiot libturd garbage bags took control, in 2006 and started political correctness BS!! NOT their first huge mistake!!

    • VirgoVince

      So is good old ‘common sense,’ it died when ugly idiot libturd garbage bags took control, in 2006 and started political correctness BS!! NOT their first huge mistake!!

    • Thomas Jefferson

      It is actually more this morning. But these things are so subjective.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      It is actually more this morning. But these things are so subjective.

    • FC

      “Do unto other as you would have done unto you”

      Where are you going with this? Are you suggesting you would like to be charged with a crime for taking a wife?

    • FC

      “Do unto other as you would have done unto you”

      Where are you going with this? Are you suggesting you would like to be charged with a crime for taking a wife?

  • quarkie009

    Homosexuality in any sense of the word is wrong and an abomination, whether it is between two men or two women. The Lord did not condemn his prophets for having more than one wife or others that obeyed his commandments. He did condemn those
    that sought to have more than one wife in order to satisfy their sexual fantasy. In order to have a brighter future people need to follow the commandments that the Lord has set in stone.

  • quarkie009

    Homosexuality in any sense of the word is wrong and an abomination, whether it is between two men or two women. The Lord did not condemn his prophets for having more than one wife or others that obeyed his commandments. He did condemn those
    that sought to have more than one wife in order to satisfy their sexual fantasy. In order to have a brighter future people need to follow the commandments that the Lord has set in stone.

  • quarkie009

    Homosexuality in any sense of the word is wrong and an abomination, whether it is between two men or two women. The Lord did not condemn his prophets for having more than one wife or others that obeyed his commandments. He did condemn those
    that sought to have more than one wife in order to satisfy their sexual fantasy. In order to have a brighter future people need to follow the commandments that the Lord has set in stone.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Depends on how hot the two women are, don’t you think? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Does she like pictures? Say no more, say no more!
      With thanks to Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Depends on how hot the two women are, don’t you think? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Does she like pictures? Say no more, say no more!
      With thanks to Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Depends on how hot the two women are, don’t you think? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Does she like pictures? Say no more, say no more!
      With thanks to Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

  • VirgoVince

    It wouldn’t be so bad IF everyone stays within their own species and STOP ALL this cross-breeding!! It’s disgusting, sickening, unhealthy and should be a crime!!!!

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Just what species is anyone crossing breeding with?

      • Bighoss

        VirgoVince seems to resonate well with those of the neo-Neandertal ilk who don bedsheets and wave Confederate battle flags and occasionally gather in pathetic little rallies, usually in the rural Southeast, to proclaim their unregenerate bigotry.

        • Thomas Jefferson

          Oh, I know he means blacks and whites. I just wondered if he would man up and admit it.

      • Bighoss

        VirgoVince seems to resonate well with those of the neo-Neandertal ilk who don bedsheets and wave Confederate battle flags and occasionally gather in pathetic little rallies, usually in the rural Southeast, to proclaim their unregenerate bigotry.

      • Bighoss

        VirgoVince seems to resonate well with those of the neo-Neandertal ilk who don bedsheets and wave Confederate battle flags and occasionally gather in pathetic little rallies, usually in the rural Southeast, to proclaim their unregenerate bigotry.

    • Bighoss

      Did the Grand Wizard tell you that?

  • VirgoVince

    It wouldn’t be so bad IF everyone stays within their own species and STOP ALL this cross-breeding!! It’s disgusting, sickening, unhealthy and should be a crime!!!!

  • VirgoVince

    It wouldn’t be so bad IF everyone stays within their own species and STOP ALL this cross-breeding!! It’s disgusting, sickening, unhealthy and should be a crime!!!!

  • Caveat Emptor – Suckers !

    In a normally abnormal World a polygamous male must by the very nature of things be a very rich man, and such very rich men are desireable to & by many women, especially those of a mercenary type. The more money the better, and with all the possible tax allowances for multiple wives and multiple children he would soon be paying no taxes at all, yet perhaps his progeny might become a vast fiscal liability to our Socialist Sharia present day Government. But perhaps this is yet another roundabout way for our growing Infidel Moslem Pagan Population to avoid taxation entirely, and to enable them to propagate & populate all the States with lots and lots of little Modlem Voters to accelerate the Sharia take over of the U.S,A, as desried by our very own Marixt-Islamic President le batarde Caliph Barry de Soeterro-Obama.
    The Sodomites have long since taken over the U.S.A.. Sodomy is now the de facto Neo Religion of our Country. You are all foolishly reaping what you have sown.

  • Caveat Emptor – Suckers !

    In a normally abnormal World a polygamous male must by the very nature of things be a very rich man, and such very rich men are desireable to & by many women, especially those of a mercenary type. The more money the better, and with all the possible tax allowances for multiple wives and multiple children he would soon be paying no taxes at all, yet perhaps his progeny might become a vast fiscal liability to our Socialist Sharia present day Government. But perhaps this is yet another roundabout way for our growing Infidel Moslem Pagan Population to avoid taxation entirely, and to enable them to propagate & populate all the States with lots and lots of little Modlem Voters to accelerate the Sharia take over of the U.S,A, as desried by our very own Marixt-Islamic President le batarde Caliph Barry de Soeterro-Obama.
    The Sodomites have long since taken over the U.S.A.. Sodomy is now the de facto Neo Religion of our Country. You are all foolishly reaping what you have sown.

  • Caveat Emptor – Suckers !

    In a normally abnormal World a polygamous male must by the very nature of things be a very rich man, and such very rich men are desireable to & by many women, especially those of a mercenary type. The more money the better, and with all the possible tax allowances for multiple wives and multiple children he would soon be paying no taxes at all, yet perhaps his progeny might become a vast fiscal liability to our Socialist Sharia present day Government. But perhaps this is yet another roundabout way for our growing Infidel Moslem Pagan Population to avoid taxation entirely, and to enable them to propagate & populate all the States with lots and lots of little Modlem Voters to accelerate the Sharia take over of the U.S,A, as desried by our very own Marixt-Islamic President le batarde Caliph Barry de Soeterro-Obama.
    The Sodomites have long since taken over the U.S.A.. Sodomy is now the de facto Neo Religion of our Country. You are all foolishly reaping what you have sown.

  • Truth prevails

    You can not use the moral failures of people in the Bible to justify multiple marriages. The problems these multiple marriages caused shows it was not God’s original intent. He allowed divorce which was not what He wanted either. The Messiah Jesus Christ said God’s original intent for the health and well being of both children , wife and husband was that in the beginning God created one man for one wife. What God has joined together we are not to put aside. Also, in Malichi it gives God’s reason , which is, to bring forth a Godly offspring. The prohibition about adultry has no meaning as well as the fornication laws etc if God meant it to be otherwise. The moral failures of men in the Bible is not liscence to cancel God’s commandments. Indeed we are given examples of how Mankinds’ moral failures cause separation from Gods’ blessing and promises for our lives
    . Shalom!

  • Truth prevails

    You can not use the moral failures of people in the Bible to justify multiple marriages. The problems these multiple marriages caused shows it was not God’s original intent. He allowed divorce which was not what He wanted either. The Messiah Jesus Christ said God’s original intent for the health and well being of both children , wife and husband was that in the beginning God created one man for one wife. What God has joined together we are not to put aside. Also, in Malichi it gives God’s reason , which is, to bring forth a Godly offspring. The prohibition about adultry has no meaning as well as the fornication laws etc if God meant it to be otherwise. The moral failures of men in the Bible is not liscence to cancel God’s commandments. Indeed we are given examples of how Mankinds’ moral failures cause separation from Gods’ blessing and promises for our lives
    . Shalom!

  • Truth prevails

    You can not use the moral failures of people in the Bible to justify multiple marriages. The problems these multiple marriages caused shows it was not God’s original intent. He allowed divorce which was not what He wanted either. The Messiah Jesus Christ said God’s original intent for the health and well being of both children , wife and husband was that in the beginning God created one man for one wife. What God has joined together we are not to put aside. Also, in Malichi it gives God’s reason , which is, to bring forth a Godly offspring. The prohibition about adultry has no meaning as well as the fornication laws etc if God meant it to be otherwise. The moral failures of men in the Bible is not liscence to cancel God’s commandments. Indeed we are given examples of how Mankinds’ moral failures cause separation from Gods’ blessing and promises for our lives
    . Shalom!

    • Chris Nystrom

      The problem is that the Bible does not say what you are saying. There is no evidence that monogamy was God’s original intent or that polygamy was considered a moral failure. You are reading it with cultural glasses.

    • Chris Nystrom

      The problem is that the Bible does not say what you are saying. There is no evidence that monogamy was God’s original intent or that polygamy was considered a moral failure. You are reading it with cultural glasses.

    • Chris Nystrom

      The problem is that the Bible does not say what you are saying. There is no evidence that monogamy was God’s original intent or that polygamy was considered a moral failure. You are reading it with cultural glasses.

    • FC

      So you don’t believe Many of the great men in the Bible should be used as examples for us to know the Creators ways? Both to know what we should and shouldn’t do?

    • FC

      So you don’t believe Many of the great men in the Bible should be used as examples for us to know the Creators ways? Both to know what we should and shouldn’t do?

    • FC

      So you don’t believe Many of the great men in the Bible should be used as examples for us to know the Creators ways? Both to know what we should and shouldn’t do?

    • R.W. Deese

      This is anecdotal theology – next you will try to convince everyone that having children is wrong because the first children killed each other. You should change your online name, because in this case, truth does not prevail!

    • R.W. Deese

      This is anecdotal theology – next you will try to convince everyone that having children is wrong because the first children killed each other. You should change your online name, because in this case, truth does not prevail!

  • tom

    and the TWO shall be one flesh…..not 3, or 4 etc…

  • tom

    and the TWO shall be one flesh…..not 3, or 4 etc…

    • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

      And yet the Bible was full of examples of polygamy at that time.

      • jerrycollie

        Polygamy may have made sense at that time. It was a time of open warfare; men lived by the sword and died by the sword. There was probably a shortage of men.

        • Thomas Jefferson

          So, morality is conditional? Well, so much for more moral absolutes.

        • Thomas Jefferson

          So, morality is conditional? Well, so much for more moral absolutes.

        • Chris Nystrom

          The problem with this view is that there are no verses to indicate something changed.

        • Chris Nystrom

          The problem with this view is that there are no verses to indicate something changed.

        • Chris Nystrom

          The problem with this view is that there are no verses to indicate something changed.

        • FC

          Regardless the reasons why, If you believe this to be true, then you must believe God changes on what He feels is morally right. Do you not see what door that opens? If that were possible, then it would also be possible for God to change and start accepting sodomy as being morally right. God Does not change, He is the same today and tomorrow as He was yesterday. Men change, Not God. Which is why there is no scripture on any change regarding polygamy, because there was no such change.

          Do you believe the grace of Christ covered everyone that had come before and after or only those alive at the time? You see a change in the Law would work the same way. It would condemn all those who came before who had broken that law. That is why Gods laws don’t change. In fact the reason Christ called mans “laws” traditions is because they change, He didn’t recognize them as laws because a law is something set in stone. Mans “laws” change and thus they aren’t laws at all but traditions. If Gods laws were to change as well, they to would be nothing more then traditions.

        • FC

          Regardless the reasons why, If you believe this to be true, then you must believe God changes on what He feels is morally right. Do you not see what door that opens? If that were possible, then it would also be possible for God to change and start accepting sodomy as being morally right. God Does not change, He is the same today and tomorrow as He was yesterday. Men change, Not God. Which is why there is no scripture on any change regarding polygamy, because there was no such change.

          Do you believe the grace of Christ covered everyone that had come before and after or only those alive at the time? You see a change in the Law would work the same way. It would condemn all those who came before who had broken that law. That is why Gods laws don’t change. In fact the reason Christ called mans “laws” traditions is because they change, He didn’t recognize them as laws because a law is something set in stone. Mans “laws” change and thus they aren’t laws at all but traditions. If Gods laws were to change as well, they to would be nothing more then traditions.

        • FC

          Regardless the reasons why, If you believe this to be true, then you must believe God changes on what He feels is morally right. Do you not see what door that opens? If that were possible, then it would also be possible for God to change and start accepting sodomy as being morally right. God Does not change, He is the same today and tomorrow as He was yesterday. Men change, Not God. Which is why there is no scripture on any change regarding polygamy, because there was no such change.

          Do you believe the grace of Christ covered everyone that had come before and after or only those alive at the time? You see a change in the Law would work the same way. It would condemn all those who came before who had broken that law. That is why Gods laws don’t change. In fact the reason Christ called mans “laws” traditions is because they change, He didn’t recognize them as laws because a law is something set in stone. Mans “laws” change and thus they aren’t laws at all but traditions. If Gods laws were to change as well, they to would be nothing more then traditions.

      • jerrycollie

        Polygamy may have made sense at that time. It was a time of open warfare; men lived by the sword and died by the sword. There was probably a shortage of men.

      • jerrycollie

        Polygamy may have made sense at that time. It was a time of open warfare; men lived by the sword and died by the sword. There was probably a shortage of men.

    • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

      And yet the Bible was full of examples of polygamy at that time.

    • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

      And yet the Bible was full of examples of polygamy at that time.

  • tom

    and the TWO shall be ONE FLESH

    • Chris Nystrom

      Biblical polygamist believe that marriage is between two people, too. They do not believe in group marriage. For example, when the man dies the wives are free to marry other men. They are not committed to all staying together.

    • Chris Nystrom

      Biblical polygamist believe that marriage is between two people, too. They do not believe in group marriage. For example, when the man dies the wives are free to marry other men. They are not committed to all staying together.

    • Chris Nystrom

      Biblical polygamist believe that marriage is between two people, too. They do not believe in group marriage. For example, when the man dies the wives are free to marry other men. They are not committed to all staying together.

  • tom

    NOT the 3, or 4 etc.

  • tom

    NOT the 3, or 4 etc.

  • tom

    NOT the 3, or 4 etc.

  • buckofama2010

    Filth Peddlers. More signs of the end drawing near.

    • LoreneFairchild

      Are you referring to the Biblical patriarchs who lived polygynously and were righteous before God ?

    • LoreneFairchild

      Are you referring to the Biblical patriarchs who lived polygynously and were righteous before God ?

    • LoreneFairchild

      Are you referring to the Biblical patriarchs who lived polygynously and were righteous before God ?

  • buckofama2010

    Filth Peddlers. More signs of the end drawing near.

  • Rick

    Well, if we are to be fair, then I get to marry my pet turtle and federal benefits should apply as well.

    • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

      Do you want to marry your pet turtle?

    • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

      Do you want to marry your pet turtle?

  • Rick

    Well, if we are to be fair, then I get to marry my pet turtle and federal benefits should apply as well.

  • Rick

    Well, if we are to be fair, then I get to marry my pet turtle and federal benefits should apply as well.

  • wdcraftr

    Now, 4 or 5 get married, all get Govt. subsidies, benefits, and live Happily Ever After, wealthy off the Govt, and Not a Days work between them.. How Nice! A couple thousand a month in housing benefits, A thousand or two in food stamps, free Obamacare, cell phones, internet, & maybe even a car.. And if they have a child or two, even More benefits.. I’m so glad My tax dollars can help… NOT! The Govt just wasn’t bankrupting us fast enough, so they need more Laws to help with that..

    • FC

      Christian polygamist believe you should take care of the fatherless and widows. They believe all those single mothers on assistance should be taken as wives to get them off the system and to help raise their fatherless children.

    • FC

      Christian polygamist believe you should take care of the fatherless and widows. They believe all those single mothers on assistance should be taken as wives to get them off the system and to help raise their fatherless children.

  • wdcraftr

    Now, 4 or 5 get married, all get Govt. subsidies, benefits, and live Happily Ever After, wealthy off the Govt, and Not a Days work between them.. How Nice! A couple thousand a month in housing benefits, A thousand or two in food stamps, free Obamacare, cell phones, internet, & maybe even a car.. And if they have a child or two, even More benefits.. I’m so glad My tax dollars can help… NOT! The Govt just wasn’t bankrupting us fast enough, so they need more Laws to help with that..

  • wdcraftr

    Now, 4 or 5 get married, all get Govt. subsidies, benefits, and live Happily Ever After, wealthy off the Govt, and Not a Days work between them.. How Nice! A couple thousand a month in housing benefits, A thousand or two in food stamps, free Obamacare, cell phones, internet, & maybe even a car.. And if they have a child or two, even More benefits.. I’m so glad My tax dollars can help… NOT! The Govt just wasn’t bankrupting us fast enough, so they need more Laws to help with that..

  • G W

    Since the federal government now recognizes homosexual marriage, then I cannot see how they can discriminate against polygamy. Especially since Muslims, Mormons, and many other faiths have been living with multiple wives for centuries. How can they now argue that two men being married or two women married are morally okay yet a man having multiple wives is not? That argument just will not hold water anymore.The federal government has done broke the moral compass by enforcing homo-sexual marriage upon the sovereign states. It has let the sex perversion genie out of the bottle. What a mess the Feds have made for our society. When DOMA was signed into law by then President Clinton not one country in the world allowed homo-sexual marriage.The federal government by crossing the line of separation of church and state has forcibly created for us all a pagan society.

  • G W

    Since the federal government now recognizes homosexual marriage, then I cannot see how they can discriminate against polygamy. Especially since Muslims, Mormons, and many other faiths have been living with multiple wives for centuries. How can they now argue that two men being married or two women married are morally okay yet a man having multiple wives is not? That argument just will not hold water anymore.The federal government has done broke the moral compass by enforcing homo-sexual marriage upon the sovereign states. It has let the sex perversion genie out of the bottle. What a mess the Feds have made for our society. When DOMA was signed into law by then President Clinton not one country in the world allowed homo-sexual marriage.The federal government by crossing the line of separation of church and state has forcibly created for us all a pagan society.

  • G W

    Since the federal government now recognizes homosexual marriage, then I cannot see how they can discriminate against polygamy. Especially since Muslims, Mormons, and many other faiths have been living with multiple wives for centuries. How can they now argue that two men being married or two women married are morally okay yet a man having multiple wives is not? That argument just will not hold water anymore.The federal government has done broke the moral compass by enforcing homo-sexual marriage upon the sovereign states. It has let the sex perversion genie out of the bottle. What a mess the Feds have made for our society. When DOMA was signed into law by then President Clinton not one country in the world allowed homo-sexual marriage.The federal government by crossing the line of separation of church and state has forcibly created for us all a pagan society.

  • ProudGGDOfAConfederateSoldier

    Once pologamy is legalized the push will be on to legalize incest and finally beastiality. This has been the plan of homosexuals all along which they announced during a march in Washington D.C. during the summer of 1991 and they are succeeding step by step.

    • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

      The plan of homosexuals is for straight people to marry their sisters?

      • Thomas Jefferson

        and donkeys.

      • Thomas Jefferson

        and donkeys.

    • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

      The plan of homosexuals is for straight people to marry their sisters?

  • gail2011

    Hello not only polygamy but how about marriage of a 12 year old boy or girl. Or eventually your pet. I mean where does it stop.
    Christians know that the times are evil and this is prophesy. The Bible tells us that these things must happen for the 2nd coming of our LORD & SAVIOR. I say keep your eyes on Jesus and all things of earth will grow strangely dim in light of his glory & grace. We know that soon there’s going to be a problem for Christians to freely worship. We know that Jesus is our strength & our KING. None of this matters what matters is souls. Trying to save souls for the KINGDOM. SO MY BROTHERS & SISTERS IN CHRIST DON’T LOSE SIGHT OF JESUS.Today in my opinion there’s little time & America has become part of GOD’S PLAN. The Republican Party is too weak so you may want ti change your voting status to stay safe. I’m not saying give up on the Republicans but if you want a job or want to remain safe to deliver GOD’S word you may want to consider your options.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Since Christians have practiced plural marriage and also married girls as young as 12, I am puzzled why you think your religion is against these ideas.
      I agree that they are bad ideas, but Christians already have jumped on this bandwagon.

      • Chris Nystrom

        My mother in law got married at 14. They just celebrated their 50th anniversary.

        • Thomas Jefferson

          I am glad they have a long lasting marriage.

      • Chris Nystrom

        My mother in law got married at 14. They just celebrated their 50th anniversary.

      • Chris Nystrom

        My mother in law got married at 14. They just celebrated their 50th anniversary.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Since Christians have practiced plural marriage and also married girls as young as 12, I am puzzled why you think your religion is against these ideas.
      I agree that they are bad ideas, but Christians already have jumped on this bandwagon.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Since Christians have practiced plural marriage and also married girls as young as 12, I am puzzled why you think your religion is against these ideas.
      I agree that they are bad ideas, but Christians already have jumped on this bandwagon.

    • FC

      I think the answer to your question “where does it stop” has to be answered by each individual. Everyone will be judged for their own actions. I believe marriage should start and stop with Gods word, which is why I support polygyny as God did and not sodomy.

    • FC

      I think the answer to your question “where does it stop” has to be answered by each individual. Everyone will be judged for their own actions. I believe marriage should start and stop with Gods word, which is why I support polygyny as God did and not sodomy.

  • gail2011

    Hello not only polygamy but how about marriage of a 12 year old boy or girl. Or eventually your pet. I mean where does it stop.
    Christians know that the times are evil and this is prophesy. The Bible tells us that these things must happen for the 2nd coming of our LORD & SAVIOR. I say keep your eyes on Jesus and all things of earth will grow strangely dim in light of his glory & grace. We know that soon there’s going to be a problem for Christians to freely worship. We know that Jesus is our strength & our KING. None of this matters what matters is souls. Trying to save souls for the KINGDOM. SO MY BROTHERS & SISTERS IN CHRIST DON’T LOSE SIGHT OF JESUS.Today in my opinion there’s little time & America has become part of GOD’S PLAN. The Republican Party is too weak so you may want ti change your voting status to stay safe. I’m not saying give up on the Republicans but if you want a job or want to remain safe to deliver GOD’S word you may want to consider your options.

  • 9Spoon9

    If the idiot taking on that many financial risks can afford what the Court may give her & her…& her too when they break it off in your wallet (DIVORCE)…go ahead and remember the risks!

    Too many hormones under one roof…NO THANKS! I’ll stick with the woman I’ve got or has me, which ever it is.

  • 9Spoon9

    If the idiot taking on that many financial risks can afford what the Court may give her & her…& her too when they break it off in your wallet (DIVORCE)…go ahead and remember the risks!

    Too many hormones under one roof…NO THANKS! I’ll stick with the woman I’ve got or has me, which ever it is.

  • Anthony Alexander

    USA=Modern Roman Empire……………..Caligulia=Obama……….Orgies, decadence, Immoral behavior, brutality, lawlessness, having mercenaries do military services ( Iraq, Blackwater etc)……..Have I left anything out……Oh Yea the fall of the empire and eventual disntegration of Roman Society and dilution of Roman cultures by outside people………………………

  • Anthony Alexander

    USA=Modern Roman Empire……………..Caligulia=Obama……….Orgies, decadence, Immoral behavior, brutality, lawlessness, having mercenaries do military services ( Iraq, Blackwater etc)……..Have I left anything out……Oh Yea the fall of the empire and eventual disntegration of Roman Society and dilution of Roman cultures by outside people………………………

  • tenn2113

    yea, I want to marry my goat and my dog too. Wonder when that is comming? After all pets can vote why not marry? My dad was republican and never voted democrat till after he died.

  • tenn2113

    yea, I want to marry my goat and my dog too. Wonder when that is comming? After all pets can vote why not marry? My dad was republican and never voted democrat till after he died.

    • jerrycollie

      Yes, I love my dog and she loves me; why not marriage?

    • jerrycollie

      Yes, I love my dog and she loves me; why not marriage?

    • jerrycollie

      Yes, I love my dog and she loves me; why not marriage?

      • Thomas Jefferson

        It is called informed consent. Animals or minors cannot provide it.

        • Wisesage

          By today’s legal standards you are correct, TJ – but as we are learning, if nothing else, is that what once was white is now black and vice versa! The law has been bent, molded and manipulated to allow the once unacceptable to become acceptable! Today’s legal definition of “informed consent” is just as open to re-definition as the term “marriage” has been!

          • Thomas Jefferson

            Please provide one example of a court or legislature accepting that a animal can give informed consent.

          • Thomas Jefferson

            Please provide one example of a court or legislature accepting that a animal can give informed consent.

          • Thomas Jefferson

            Please provide one example of a court or legislature accepting that a animal can give informed consent.

        • Wisesage

          By today’s legal standards you are correct, TJ – but as we are learning, if nothing else, is that what once was white is now black and vice versa! The law has been bent, molded and manipulated to allow the once unacceptable to become acceptable! Today’s legal definition of “informed consent” is just as open to re-definition as the term “marriage” has been!

        • Wisesage

          By today’s legal standards you are correct, TJ – but as we are learning, if nothing else, is that what once was white is now black and vice versa! The law has been bent, molded and manipulated to allow the once unacceptable to become acceptable! Today’s legal definition of “informed consent” is just as open to re-definition as the term “marriage” has been!

      • Thomas Jefferson

        It is called informed consent. Animals or minors cannot provide it.

      • Thomas Jefferson

        It is called informed consent. Animals or minors cannot provide it.

      • tenn2113

        wonder what kind of kids ya all have? Obama must have come from something like that, real idiot bastard. Oh forgot ya kids would have had a daddy, Obama don’t.. no wonder he’s a bastard, or sob….hahahaha

        • Bighoss

          Work on your literacy, tenn2113. I went to public schools in Tennessee years ago and they taught me to read and write correctly. Something bad must have happened since then.

        • Bighoss

          Work on your literacy, tenn2113. I went to public schools in Tennessee years ago and they taught me to read and write correctly. Something bad must have happened since then.

      • tenn2113

        wonder what kind of kids ya all have? Obama must have come from something like that, real idiot bastard. Oh forgot ya kids would have had a daddy, Obama don’t.. no wonder he’s a bastard, or sob….hahahaha

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Your ex-girlfriends may have looked like goats or dogs, but that is not the same thing.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Your ex-girlfriends may have looked like goats or dogs, but that is not the same thing.

      • tenn2113

        Yea but just think of all the deductions I can get for all my kids.. hahahaha

    • Thomas Jefferson

      Your ex-girlfriends may have looked like goats or dogs, but that is not the same thing.

  • tenn2113

    yea, I want to marry my goat and my dog too. Wonder when that is comming? After all pets can vote why not marry? My dad was republican and never voted democrat till after he died.

  • rs1123

    I don’t see a problem with polygamy. If a man and two or more women agree to the arrangement, and the man agrees he will legally be a father and supportive to whatever children are born, how is that so terrible? Look how many men run around creating babies for whom they never pay a dime of support, who never know who their father even was, all of that is totally legal. But do the same thing legally in a way that protects the children and taxpayers, and that is bad?

    • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

      The problem with polygamy is that a man and a woman who are already married to not benefit equally or the same from bringing a third party or a fourth party into marriage. Bringing in the outside element is also coercive in nature if the original spouse is not completely in favor of it. It ends up being a violation of equal protection. Legally speaking, it’s a very different issue from same-sex marriage.

      • Thomas Jefferson

        Then simply require that all parties agree to the new wife.

      • Thomas Jefferson

        Then simply require that all parties agree to the new wife.

      • FC

        Nothing is ever equal in deeds. no two marriages are equal in deeds/actions. Because people are different and each has their own set of needs. Most sister wives spend more time together then either will with the husband. They of course may not be doing the same things with the time they share together, but how would one go about putting more value on one over the other to conclude it isn’t equal?

    • http://www.monster-island.net/ kushibo

      The problem with polygamy is that a man and a woman who are already married to not benefit equally or the same from bringing a third party or a fourth party into marriage. Bringing in the outside element is also coercive in nature if the original spouse is not completely in favor of it. It ends up being a violation of equal protection. Legally speaking, it’s a very different issue from same-sex marriage.

    • jerrycollie

      Well, from what I have seen of Polyg@my in the US, the man cannot support more than one wife and her children. So the taxp@yers pick up the welfare bill.
      Furthermore if we look at Mu$lim countries, where men have 3 or 4 wifes, this creates a shortage of women with respect to young men. They cannot find a wife. I think this is one reason why so many of them are suicidal. I don’t think these suicide bombers are married with children; correct me if I am wrong.

      • Randal Deese

        You should do more research!

      • Randal Deese

        You should do more research!

      • Randal Deese

        You should do more research!

    • jerrycollie

      Well, from what I have seen of Polyg@my in the US, the man cannot support more than one wife and her children. So the taxp@yers pick up the welfare bill.
      Furthermore if we look at Mu$lim countries, where men have 3 or 4 wifes, this creates a shortage of women with respect to young men. They cannot find a wife. I think this is one reason why so many of them are suicidal. I don’t think these suicide bombers are married with children; correct me if I am wrong.

    • jerrycollie

      Well, from what I have seen of Polyg@my in the US, the man cannot support more than one wife and her children. So the taxp@yers pick up the welfare bill.
      Furthermore if we look at Mu$lim countries, where men have 3 or 4 wifes, this creates a shortage of women with respect to young men. They cannot find a wife. I think this is one reason why so many of them are suicidal. I don’t think these suicide bombers are married with children; correct me if I am wrong.

  • rs1123

    I don’t see a problem with polygamy. If a man and two or more women agree to the arrangement, and the man agrees he will legally be a father and supportive to whatever children are born, how is that so terrible? Look how many men run around creating babies for whom they never pay a dime of support, who never know who their father even was, all of that is totally legal. But do the same thing legally in a way that protects the children and taxpayers, and that is bad?

  • Jeff Shouse

    And dogs will lie down with cats!

  • Jeff Shouse

    And dogs will lie down with cats!

  • Jeff Shouse

    And dogs will lie down with cats!

  • cant standit

    could this be the dems way of ending inheritance taxes? marry your children! freedumb

  • cant standit

    could this be the dems way of ending inheritance taxes? marry your children! freedumb

  • fliteking

    Some of the liberal trolls here are hoping for the day Man+Donkey Marriage is enacted.

    Then they really will be “standing in it” ankle deep.

    • VirgoVince

      Already done, why else would the ugly idiot libturd troll garbage bags ALL be so mentally challenged and brain damaged?? They’ve been sleeping with animals for decades; each other!!

    • VirgoVince

      Already done, why else would the ugly idiot libturd troll garbage bags ALL be so mentally challenged and brain damaged?? They’ve been sleeping with animals for decades; each other!!

  • TPM

    Is this about promoting polygamy OR promoting the Islamic lifestyle?
    I say it’s the latter. Catering to muslims is a BIG mistake. Mark my words.
    Don’t “just” take my word for it. Look at the messes, caused by bending over backwards for muslims, in European countries. Do we REALLY want that here?

    • FC

      This is more about decriminalizing, most polygamists don’t care to be able get permission from the State. But they don’t want to be targeted because they believe in Scripture.

    • FC

      This is more about decriminalizing, most polygamists don’t care to be able get permission from the State. But they don’t want to be targeted because they believe in Scripture.

  • TPM

    Is this about promoting polygamy OR promoting the Islamic lifestyle?
    I say it’s the latter. Catering to muslims is a BIG mistake. Mark my words.
    Don’t “just” take my word for it. Look at the messes, caused by bending over backwards for muslims, in European countries. Do we REALLY want that here?

  • al schreiber

    polygamy was allowed in the bible, and if you think about it a man would have to have god to guide him to have more than one wife. multipule p,m,s oh help

  • HongryHawg

    Pathetic homosexuals think that because some law says they can marry, that they can. Even the all-knowing government knows they only want the benefits and entitlements associated with the word. But, it doesn’t matter what the state says, or what your partner says, or what your next door neighbors says. You are not truly married. Only God recognizes true marriage and homosexuals are beside themselves because they cannot legislate God’s will, no matter how many perverted and treasonous judges they buy.

  • HongryHawg

    Pathetic homosexuals think that because some law says they can marry, that they can. Even the all-knowing government knows they only want the benefits and entitlements associated with the word. But, it doesn’t matter what the state says, or what your partner says, or what your next door neighbors says. You are not truly married. Only God recognizes true marriage and homosexuals are beside themselves because they cannot legislate God’s will, no matter how many perverted and treasonous judges they buy.

  • HongryHawg

    Pathetic homosexuals think that because some law says they can marry, that they can. Even the all-knowing government knows they only want the benefits and entitlements associated with the word. But, it doesn’t matter what the state says, or what your partner says, or what your next door neighbors says. You are not truly married. Only God recognizes true marriage and homosexuals are beside themselves because they cannot legislate God’s will, no matter how many perverted and treasonous judges they buy.

  • Stephanie

    Mormens do not practice Polygamy anymore morons!!!! get your facts straight!

    • FC

      I beg the differ, if the founders were alive today, which church would they belong to? So which should be considered the real Mormon church?

      I’m not LDS or FLDS BTW. Just stating the obvious.

      • Bighoss

        If the founders of Mormonism were around today and if they were oblivious to the evolution of marriage doctrine in the ever-evolving “truth” of the Mormon cult, they would look at the monogamous mainstream Mormons and condemn them and whey would heartily approve of the lusty “fundamentalist Mormons” and their multiple “sister wives.” But the approval or disapproval by those zany desert fanatics has nothing to do with the legitimacy of plural marriage!

        • FC

          I agree with this, The FLDS believe closer to the Original church then the mainstream one. So why would the mainstream one be the real church?

          There is no need for any other church to legitimize polygyny, The Holy Scriptures do that. The Mormons didn’t invent polygyny, they simply adopted a Scriptural truth.

        • FC

          I agree with this, The FLDS believe closer to the Original church then the mainstream one. So why would the mainstream one be the real church?

          There is no need for any other church to legitimize polygyny, The Holy Scriptures do that. The Mormons didn’t invent polygyny, they simply adopted a Scriptural truth.

      • Bighoss

        If the founders of Mormonism were around today and if they were oblivious to the evolution of marriage doctrine in the ever-evolving “truth” of the Mormon cult, they would look at the monogamous mainstream Mormons and condemn them and whey would heartily approve of the lusty “fundamentalist Mormons” and their multiple “sister wives.” But the approval or disapproval by those zany desert fanatics has nothing to do with the legitimacy of plural marriage!

      • Bighoss

        If the founders of Mormonism were around today and if they were oblivious to the evolution of marriage doctrine in the ever-evolving “truth” of the Mormon cult, they would look at the monogamous mainstream Mormons and condemn them and whey would heartily approve of the lusty “fundamentalist Mormons” and their multiple “sister wives.” But the approval or disapproval by those zany desert fanatics has nothing to do with the legitimacy of plural marriage!

    • FC

      I beg the differ, if the founders were alive today, which church would they belong to? So which should be considered the real Mormon church?

      I’m not LDS or FLDS BTW. Just stating the obvious.

    • FC

      I beg the differ, if the founders were alive today, which church would they belong to? So which should be considered the real Mormon church?

      I’m not LDS or FLDS BTW. Just stating the obvious.

  • Stephanie

    Mormens do not practice Polygamy anymore morons!!!! get your facts straight!

  • Stephanie

    Mormens do not practice Polygamy anymore morons!!!! get your facts straight!

  • Ed Sumner

    The Scriptures DO permit polygamy. I doubt though that America would follow the Biblical guidelines.

    • FC

      Most don’t with mono Marriages, But none the less, marriage is honorable and a step in the right direction.

    • FC

      Most don’t with mono Marriages, But none the less, marriage is honorable and a step in the right direction.

    • FC

      Most don’t with mono Marriages, But none the less, marriage is honorable and a step in the right direction.

  • Ed Sumner

    The Scriptures DO permit polygamy. I doubt though that America would follow the Biblical guidelines.

  • wandamurline

    Just wait until a guy or gal decides they are in love with their donkey or cow….under this Supreme Court, they will need to get equal rights to marry.

  • wandamurline

    Just wait until a guy or gal decides they are in love with their donkey or cow….under this Supreme Court, they will need to get equal rights to marry.

  • Ed Sumner

    I don’t know FC’s situation. And you all don’t either. IF (if) he has more than one wife, it is his job to support each of them and the children. If he can afford to do it, then he’s not sinning at all, so long as he follows the Biblical guideline. FC, are you a Mormon? Their guidelines and reasons for polygamy are not Biblical. Bringing ‘spirit babies’ down out of heaven is not in Christian Scripture.

    • FC’s Wife

      We are not Mormon. We are Christian

  • Ed Sumner

    I don’t know FC’s situation. And you all don’t either. IF (if) he has more than one wife, it is his job to support each of them and the children. If he can afford to do it, then he’s not sinning at all, so long as he follows the Biblical guideline. FC, are you a Mormon? Their guidelines and reasons for polygamy are not Biblical. Bringing ‘spirit babies’ down out of heaven is not in Christian Scripture.

  • Ed Sumner

    I don’t know FC’s situation. And you all don’t either. IF (if) he has more than one wife, it is his job to support each of them and the children. If he can afford to do it, then he’s not sinning at all, so long as he follows the Biblical guideline. FC, are you a Mormon? Their guidelines and reasons for polygamy are not Biblical. Bringing ‘spirit babies’ down out of heaven is not in Christian Scripture.

  • KDS

    Correction they are not Mormon communities!

    • Bighoss

      There are mainstream Mormons, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) and there are “fundamentalist Mormons,” also known as hypocritical lustbuckets (see my comments above). There are, in addition, several other sects that broke off from the LDS but still refer to themselves as “Mormons” and claim to be the true followers of the cult begun by the false prophet, Joseph Smith, Jr. You, KDS, seem to hold that only the LDS faction consists of real true “Mormons.” That claim of exclusivism just doesn’t figure, given the splintered-up mess that is the creation of Joseph Smith, the inventor of it all.

    • Bighoss

      There are mainstream Mormons, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) and there are “fundamentalist Mormons,” also known as hypocritical lustbuckets (see my comments above). There are, in addition, several other sects that broke off from the LDS but still refer to themselves as “Mormons” and claim to be the true followers of the cult begun by the false prophet, Joseph Smith, Jr. You, KDS, seem to hold that only the LDS faction consists of real true “Mormons.” That claim of exclusivism just doesn’t figure, given the splintered-up mess that is the creation of Joseph Smith, the inventor of it all.

    • Bighoss

      There are mainstream Mormons, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) and there are “fundamentalist Mormons,” also known as hypocritical lustbuckets (see my comments above). There are, in addition, several other sects that broke off from the LDS but still refer to themselves as “Mormons” and claim to be the true followers of the cult begun by the false prophet, Joseph Smith, Jr. You, KDS, seem to hold that only the LDS faction consists of real true “Mormons.” That claim of exclusivism just doesn’t figure, given the splintered-up mess that is the creation of Joseph Smith, the inventor of it all.

  • KDS

    Correction they are not Mormon communities!

  • Thomas Pearson

    I fail to see how Beastiality can get legalized due to the fact that Animals can’t give consent and that they are not human.Also can’t justify getting benefits in such a one sided relationship either.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      You are trying to use logic. Most of the posters here are not capable of understanding that.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      You are trying to use logic. Most of the posters here are not capable of understanding that.

  • Tleh

    I think the if the polygamist gets divorced the spouse should still get half.

    • Sam Cane

      polygamist do not get divorced, because most of them wouldn’t get married to all their wives if it was legal, because then they couldn’t ‘bleed the beast’ as well as they can with a house full of single mothers.

    • Sam Cane

      polygamist do not get divorced, because most of them wouldn’t get married to all their wives if it was legal, because then they couldn’t ‘bleed the beast’ as well as they can with a house full of single mothers.

  • Tleh

    I think the if the polygamist gets divorced the spouse should still get half.

  • ADM

    It not only will lead to legalizing POLYGAMY, but as the Bible says, the CURSES will flow on mankind, especially America in this case, for negating God’s Laws for mankind. In Australia, Abortion has led for calls to allow the extermination of the elderly and will allow youths who feel hopeless, to be put down like dogs. So, looking at the way such laws are so full of loopholes that allow en-furthering of sin and such, we can use the Sodom principle to say that Polygamy will lead to Bestiality, and then legalised RAPE, etc…. think about it.

    • Chris Nystrom

      Where does it say in the Bible that the land will be cursed for allowing polygamy?

    • Chris Nystrom

      Where does it say in the Bible that the land will be cursed for allowing polygamy?

    • Chris Nystrom

      Where does it say in the Bible that the land will be cursed for allowing polygamy?

    • FC

      The Bible also talks about what will happen when men assert themselves in the place of God. God Himself never judged anyone for being a polygamist/polygynist. Those who are judging anyone for that, need to open their eyes and figure out where they are getting that because it is not from God or His Holy Scripture.

      • Sam Cane

        my biggest problem with polygamy – is the people who practice it, do so with full intentions of over-populating our countries, while at the same time – getting the whole tribe of a family on welfare. So we have these high-minded patriarchal deadbeats, who create people they cannot afford to feed.

        • Bighoss

          Amen, Sam. The desert polygamists in Arizona, Colorado, and Utah and elsewhere are infamous as leeches on public welfare. The whole business is hypocritical, since they justify their plural unions as “marriage” and refer to the women as “sister wives” but when these women sign up for welfare benefits for themselves and their illegitimate chillens, they claim to be “single” or “unmarried.”

        • Bighoss

          Amen, Sam. The desert polygamists in Arizona, Colorado, and Utah and elsewhere are infamous as leeches on public welfare. The whole business is hypocritical, since they justify their plural unions as “marriage” and refer to the women as “sister wives” but when these women sign up for welfare benefits for themselves and their illegitimate chillens, they claim to be “single” or “unmarried.”

          • FC

            You do realize that if they applied, they would have to sign up as single right? They aren’t allowed to have more then one marriage license and they aren’t recognized as married by the State without the license. The State is the one who puts them in the single category. If it were decriminalized, they wouldn’t have to do this because the husbands could get multiple licenses with the wives, as long as they were consenting adults and knew of each other.

          • Bighoss

            In other words, you find it okay for them to lie and violate the law because they don’t agree with it.

          • FC

            Not at all, I’m telling you that if they fill out any official paperwork as anything other then being single when they are recognized by the state as being married, it could be perjury. So they are forced to fill it out as single.

          • Bighoss

            Depleted uranium is very dense, but not as dense as you are showing yourself to be.

            Whether to avoid perjury or for whatever reason, when these “sister wives” represent themselves as “single,” they are in effect recognizing the law of the state against plural marriage while denying what they believe to be the law of God allegedly authorizing plural MARRIAGE. So these same welfare-sucking women say they are “married” when among their fellow polygamous cultists and say they are “single” when signing up to siphon off the public treasury to support themselves, their lusty hubbies, and the nest of future heretics they are spawning. They can not be both single and married, so they are lying in one case or the other. Both answers can not be the truth. THEY LIE!

          • FC

            Its not a lie at all.. Official paperwork is asking if you are legally recognized as married, they don’t give a damn about what you believe, it is not asking that, So if filling it out, you know your not legally recognized as married, there is only one way to fill it out.

          • Bighoss

            So the “marriage” that really counts is the polygynous one. It is the marriage ordained by God, according to you. But those welfare cheat wimmen, liikin’ to be suckin’ at the public teat, denigrate that “true” marriage by denying they are married and accept the state’s concept of marriage as the preeminent one!

            In any case, one thing is certain. There are a bunch of welfare-suckin’ polygamists who have procured and cohabit with more women than they can support and therefore rely on the public to support their lustbucket activity by sending their “sister wives” to sign up for public a$$istance! Shame!

          • FC

            What proof do you have that polygamist take assistance at any higher rate then monogamists or single mothers?

            Do you honestly think 3 single mothers with 5 kids each would get more in assistance then one family of 24, 4 adults and 20 children? Having to file as single does not net them any more $$ then if they were allowed to file as all being married to the same man.

            Being against the assistance programs is fine. But many many people take advantage of that. That is not a polygamy issue. The men who create the babies and run off are a much bigger burden on the system then a man who marries the women, then he and his wives trying to support their family.

          • Bighoss

            I am not comparing polygamists with single mothers. What I am saying is that when a household has numerous women and one man and has generated a scad of little chillens, both illegitimate and legitimate, that entails a lot of costs that the husband is unlikely to be able to afford. That answer: send the wimmen out to get on welfare! If each of those women were instead married to one man and were his only wife, the support of that monogamous family would not demand the high costs that send polygamous families disproportionately to the welfare offices.

            Check this out, for example:

            http://www.hlntv.com/article/2011/08/03/bleeding-beast-polygamist-sect-accused-abusing-welfare

            In
            discussions about Warren Jeffs and the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus
            Christ of Latter Day Saints) church the topic of “bleeding the beast,” or
            taking advantage of government money, often comes up. A former polygamist
            sect member, Laurie Allen, talked about it in an interview on In Session. Allen
            produced “Banking on Heaven,” a documentary about the FLDS under
            Jeffs’ leadership. During our interview last week, Allen claimed the FLDS
            collects food stamps and other forms of public assistance because many of the
            women technically are still single. In the FLDS, multiple women are often
            “celestially married” to one man, with only one of the women being legally
            married to their collective husband. That means the other illegitimate wives
            can collect assistance for themselves and their children.

            Allen said the group also collects
            government assistance for children with disabilities – disabilities she
            attributes to inbreeding in the FLDS community. She claims “in the state of Arizona
            alone, they’re getting between 20 and 30 million dollars a year” and most of
            the members “are living off taxpayer money.” She interviewed former
            Attorney General Terry Goddard in her documentary. Goddard told her 80% of the
            FLDS members are on welfare and more than 4,000 of them have state medical
            insurance access.

            In 2006, CNN’s Randi Kaye wrote a blog detailing how
            polygamy affects taxpayers. In the blog, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff
            made a similar assertion, stating “their religious belief is that they’ll
            bleed the beast, meaning the government. They hate the government, so they’ll
            bleed it for everything they can through welfare, tax evasion and fraud. “

          • Bighoss

            I am not comparing polygamists with single mothers. What I am saying is that when a household has numerous women and one man and has generated a scad of little chillens, both illegitimate and legitimate, that entails a lot of costs that the husband is unlikely to be able to afford. That answer: send the wimmen out to get on welfare! If each of those women were instead married to one man and were his only wife, the support of that monogamous family would not demand the high costs that send polygamous families disproportionately to the welfare offices.

            Check this out, for example:

            http://www.hlntv.com/article/2011/08/03/bleeding-beast-polygamist-sect-accused-abusing-welfare

            In
            discussions about Warren Jeffs and the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus
            Christ of Latter Day Saints) church the topic of “bleeding the beast,” or
            taking advantage of government money, often comes up. A former polygamist
            sect member, Laurie Allen, talked about it in an interview on In Session. Allen
            produced “Banking on Heaven,” a documentary about the FLDS under
            Jeffs’ leadership. During our interview last week, Allen claimed the FLDS
            collects food stamps and other forms of public assistance because many of the
            women technically are still single. In the FLDS, multiple women are often
            “celestially married” to one man, with only one of the women being legally
            married to their collective husband. That means the other illegitimate wives
            can collect assistance for themselves and their children.

            Allen said the group also collects
            government assistance for children with disabilities – disabilities she
            attributes to inbreeding in the FLDS community. She claims “in the state of Arizona
            alone, they’re getting between 20 and 30 million dollars a year” and most of
            the members “are living off taxpayer money.” She interviewed former
            Attorney General Terry Goddard in her documentary. Goddard told her 80% of the
            FLDS members are on welfare and more than 4,000 of them have state medical
            insurance access.

            In 2006, CNN’s Randi Kaye wrote a blog detailing how
            polygamy affects taxpayers. In the blog, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff
            made a similar assertion, stating “their religious belief is that they’ll
            bleed the beast, meaning the government. They hate the government, so they’ll
            bleed it for everything they can through welfare, tax evasion and fraud. “

          • Bighoss

            I am not comparing polygamists with single mothers. What I am saying is that when a household has numerous women and one man and has generated a scad of little chillens, both illegitimate and legitimate, that entails a lot of costs that the husband is unlikely to be able to afford. That answer: send the wimmen out to get on welfare! If each of those women were instead married to one man and were his only wife, the support of that monogamous family would not demand the high costs that send polygamous families disproportionately to the welfare offices.

            Check this out, for example:

            http://www.hlntv.com/article/2011/08/03/bleeding-beast-polygamist-sect-accused-abusing-welfare

            In
            discussions about Warren Jeffs and the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus
            Christ of Latter Day Saints) church the topic of “bleeding the beast,” or
            taking advantage of government money, often comes up. A former polygamist
            sect member, Laurie Allen, talked about it in an interview on In Session. Allen
            produced “Banking on Heaven,” a documentary about the FLDS under
            Jeffs’ leadership. During our interview last week, Allen claimed the FLDS
            collects food stamps and other forms of public assistance because many of the
            women technically are still single. In the FLDS, multiple women are often
            “celestially married” to one man, with only one of the women being legally
            married to their collective husband. That means the other illegitimate wives
            can collect assistance for themselves and their children.

            Allen said the group also collects
            government assistance for children with disabilities – disabilities she
            attributes to inbreeding in the FLDS community. She claims “in the state of Arizona
            alone, they’re getting between 20 and 30 million dollars a year” and most of
            the members “are living off taxpayer money.” She interviewed former
            Attorney General Terry Goddard in her documentary. Goddard told her 80% of the
            FLDS members are on welfare and more than 4,000 of them have state medical
            insurance access.

            In 2006, CNN’s Randi Kaye wrote a blog detailing how
            polygamy affects taxpayers. In the blog, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff
            made a similar assertion, stating “their religious belief is that they’ll
            bleed the beast, meaning the government. They hate the government, so they’ll
            bleed it for everything they can through welfare, tax evasion and fraud. “

          • FC

            What proof do you have that polygamist take assistance at any higher rate then monogamists or single mothers?

            Do you honestly think 3 single mothers with 5 kids each would get more in assistance then one family of 24, 4 adults and 20 children? Having to file as single does not net them any more $$ then if they were allowed to file as all being married to the same man.

            Being against the assistance programs is fine. But many many people take advantage of that. That is not a polygamy issue. The men who create the babies and run off are a much bigger burden on the system then a man who marries the women, then he and his wives trying to support their family.

          • FC

            What proof do you have that polygamist take assistance at any higher rate then monogamists or single mothers?

            Do you honestly think 3 single mothers with 5 kids each would get more in assistance then one family of 24, 4 adults and 20 children? Having to file as single does not net them any more $$ then if they were allowed to file as all being married to the same man.

            Being against the assistance programs is fine. But many many people take advantage of that. That is not a polygamy issue. The men who create the babies and run off are a much bigger burden on the system then a man who marries the women, then he and his wives trying to support their family.

          • Bighoss

            So the “marriage” that really counts is the polygynous one. It is the marriage ordained by God, according to you. But those welfare cheat wimmen, liikin’ to be suckin’ at the public teat, denigrate that “true” marriage by denying they are married and accept the state’s concept of marriage as the preeminent one!

            In any case, one thing is certain. There are a bunch of welfare-suckin’ polygamists who have procured and cohabit with more women than they can support and therefore rely on the public to support their lustbucket activity by sending their “sister wives” to sign up for public a$$istance! Shame!

          • Bighoss

            So the “marriage” that really counts is the polygynous one. It is the marriage ordained by God, according to you. But those welfare cheat wimmen, liikin’ to be suckin’ at the public teat, denigrate that “true” marriage by denying they are married and accept the state’s concept of marriage as the preeminent one!

            In any case, one thing is certain. There are a bunch of welfare-suckin’ polygamists who have procured and cohabit with more women than they can support and therefore rely on the public to support their lustbucket activity by sending their “sister wives” to sign up for public a$$istance! Shame!

          • FC

            Its not a lie at all.. Official paperwork is asking if you are legally recognized as married, they don’t give a damn about what you believe, it is not asking that, So if filling it out, you know your not legally recognized as married, there is only one way to fill it out.

          • FC

            Its not a lie at all.. Official paperwork is asking if you are legally recognized as married, they don’t give a damn about what you believe, it is not asking that, So if filling it out, you know your not legally recognized as married, there is only one way to fill it out.

          • FC

            Not at all, I’m telling you that if they fill out any official paperwork as anything other then being single when they are recognized by the state as being married, it could be perjury. So they are forced to fill it out as single.

          • Bighoss

            In other words, you find it okay for them to lie and violate the law because they don’t agree with it.

        • Bighoss

          Amen, Sam. The desert polygamists in Arizona, Colorado, and Utah and elsewhere are infamous as leeches on public welfare. The whole business is hypocritical, since they justify their plural unions as “marriage” and refer to the women as “sister wives” but when these women sign up for welfare benefits for themselves and their illegitimate chillens, they claim to be “single” or “unmarried.”

        • FC

          I to believe a man should not Father more children then he and his family can support. I think we both know single men have this one by a long shot over the polygamists.

        • FC

          I to believe a man should not Father more children then he and his family can support. I think we both know single men have this one by a long shot over the polygamists.

        • FC

          I to believe a man should not Father more children then he and his family can support. I think we both know single men have this one by a long shot over the polygamists.

    • FC

      The Bible also talks about what will happen when men assert themselves in the place of God. God Himself never judged anyone for being a polygamist/polygynist. Those who are judging anyone for that, need to open their eyes and figure out where they are getting that because it is not from God or His Holy Scripture.

  • ADM

    It not only will lead to legalizing POLYGAMY, but as the Bible says, the CURSES will flow on mankind, especially America in this case, for negating God’s Laws for mankind. In Australia, Abortion has led for calls to allow the extermination of the elderly and will allow youths who feel hopeless, to be put down like dogs. So, looking at the way such laws are so full of loopholes that allow en-furthering of sin and such, we can use the Sodom principle to say that Polygamy will lead to Bestiality, and then legalised RAPE, etc…. think about it.

  • rams375

    Polygamy is no worse than queers and dears marrying, let them have equal rights too. I would like equal rights but it is not available to English speaking, white males that worked for their retirement.

    • Thomas Jefferson

      What rights are not available to you? Or are you just a whiney old man?

    • Thomas Jefferson

      What rights are not available to you? Or are you just a whiney old man?

    • Thomas Jefferson

      What rights are not available to you? Or are you just a whiney old man?

  • rams375

    Polygamy is no worse than queers and dears marrying, let them have equal rights too. I would like equal rights but it is not available to English speaking, white males that worked for their retirement.

  • rams375

    Polygamy is no worse than queers and dears marrying, let them have equal rights too. I would like equal rights but it is not available to English speaking, white males that worked for their retirement.

  • USCBIKER

    He’s gotta be sore downstairs 24/7 but what a way to go! The punishment for polygamy is 2 or more wives.

    • Ed Sumner

      The Scripture only states that a polygamous man must give each wife ‘her due’ (Ex 21:10); that doesn’t mean that he’s having sex all the time, only that he mustn’t prefer one to the other. And the punishments for polygamy are: two or more sets of inlaws and multiple PMSing women.

  • USCBIKER

    He’s gotta be sore downstairs 24/7 but what a way to go! The punishment for polygamy is 2 or more wives.

  • USCBIKER

    He’s gotta be sore downstairs 24/7 but what a way to go! The punishment for polygamy is 2 or more wives.

  • Zemb the Mighty

    Swell…what’s next marrying a dog?

  • Zemb the Mighty

    Swell…what’s next marrying a dog?

  • Zemb the Mighty

    Swell…what’s next marrying a dog?

  • Dukhooker

    As is the case in all illogical, insane endeavors, the unintended consequences resulting from this humongous disaster are going to be spectacular to behold!

  • Dukhooker

    As is the case in all illogical, insane endeavors, the unintended consequences resulting from this humongous disaster are going to be spectacular to behold!

  • Dukhooker

    As is the case in all illogical, insane endeavors, the