About the author: Suzanne Olden

Suzanne Reisig Olden is a Catholic Christian, Conservative, married mother of two, who loves God, family and country in that order. She lives northwest of Baltimore, in Carroll County, Maryland. She graduated from Villa Julie College/Stevenson University with a BS in Paralegal Studies and works as a paralegal for a franchise company, specializing in franchise law and intellectual property. Originally from Baltimore, and after many moves, she came home to raise her son and daughter, now high school and college aged, in her home state. Suzanne has written for the online publication, The Beacon Bulletin.

View all articles by Suzanne Olden
  • Dave the Retired Marine MSgt

    So then what’s next? Polygamy, bigamy, bestiality? Maybe you want to marry your sister or mother or first cousin? Marriage, Holy Matrimony, is only between a man and a woman who are sufficiently non-related so as not to violate natures rules against inbreeding (incest).
    If you are bound and determined to establish a contract of “marriage” between yourself and another of the same sex, fine! just don’t call it marriage. It’s a civil union, and unfortunately it’s not prohibited by law. Just don’t try to sanctify your immoral act.

    ,

    ,

    • USARcaring

      Then please try to justify your immoral act of wearing mixed fibers.

      • Dave the Retired Marine MSgt

        OMG! I didn’t see you hiding in my closet this morning when I got up! How else could you have any idea of what I’m wearing, or not. And … I had a really tasty pork roast last night for dinner, how did you miss that?
        My house is protected by my pit bull, by Smith and Wesson, and by God. Those who enter without my permission have a very good chance of meeting all of them.

        • USARcaring

          It says you are a retired Marine MSGT, I can assume that you wore mixed fibers at one point during your time in service.

          • Dave the Retired Marine MSgt

            You got that absolutely correct. And …. when I was wearing them I killed a whole lot of commie bastards. Are you a commie bastard?

          • USARcaring

            I’m in the United States Army, I think that is out of the question.

          • Dave the Retired Marine MSgt

            That’s a shame, I guess that you make the statement “Be all that you can be” an underachievers motto. I assume that you refuse to wear the uniform, since it’s composed of mixed fibers. Hypocrite!

          • Nancy Rutledge

            “underachiever’s motto” I love it!

          • Dave the Retired Marine MSgt

            ;-)

          • USARcaring

            I don’t rely on a book of fairy tales to run my life. Oops, did I say that?

          • Dr_Falken

            No, you seem to prefer Fairy Tail instead :-)

          • USARcaring

            Nah, anal sex is great and all, but I have a job to do.

          • Dr_Falken

            I was under the impression that both of those were the same for you?

          • wanda faye rigdon

            this is a domestic Terorist here we need to start with them First when the SHTF ! Amen

          • Winghunter

            Nidal Hasan wore it. Benedict Arnold, Aldrich Ames and John Walker wore the uniform also so, whether you’re a Commie bastard or not has nothing to do with being in the military.

          • Dave the Retired Marine MSgt

            You are one of few who got my point! The hypocrite obviously did not. ;-)

          • USARcaring

            Yes I’m a commie bastard. You caught me red handed.

          • Dr_Falken

            Hell, the CIC is a Charlie too…

          • LeSellers

            How does your being in the army stop your being a “commie bastard”? The Commander-in-Chief is a commie bastard*.
            * Since his parents were not married (’cause his father was alreay married and bigamy is null and void ab initio even if you believe, against all evidence, they went through a ceremony, O’bama is a bastard, literally. Anyone who believes he is not a communist has not read his books, nor listened to his speeches.

            Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

          • Nancy Rutledge

            Like again

        • Nancy Rutledge

          Like

        • wanda faye rigdon

          Hear Hear !!! You got that right patriot !

      • concern00

        It is truly hilarious and somewhat ironic seeing someone who doesn’t understand the Bible, attempt to use the Bible to prove a point. Thanks for the laugh.

        • Dave the Retired Marine MSgt

          I think that there’s a good chance that he’s a commie bastard.
          I forgot to tell him that I had fried shrimp for lunch today. I’m sure that he will have something to say about that.

        • USARcaring

          Yes but also in the bible there are hundreds of contradictions. Don’t heterosexual people try to tell homosexuals how they feel without being homosexual. What’s so different about that.

          • concern00

            I generally rely on those who have practiced homosexual behavior and participated in the lifestyle to tell me how they feel about homosexuality. You can’t beat the horse’s mouth for the sordid reality.

          • Dave the Retired Marine MSgt

            Horse’s mouth? More like horse’s ass. They can relate to “ass” much better.

          • Dr_Falken

            that’s known as “bestiality”, not “homosexuality”. get your perversions straight (as it were).

          • Dave the Retired Marine MSgt

            They, heterosexuals, are not abominations in the eyes of God.

          • Dave the Retired Marine MSgt

            I liked it better when you “guys” were governed by the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” criteria.
            Don’t ask me, and I won’t tell you, what an abomination you are.

          • Winghunter

            Pentagon DADT study was biased http://bit.ly/LG3HlC
            ”Where was it reported that 1,167 retired generals and flag officers support the ban on homosexuals? Why wasn’t the focus that the vast majority of our combat troops and Marines oppose
            a quad-sexual military?…
            Rather than asking if our troops were biased against LGBTs in the workplace, they should have asked questions concerning forced intimacy, forced morality and the LGBT medical readiness issues….”

          • Dave the Retired Marine MSgt

            ??

          • Winghunter

            Everyone but Obama, his kiss-ass generals, sexual deviants and traitors trying to destroy our combat readiness were against the repeal of the DADT.

          • Dave the Retired Marine MSgt

            Where in the Bible did you find that, hypocrite.

          • Mo86

            - Yet you didn’t name one.

            - You do not believe the Bible, so why do you invoke it or pretend you care (or know!) what it says on anything, one way or the other?)

            Here’s my prediction:

            1. You’ll completely ignore my question.
            2. You’ll go to some anti-theist website and copy/paste some supposed contradiction.
            3. You’ll wait for me to reply and when I do and I try to explain what your supposed contradiction really is about, you will ignore this explanation and give another example.
            4. Assuming I am gullible enough to keep playing this game, you’ll keep dong the same thing over and over, never once acknowledging any facts and explanations I may offer.

            Sorry, I don’t play games like that. I’d like to think that somewhere in the world (especially online) there is an anti-theist who is fair minded and is open to facts and evidence. But I haven’t met one yet.

        • Mo86

          Isn’t it? Anti-theists do this all the time, and on many topics.

          You know USARcaring has never cracked open a Bible other than to copy and paste some verses they heard about on an atheist site or something. You know they haven’t read the full OT to learn anything about the ceremonial and moral laws, why they were given, to WHOM they were given, how the NT works into it all, etc.

          The sad part is they have zero desire to learn. I’ve dealt with these anti-theist types many times, and even when you try to explain things to them, they have no interest. They know more than you do – again, without ever having READ the Bible, much less studied it – and that’s that!

          “Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you”

          - Londo Mollari, ‘Babylon 5′

    • Tazz2293

      Master Sargent – Keep up the good fight.

      Semper Fi!

  • Jonah Brown

    Ugh I get really irritated at these “Fundamentalist” Mormon groups, giving the rest of Mormons a bad name. Mainstream LDS/Mormons are fighting to keep the traditional family intact (Dis-fellowship is the consequence for participating or facilitating same-sex or plural marriage) The day we win the war against the Home is the day we win the war against our Country, Lives, Businesses, Freedoms, Etc.

    • LeSellers

      No, disfellowshipment is not the punishment for same-sex “marraige” or Plural Marriage. The punishment is excommunication — a rather more severe result.

      Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

  • fliteking

    Already available in California.

    • NASA

      Let the perversion begin!!

      Thank goodness for evolution.

  • ron

    While I understand and agree with the “society is crumbling” meme, why should government have ANYTHING to say about marriage? If the State dissolved your marriage tomorrow, would it matter?

    http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/28/lets-divorce-marriage-from-the-governmen

  • Winghunter

    It Begins: Pedophiles Call for Same Rights as Homosexuals http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals

    • wanda faye rigdon

      the Perverion will go on and on and on Now theres is no stopping it Child molesters will want acess to our children now to molest them leagally

  • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

    Striking down DOMA was a proper decision, as marriage legally has historically been defined by the several states. If you believe in states’ rights, you have to see the federal DOMA as never having been Constitutional…and then, using the same rationale, you must also say that Judge Waddoups made a huge mistake by even ruling on the merits of the case, as there is no legitimate jurisdiction for a federal judge to make a ruling on a state matter.

    @Winghunter:disqus – the reason why DADT needed to be at least modified if not repealed altogether was because of the situation with third-party outings…which just happened to rear its head only months before.

  • Ian Stanley

    I understand the outrage at polygamists trying to get their marriages made legal, but I think you’re blaming the wrong crowd. It’s not the fault of the supporters of gay marriage. It’s the supporters of traditional marriage that are the problem. Without traditional marriage, there’s no push for gay marriage. Without gay marriage, there’s no push for polygamy. So, there you have it. Straight marriage is the real problem since it will lead to polygamy being made legal. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

    • Dave the Retired Marine MSgt

      Bull Crap!

      • LeSellers

        Just how is this “Bull Crap”?

        Only after traditional marriage supporters got special treatment for their unions did homosexuals start demanding the “right” to marry.

        In any discussion of same-sex “marriage”, it ends up that the homosexuals want goodies from the government (e.g., tax breaks, inheritance rights, inherent powers of attorney, precedence over blood kin). They do not care at all about the one thing most of us regular folk seem to focus on: the sex. They have that any way, and they have had for millennia.

        If there were not special status before government for marriage, if government weren’t the third (and most powerful) partner in every marriage, there would be no clamor for same-sex “marriage”.

        I am not attacking traditional marriage. My focus is on the governmental role in marriage. For most people, it seems better to get married without a marriage “license” issued by the state. A couple can find clergy who will marry them without that bureaucratic nonsense.

        The couple can write their own marriage contract. They can establish legal entities and documents (like trusts and powers of attorney) that give each other the same “benefits” as a government-sanctioned marriage. There is no need to have government involved in the marriage at all unless and until dissolution. In that case, the only role the state has is to enforce the provisions of the contract.

        Government causes problems, then demands that we grant it more power to solve those same problems. The result ends up being a still graver problem which, shockingly, requires still more government.

        Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

        • Dave the Retired Marine MSgt

          ” It’s the supporters of traditional marriage that are the problem” Oh sure, blame the “straights”.

          And … Government is not the problem. The problem is those who are using the government,( working within the Constitution and our laws), to subvert the meaning of “marriage”.

          ☭omrade Øbama and his fellow communists are doing the same thing ( working within the Constitution and our laws) in their agenda to “fundamentally change” our country into a socialist “utopia”.

          • LeSellers

            Sorry, Sarge, I did not attack traditional marriage. I attacked governmental interference into traditional marriage.

            Government is the problem because, as Thomas Jefferson reminds us, the natural propensity is for government to get larger (and more intrusive) and freedom to recede. As government interferes with marriage (recall that until the mid XIX, no government anywhere required a license to marry. People “published the bans” and went to the church house. The clergyman pronounced the two man and wife, and the marriage was formalized and legal), the whole concept of marriage changed. We are now at a point that it is government that is the most powerful and important partner in a marriage. That is dangerous and scary.

            Without that interference, there would be no demand for same-sex “marriage”. Government creates the vast majority of the problems on society. Get government out of the picture and those problems go away.

            Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

          • Dave

            The church should have never relinquished control of marriage to the state. The church requires couples to get a state license and then turns around and b!tc#es about the state changing the rules to generate revenue. How stupid is that? I’ve seen polygyny practiced, it is a $#!t deal for all involved, especially the children.

          • LeSellers

            To be fair, the churches did not relinquish control over marriage, government usurped it. We do note, however, that the churches did not belly ache too much about it, though.

            That may be because it started in Britain where the Church of England (Anglican or Episcopal) or the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) was a wholly owned subsidiary of the state, and so it was an “in-house” thing there. Smaller churches (e.g., Methodists and Lutherans) had to fall in line because they, too, were subservient to the crown. But htis was not until the XIX, it has not long been a factor in who could or could not marry whom.

            Other governments saw the control it gave the British crown, and the practice emigrated around the globe. In USmerica, at least for some states, marriage control by the state was motivated by the fear of miscegenatous (interracial) marriages. Some churches, too, feared their members might marry outside the faith, so they illegitimately used the (lethal) power of the state to stop such “perversions”. These quasi-state churches were complicit in the usurpation. Don’t forget that, until the mid-XIX, several states still had established — primarily the original 13. The I did not apply to the states until SCotuS said the XIV required it. Even in the states that had disestablished their churches, the majority faith still ran the government for decades after.

            Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

          • JaundicedView

            Of course there will be jobs…government and union jobs. Everybody else is pretty much SOL.

          • Dave

            Essentially I think that we are on the same page. By the churches (both quasi-state and others) being complicit in the usurpation, it is my point of view that, they voluntarily relinquished control. The/A church could simply recognize a marriage as valid under their own rules, without requiring a state license. The state license could be optional if the couple wants to have the “benefits” of it. The Catholic church does not recognize state divorces as valid in their eyes. Why do they then require a state license for couples who want to marry in their churches?

          • LeSellers

            I, too, have seen polygyny practiced, and it was about the same as monogyny: some families were great, others, eh, not as good.

            I do know, however, that the children were much better off with their fathers at home than the children of single-mother “families” who had no knowledge of who their fathers were.

            Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

          • Dave

            What I have witnessed has been wives competing for the husband’s attention. That is a mess in and of itself. The husbands have so many kids that they cannot effectively be a dad to all, if any of them. The older wives get less attention/care than do the younger ones. The husbands either have deal with all of their wives living in the same house or have to attempt to divide their time between houses. This really sucks for the kids. If one of the parties cheats, then all involved are at a much higher risk for contracting STDs. The wives usually have to work outside of the home to help support the kids. Many of these situations are also a drain on the taxpayer as many of the wives and their kids are on the welfare system. I could go on, but those are some of the main problems that I see with polygyny. While I agree that the single mom thing is bad, I fail to see where the polygyny thing is any better.

        • Memphis Viking

          I agree that some of those benefits are a factor in pushing for gay marriage, but most of them can be had without marriage just like the sex can. I believe the biggest reason for the push for gay marriage is to legitimize homosexuality.

          • LeSellers

            Yes, that is a huge component, too.

            However, even though you are right that anyone, complementary-sex or same-sex, can choose with whom he shares any part of his life and power (as I pointed out), the government goodies issue is the one always raised when the red herring of “marriage equality” is raised.

            They whine, “We want to visit each other in the hospital. We want to leave our estates to our ‘spouses’.”

            Yes, the satanic goal is the broad acceptance (not “tolerance” — that’s a wholly different concept) of homosexuality, making the perversion the equal of the holy. We can acknowledge that without granting them the premise.

            The fact is, they do not need legalized marriage to have their sex. But they are using the false complaints of “equality” to get their way.

            Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

    • Dr_Falken

      you do have a point — without straight marriage, or at least straight couples, most of us wouldn’t be here at all. The same can’t be said for gay “marriages”.

      also, polygamist marriages have, by definition, a gay component. when a man marries a woman, according to the Bible, he “becomes one flesh”.

      If he then marries a second woman, by the Biblical definition, that woman is also marrying his first wife.

      • LeSellers

        Your “point”, that polygyny entails homosexual “marriage” is wrong.

        The man marries his wives in separate ceremonies. Each is married to him, but the women are not married to each other.

        The Bible phrase “they shall become one flesh” does not mean what you assume it does. Paul dispels this error when he reminds us that a man and a prostitute become one flesh. It isn’t “marriage” that makes spouses one flesh, it’s intercourse. We could make the case that a child is, literally, the “one flesh” of his parents.

        So, while you can interpret the Bible in any way you choose, it is not self-evident that “the Biblical [sic] definition” of polygyny means the wives marry each other. If it did, that would, in and of itself, justify same-sex “marriage”, since throughout biblical history men took multiple wives adn, in at least one documented case, it was God who gave them to the man. (He even said He’d have given him more wives if he have asked.)

        Finally, while there is a passage that seems to forbid certain men from taking more wives than one (and this is an open question), there is no passage in the Bible that condemns polygyny, and none that forbids it generally.

        Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

        • Dr_Falken

          There is also nothing in the Bible that says that two women can’t get together. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are pretty clear about *men* not getting together, but the Hebrew word there actually means “man”, not a generic “mankind”. Thus, it excludes women.

          The Jewish dietary laws for abstinence from pork were put into place before our science understood about the unique bacteriological issues that pork presents.

          It is true that during ancient times, women were not considered to be sexual (it was considered that men had the sex drive, and women were just “doing their duty”, but had no drive of their own). This is, as we know today, wrong. However, if the Biblical laws are truly inspired by G-d, who knows all things (including the fact that women do have a sex drive), then the specific *exclusion* of a pair of women in the list of forbidden sexual couplings is very telling. It either means that this list was not inspired by G-d, or it means that women are allowed to be with other women.

          In fact, in ancient tradition, and older Biblical law, multiple marriage (polygyny specifically) was not considered wrong. There were even laws for things like what to do with your inheritance if your firstborn son is from a wife you don’t love anymore, but you have another son from a wife you do love (spoiler alert: firstborn means firstborn).

  • mabemawi

    When certain straight people demand the legalization of polygamy, then it must be because those particular straight people want to organize their relationships that way. Logic dictates that it has nothing to do with gay people, let alone with gay people in a classical 1-on-1 monogamous relationship, who obviously try and copy your preferred model as much as they can. I realize that it may be hard to swallow, but: gay people are not responsible for all your dislikes. And certainly not for your dislike of particular fellow straight people. Those ambitious married straight people who long to expand their matrimonial privileges are members of YOUR favorite community and so if anything, they are YOUR responsibility.

    • Memphis Viking

      There’s nothing “classical” about a gay relationship.

      • JaundicedView

        Well, such conduct was referred to in the classical period beginning with the Greeks, and later the Romans, that they had a little problem with being pederasts who couldn’t keep their hands off young male slaves. Most unsavory. Even back then, though, there was no mention of gay “marriages.” Wonder why that was?

        • Dr_Falken

          Because gay relationships were considered adolescent and immature. When a man grew up (and got married), they would marry a woman and have a family.

          • JaundicedView

            The problem with that is that nowadays there are certain individuals who have the Peter Pan syndrome, have drunk deeply from the Foundation of Immaturity, and never DO grow up.

  • Ethan Ellingson

    Polygyny is not the heinous perversion in the eyes of God that many think it is. Sodomy IS! Passages in the new covenant writings that supposedly prohibit polygyny are usually either addressing “putting away”, divorce or actually support polygyny when scrutinized.

    If you study this topic in Scripture (and there are a lot of passages that deal directly and indirectly with it) your conclusion will be the same as mine: there is nothing wrong with polygyny.

    • JaundicedView

      Except the fact that deacons and elders may only be the husband of ONE wife. Just because David, Solomon and other kings practiced polygamy doesn’t necessarily make it kosher.

      • Memphis Viking

        You are correct about David and Solomon. I believe that God’s preferred plan is one man/one woman, otherwise he’d have created more than one woman for Adam. However, the Bible does not specifically condemn polygamy. A case could be made that the fact that it specifies ONE wife for deacons and elders means that it wasn’t assumed that one wife was the only way to go.

      • Ethan Ellingson

        If you study the episkopos and diakonos quality requirements in Timothy and Titus, look carefully at the REASONS Paul gives behind the marriage & household requirements and consider that polygyny is not condemned ANYWHERE in Scripture, you will see the truth.

        The interpretation you are espousing would exclude from these offices obviously qualified men such as Abraham (the friend of God), David (the man after God’s own heart), Gideon (the judge for God), etc., who all practiced polygyny.

        • JaundicedView

          Hmmm, there IS the small matter that Abraham boinked Sarah’s maidservant, David had a loyal friend killed in order to sleep with the man’s wife free and clear (apparently, the myriad of wives and concubines he had just wasn’t enough for him), and Gideon started worshipping an ephod rather than God after his military victory over the Midianites. Not exactly the best people to refer to for examples to hold up as to why polygamy is just peachy, even if one of them WAS called a man after God’s own heart.

          • Ethan Ellingson

            Little resentful of the patriarchs, eh?

            Well, certainly they weren’t sinless. (I personally cannot explain why David was not brought to trial and put to death for his adultery and treachery with Uriah and his wife. No one brought charges or no witnesses came forward I guess.) Point is, during their obedient periods, when their behavior proved their fitness to lead God’s people, they were polygynists.

          • Dave

            That thing about David that you mentioned really gets on the Christian’s nerves when I ask them about it. They try to convince me that God is no respecter of persons. Then they get irritated when I point out that David committed adultery and murder and did not get the punishment that others would have received for either crime let alone both of them.

          • JaundicedView

            You know what? The thing that strikes me is that women never seem to have several husbands, it’s only the other way around. I wonder why that is? Just sayin’.

          • Dave

            Actually some do, just not to the degree that polygyny occurs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry

          • JaundicedView

            Come to think of it, in modern times, sometimes women DO have several husbands through divorce and marrying again and again. Just not usually at the same time.

          • Dave

            The dynamics of divorce situations are, in many ways, almost identical to the dynamics of polygamist situations.

          • Ethan Ellingson

            Ironic that men who have had several wives in their life furrow their brow and look down their nose at polygynists.

          • JaundicedView

            It IS slightly ironic. Unlike O’Bolshevik’s dad and some others, though, they leave bigamy alone. Not all men who abhor bigamy are like that, though. Some just want to do right by themselves and others, and obey the law as best they understand it. While polygamy is, technically, not illegal if no more than one marriage certificate is involved, it nevertheless has a certain “yuck” factor due to polygamy’s (and for that matter, Islam’s) whole child brides thing. Especially if said child bride he happens to be marrying is his daughter.

          • Ethan Ellingson

            Right. If a Christian man takes more than one wife, he must follow the rules (law) set forth in Scripture, taking care of his household according to God’s revealed will on the matter.

            To answer the child-bride issue, there is a passage that comes to mind where God metaphorically marries a young women. I suppose this would create His guideline for who is old enough to marry. The young women is metaphorically Jerusalem:

            “Then you grew up, became tall and reached the age for fine ornaments; your breasts were formed and your hair had grown. Yet you were naked and bare. Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness. I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine,” declares Yahweh. “Then I bathed you with water, washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. I also clothed you with embroidered cloth and put sandals of porpoise skin on your feet; and I wrapped you with fine linen and covered you with silk. I adorned you with ornaments, put bracelets on your hands and a necklace around your neck. I also put a ring in your nostril, earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head.” Ezekiel 16

          • Ethan Ellingson

            Polygynandry had problems. How would you determine who the father was? Which man is responsible to raise the child? Inheritance?

          • JaundicedView

            Well, with modern dna tests, establishing who was the actual father among several men banging the same woman isn’t difficult. Who tends to be the “Alpha” male among the men in this arrangement would be a little trickier, since a woman rules the roost.

    • Sam

      So if you are screwing two different women, it’s A-ok? I don’t think so. .

      • Ethan Ellingson

        I’m simply defending what the Scriptures teach about it. In modern America, most are “doing what is right in their own eyes” and hate the idea that their notion of sexual morality is wrong. In this case, mass popular opinion is different from God’s.

        You use a crude term but, yes, in God’s eyes sexual relations with multiple WIVES is accepted.

        • Sam

          I thought we go by the New Testament now. That was the Old Testament stuff. I was crude because the behavior is crude. Animals mate with multiple partners and that’s ok but we are supposed to have higher standards.

          • Ethan Ellingson

            Sure, there is a new a BETTER covenant (testament) now. Ever read this passage? (Note the part about the “old testament stuff” i.e. “my laws”:

            “For finding fault with them, He says,
            “BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS YAHWEH, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT
            WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH; NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS
            ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
            TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
            FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
            AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS YAHWEH.

            “FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OFISRAEL
            AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS YAHWEH: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
            AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.
            AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
            AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.””

          • Ethan Ellingson

            “For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” Romans

          • Ethan Ellingson

            Rom 3:31

            “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.”

          • LeSellers

            There’s nothing in the New Testament that says polygyny is a sin. It’s not immoral according to God’s word.

            No one has ever shown a single example from the Bible that says a man shall have only one wife (“Bishops” and “Deacons”. perhaps men, in general, no!).

            Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

  • Centurion ‘

    I understand the Government must not discriminate for equal protection from the Government but individual choice be it Religion or moral individual belief shall not be infringed upon by the Government. It seems to be valid if a minority deems their belief is not respected but let a person of the majority demand the same rights and see what happens. This protectionist attitude has now bent the true meaning of individual freedom guaranteed by our Constitution.

  • Socialism is Organized Evil

    Patriots: It’s one if by land, two if by sea. Shine brighter: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KY878

  • awkingsley

    Marriage between one man and one woman works financially, efficiently, and effectively for child rearing. Tax Payers should not have to support the offspring of polygamist perverts. If a man has more than one wife, he needs to support the children himself instead of relying on State aid as has happened in too many polygamist cases in the past.

    Up to recent times, one of the major purposes of polygamy was taking care of unmarried or widowed women. Women had virtually no ability to earn a livelihood outside of prostitution. That is not true today: In fact, the situation for women is just the opposite. Today, what we have been seeing in polygamist cases is older men on ego trips marrying a number of much younger women, even underage women. Polygamy in today’s society is a social flop because it has no value for society.

    Homosexuality has a negative impact on society because of the accompanying disease and degradation of the practicing individuals – males becoming more feminine and females becoming more masculine. As practiced today in our society, not only is homosexuality a vice, but so is polygamy. Neither practice enhances society.

    • LeSellers

      Taxpayer ought not be required to support any children, no matter who their parents might be, nor their conjugal relationship.

      Single mothers are still far more likely to be poor, to have their children in poverty. Marriage is best for all concerned: mother, children, and father.

      Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

      • JaundicedView

        Yes, it is better, although some feminists would have an aneurism if you say it too loudly. When my parents divorced when I was 5 and I had to live with my grandmother and mother, things were REALLY, REALLY hard…we were dirt poor in a way people nowadays will NEVER know. Nevertheless, my mom worked hard at a paper mill to keep us afloat, and didn’t complain. Gram tended bar while mom watched over me. It wasn’t an ideal situation, but we did alright….we certainly never went hungry, which I unfortunately must do now. My dad was a drunken wife beater, so we were better off as we were. Still, I encourage people to marry, as a few of the foster families I lived with when mom got ill were really good parents, and really cared about me. I doubt the same can be said for some current foster parents who callously tell the kid they are watching over that they are doing it for the money (one family was arrogant enough to tell me that) or are fostering because they have a political agenda.

    • LeSellers

      Polygyny is the best mating strategy for women because it opens the possible choice of mate to include those “desirable” men (based on wealth, looks, strength, whatever the woman thinks most important), whereas monogyny limits the choices of less desirable women to the available pool of unmarried men.

      If a man could marry several women, each one would decide if he is her best choice, rather than have to pick from lesser men who are available.

      For men, desirable men believe polygyny is a good option. We already know that many rich men, and many attractive men, and many strong men already have multiple mates. One might be official, and the others informal, but mistresses are a frequent fact of life. So we know that women are not uniform in their rejection of polygyny.

      On the other hand, less desirable men do not like polygyny because they are shut out of the mating pool. Weak, poor, ugly men who may now marry would not be able to take wives.

      Under polygyny, all women win, and men lose if they are not as desirable as others.

      Finally, as I stated earlier, and which is the cheifest point: there is no biblical reason to reject polygyny (unless you are a bishop or deacon, but even that is based on a questionable premise).

      Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

  • Dominic De Falco

    Never say never because it will always come back to bite you in the arse… 100%!
    History proves it over and over again!

  • blobclark

    Next we are going to see a revival of NAMLBA and those folks wanting their rights also. Good lord. Truly , it is Sodom now.

  • Sam

    The polygamists are ruled by their sexual desires. They are idolaters and perverts just like the homosexuals. Now the polygamists will be wanting government checks for all their wives on retirement. I don’t think that’s going to work.

    • Co2

      Why would all those women want the same man? Or opposite.

      • Sam

        Being a second hand rose and getting sloppy leftovers is not for me!

        • Co2

          We already have what I call ‘consecutive polygamy’ already! Legalizing it would just put all under one roof. It already leaves a trail of debris in its wake. Legalizing polygamy would make a world of pain.

          • Ethan Ellingson

            Not necessarily. It is possible to have harmony and prosperity in a polygynous household. It just needs to be managed well by the husband…

          • LeSellers

            Actually, in most polygynyist homes, the wives are in charge. They are in charge of everything.

            Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

        • Ethan Ellingson

          You may not necessarily be “second” just because you are second in chronology:

          “If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.” Deut. 21

      • Ethan Ellingson

        In cases of real life polygyny that I’m aquainted with, they do not marry all at once as the pic displays. The first wife actually testifies to the great marriage material her husband makes over time to the second and third wife…

  • Fact Checker

    What do you people do for a living that you have all day to comment on a blog???

    • Ethan Ellingson

      It doesn’t take that long to comment. I do it on breaks and in between tasks…

      How long did it take you to read through and comment? 5-10 minutes?

    • Lowell

      There are super-humans among us, such as myself, who can comment on this blog in 30 seconds and have 23 hours 59 minutes and 30 seconds to accomplish other things.

      What do you do for a living that you have time to notice?

  • awkingsley

    Even so, there is obviously something that happened in the past that made society change to a one-man one-woman marital relationship. What I have noticed is that people today believe they are so much smarter than their ancestors that they are doomed to repeat past mistakes, over and over again. One of the reasons for the demise of polygyny was the problem with inheritance and taking care of less able children and spouses on the death of the husband, especially on early death of the husband. What about care of minor children if one mother dies? There are mythical stories written about jealous wives ruining kingdoms by trapping the king into placing the jealous wife’s son on the throne instead of the appropriate and rightful heir. Polygamy is not an efficient model when one looks at all of the ramifications. What about the handsome sex addict who takes multiple wives without the means to support them? That is why that is not the modern model for marriage. Polygamy doesn’t work well.

    Do we have to repeat every stupid mistake man has ever made? People today are not so smart as they are smart aleck. We are already back to Sodom and Gomorrah. How far are we going to go with stupid?

  • Lowell

    They are using the same strategy Obama used for Obamacare. They knew what they said wasn’t true but they were willing to lie to gain their goals. They are probably in favor of polygamy, and pedophilia and bestiality, but they believed that if they admitted where this was heading, they wouldn’t get what they wanted.

  • lastconservative

    The Muslims want it, therefore done deal. Next issue please.

  • applepie

    Gay Marriage is not biblical, there is no way you can make it biblical. Polygamy has its biblical tenants there is no way you can say it does not. However, these people who want multiple wives need to remember they are legally bound to provide for those women and children. Biblical law states they are to supply their wives with food, clothing and their own house, not a single one big family home, but their own house. Now if you are able to provide these things then you can marry all the women you can provide for. I do not want to share my husband and see the original concept of marriage brought forth by G-ds creation as 1 man Adam and 1 wife Eve. However the concept of multiple wives is seen over and over in the bible. Yet there are RULES/LAWS which must be obeyed if you are inclined to go that route.
    1. Provide for every wife and her care must

    not be diminished ever. Food, Clothing, Housing.

    2. You can not marry sisters, I know Jacob did accidentally, However, G-d says NO!
    3. You must have a will stating the inheritance clearly, updated at all times.
    4. The wife must be an adult
    5. The wife must be willing and desire to be married to you.
    Personally like I said I am only into 1man+1woman. Yet, it would thrill my soul to see more families grow and be strong if this is their choice. More Children in real biblical sound homes, with love abounding. Not Mormon ,Simply Abrahamic biblical centered torah grasping G-d loving families. People running back to G-d with hearts desire to please Him. Shalom

  • kenhowes

    Ultimately the courts will be saying that marriage is whatever people who want to say they are married say it is.

  • pearl87

    Hey, they can also force young boys into “marriage” with old men, once they gut the pedophilia laws. What a wonderful world of sexual perversion we are opening up for the children.

Pro-2nd Amendment Statement: Boycott Google
Utterly Evil: Glenn Beck’s Propaganda for Invasion of America
Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters: Misguided, Jew-Hating Ninny
Load more