2014 Gallup Poll shows polygamy 180% more acceptable vs 2006

[JustAGuy]

From the May 2014 Moral Acceptability Gallup Poll, "...a few widely condemned actions, such as polygamy, have become slightly less taboo. Five percent of Americans viewed polygamy as morally acceptable in 2006, but that is now at 14%. The rise could be attributed to polygamist families being the subject of television shows -- with the HBO TV show 'Big Love' one example -- thus removing some of the stigma."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170789/new-r ... ility.aspx

 

[steve]

Re: Plural families now 180% more morally acceptable since 2

I view this with mixed feelings, because I am sure that the acceptability of gay marriage has also increased during the same time period.
Heading toward having no morals at all makes us more acceptable? OUCH!!!
(But at least it will cut down on the stoning)

 

[NetWatchR]

Re: Plural families now 180% more morally acceptable since 2

I like less stoning. Less stoning is good.

 

[FollowingHim]

Re: Plural families now 180% more morally acceptable since 2

I think this has a little bit to do with the polygamist tv shows, but that's not the cause. The cause is as Steve points out the general rejection of morality in society. Remember the very reason those TV shows get on air is BECAUSE the media want to undermine traditional Christian morality through showcasing anything traditional conservatives would find offensive, to soften them up to accept anything. The media is full of homosexuality, extramaritial sex, violence - and now a smattering of polygamy.

The fact that polygamy is actually morally ok has nothing to do with it. But it does mean there are some beneficial side-effects (e.g. less stoning).

Very few of those 14% of people that accept polygamy will think it's ok because the Bible says so. Very few will be Christian. Most will be secular people who just think everything is ok.

 

[andrew]

Re: Plural families now 180% more morally acceptable since 2

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

It is my conviction that Ezekiel (speaking for God) teaches us here that homosexuality in a society is a symptom of disease, not a root cause. Coincidentally, polygamy has the effect of prioritizing the multiplication of relationships over the further accumulation of material wealth, and the pride and boredom and laziness that come with.

Politically, I think it is a net positive to align ourselves with all who want the almighty state out of the business of policing private relationships, while concentrating among ourselves on building godly families and communities. I think the fact that there are almost 3x as many people in this country that consider polygamy 'morally acceptable' (whatever that means) as there were just a few years ago is an unqualified good for our side. I expect a lively discussion....

 

[steve]

Re: Plural families now 180% more morally acceptable since 2

" I think the fact that there are almost 3x as many people in this country that consider polygamy 'morally acceptable' (whatever that means) as there were just a few years ago is an unqualified good for our side."

If I sound like the "grumpy old guy" here, you are half right but I am not grumpy!

The big question is going to be: "Is there any change amongst organized Religion?"
They will be the biggest stone-throwers, and will encourage gubmint interference, if it can be done. Utah was not allowed statehood until they got their minds right.

 

[andrew]

Re: Plural families now 180% more morally acceptable since 2

Morality is relative, because "morality" literally means habit or custom. "Morality is as morality does", as Forrest might say. Whatever the American mainstream thinks is appropriate is American morality.

Different people have different grounds for why they think something is right or wrong, and even Christians of good faith who claim to base their morality on the bible tend to disagree with each other (sometimes rather unpleasantly) on specifics. Those of us who want to be free to live according to our faith and God's revelation might want to consider adopting a public or civic morality of liberty and responsibility.

As a member of an unpopular minority, convincing people in this culture (religious segment or otherwise) that what we're doing is right and good can be problematic. Convincing people that we aren't hurting anyone and should therefore be free to live our lives as we please is much simpler. I think that's part of the effectiveness of the TV shows—it gives people a window into plural marriage (whether dramatized or "reality" tv) that allows them to see for themselves how relatively normal it all is. If people can start to wonder what societal purpose could possibly be served by sending a guy like Kody Brown to prison, then that's a win. Just leave him alone.

I'm meandering; it's late and I'm tired. Long story short:

In discussions with other Christians, the ground of our argument should be the clear teaching of scripture (as against the traditions of men in our cultural religion). In discussions with everybody else, the ground of our argument should be our constitutional rights to freedom of religion, expression, and association, and our constitutional right to privacy. The tricky part is that out there in the world we need to be prepared to concede the same civil rights for others that we insist upon for ourselves.

Ironically (maybe it's just me), within the church our biggest allies will be those most submitted to the scriptures—those who will submit to a sound scriptural argument even if it offends their cultural upbringing. Those most secularized and least secure in their understanding of the scriptures will be our biggest problem. Outside the church, though, in the political arena, our biggest allies will be those most marginalized by mainstream culture (which is at least nominally still "Christian", or still sports some "Judeo-Christian values" (mostly Greco-Roman) when it wants to). Again, the biggest problem will be those sort-of churched, sort-of worldly types that don't really know the scriptures and don't really want to know, but this time the friendlies are going to range from pot smokers to owners of raw milk dairies; owners of small businesses, generally; just about any decent farmer that is trying to make a living without selling out to Monsanto; homosexuals and polyamorous types; people who want to ride their motorcycle without a helmet; and I could go on but you get the point—anybody who is for individual liberty and personal responsibility and against the tyranny of the majority.

My two cents....

 

[aineo]

Re: Plural families now 180% more morally acceptable since 2

But, God has His way of turning failures into positives, and so I see that as a good thing for PM.

The world will do exactly what it tried to do 2000 years ago, only to unleash the Kingdom of Heaven and not even know it.

This is my thought exactly. As has already been said, this isn't a sign of people understanding Biblicaly polygyny or the righteousness of such, but just the opposite. Even so, I think this is a good thing. This is acceptance is going to creep into the body of the traditional churches, and I am hopeful that this will mean more believers will be led to search out the truth on the matter.

 

[andrew]

Re: Plural families now 180% more morally acceptable since 2

I think I understand your point.

You definitely understand my point.

I can elaborate a little further now that it's mid-day and I've had some coffee....

I think we have our hands full getting our own house in order. I think trying to get non-Christians or pseudo-Christians to live like Christians is a game we cannot win, that distracts us from focusing on our own issues.

Take the issue of divorce. Last couple of times I checked over the past 15-20 years, divorce statistics among the churched weren't any better than among the general population. We believe (or at least I believe, and I think it is characteristic of us as a group) that our view of marriage and family is more stable and less divorce-prone than the typical western Greco-Roman abstract ideal of "one man, one woman, for life" that sounds lovely in principle but is widely ignored when the going gets tough, leading to a kind of serial polygamy that is almost wholly acceptable in our culture today.

I believe a reasonable social goal is to (a) focus most of our attention on being the families we say we are, and show in our own lives how well it works being a 'biblical family', and (b) promote getting the government out of the business of policing or defining who can live with or have an intimate relationship with whom. This puts us—for the purpose of public debate—on the side of anyone else that agrees that the police powers of government should not intrude in matters of private life among consenting adults, and on the opposite side of anyone that wants the government to mind everybody's business for them.

'This is going to feel a little weird' (Morpheus), because we're used to thinking of other Christ-followers as our natural friends and those who are not submitted to Christ as people we are going to be in conflict with. But anyone that has felt the wrath of a religious bigot who is supposedly a Christian but for some reason absolutely refuses to even consider in good faith looking to see what the bible says about marriage knows how far that first bit about 'natural friends' goes....

Those that would use the police powers of the state to punish ethics they don't agree with are not our friends in the civic arena. Those that would limit the powers of government to enforcing private agreements and punishing violence against person or property (instead of perpetrating much of it) should be counted as allies.