• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

21% More Americans Believe Polygamy is Socially Acceptable

aineo

aineo

Moderator
Staff member
Real Person*
Male
A recent poll by Gallup found that polygamy acceptance in America is at an all time high! In fact, acceptance has skyrocketed in acceptance by 21% this year (2017) over 2016, and nearly 1.5 times more than in 2003 when Gallup first began this poll.

The 2017 Gallup Results
The 2016 Gallup Results
Trendlines
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At 3% you are right, but if it increases by 21% a year we will be at almost 100% in 9 years. No, I don't believe that is going to happen, but I also don't think the growth will be an additive linear amount. The increase was an additive linear 3%, but the annual growth was 21% over the previous year. (17/14 = 1.21)

My post was more of a demonstration of how if written differently the perception could be totally different. Had a newscaster said it as I wrote it, it would be spun as positive no matter what the data said, but if they had written, "Polygamy was near the bottom of the acceptance poll with only 17% acceptance" the opinions of the public would have been influenced negatively.

Just to be clear, I didn't read a headline anywhere on this, I just saw the poll and it reminded me of a negotiation book I am reading that spoke of how important it is to frame things honestly, yet in the light in which you wish them to be seen.
 
Last edited:
I know. Just giving you a hard time.

It's a good thing we don't base our actions or beliefs on what's socially acceptable

Personally, I'll be surprised if it ever gets above 30%
 
I would agree that polygyny will likely never see an approval rating of 30% or higher, but it wouldn't surprise me to see polygamy (either men or women having multiple lovers/spouses) reach higher than that. The world is always looking to adulterate the good and offer a very poor substitute.
 
Messaging is important.

Free association moment: Thinking about messaging in our culture, I'm reminded that Paul ritually began his preaching with the Jews (the religiously uptight culture), then when he was ritually rejected, he would take it to the Gentiles (the unwashed masses). Over the years, I have become a bit bored (I think that's the right word), with the argument that "polygamy is acceptable in the bible". That's so obvious that anyone that's gonna get it gets it quickly, and anyone that doesn't get it quickly has issues that you had better 'count the cost' of to see if you really want to pick that fight.

What seems to get better traction (within and without the church - hardly anyone going to church these days is all that faithful to the scriptures anyway...) are the arguments that (a) consenting adults should be free in the secular order to do what they want (get the civil government out of marriage altogether), and (b) it's better for the women, who actually get a choice of better men, instead of being consigned to monogamy with beta males, becoming a lesbian, or ending up being a cat lady.

It took homosexuals 40 years (roughly) to get from having the APA declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder to Supreme Court legitimation of homosexual marriage. What we know of what's going on with non-Mormon, non-Muslim polygamy dates mostly from the mid-90s and the internet websites that went up making biblical arguments on behalf of plural marriage. Maybe we're halfway there?...

A good topic for discussion at the upcoming retreat might be the difference between framing plural marriage as a reactionary movement v. framing it as a progressive movement. (@nathan - suggestion) Just a thought....
 
Something that helps un-demonize plural is the media, a powerful tool. Reality shows etc..
People get to see we don't have horns. People in our culture pay attention to things like that more than essays and scriptures, conditioned simple mindsets. People prefer to be entertained. You can use it for good and educate, or bad with fears and propaganda.
Much of it is used for fear or fluff entertainment. Little actually edudates.
I find it hard to glean much education from main outlets, very little unbiased documentaries.
We as a society are pretty fat and malnourished in many levels. Connected to an unhealthy non reality matrix.
How can we help educate without being burned?
 
In a society where instant gratification and mindless drivel is the accepted norm,this may prove a challenge indeed.
 
On the plus side, if my calculations are correct, it's a 170% growth since 2003.

On the downside, our position is perceived as the "progressive" position. Funny how going back to biblical values is seen as progressive. Reversion is progression.

If there is ever to be legal acceptance of this lifestyle (not that it's needed) it seems as though we will have to make strange bedfellows with the secular progressives.:eek:
 
I'm of the same opinion as Andrew, (as I'm sure many of my BF homies are likeminded) that the government has no business lording over civil unions between consenting adults. "Doctrine of demons / forbidding to marry"... ya feel me?

It's a fun conversation I have often with people when they say, "Yea, but doesn't the Bible say to obey the law of the land though?" I smile, take a deep breath and let 'em have it, "Really bro?, The law of our land allows for abortion and gay marriage!" Lol ... I mean come on, Paul wrote a good chunk of the NT while behind bars for not obeying the law of the land right?!

Just the other day I was getting ready to drive down to the store real quick and my 6 year old boy wanted to roll with dad. He of course asked if he could ride up front with me. Before I could answer, my wife loving informed me that they changed the law recently in our precious liberal state to where you have to be 14 years old to ride up front... hahaha... I responded by saying well son yer riding shotgun, hop up front with me bud, because we are Americans and the Constitution says nothing of front seat restrictions! ... I then looked at my beautiful wife and said, "It also says nothing of seat belts! Woooo!" I received a slightly unimpressed look from the wife and then the boys were off for a cruise down town! Lol oh yea!

#Patriarchy
 
rustywest4 said:
I'm of the same opinion as Andrew, (as I'm sure many of my BF homies are likeminded) that the government has no business lording over civil unions between consenting adults. "Doctrine of demons / forbidding to marry"... ya feel me?

It's a fun conversation I have often with people when they say, "Yea, but doesn't the Bible say to obey the law of the land though?" I smile, take a deep breath and let 'em have it, "Really bro?, The law of our land allows for abortion and gay marriage!" Lol ... I mean come on, Paul wrote a good chunk of the NT while behind bars for not obeying the law of the land right?!

Just the other day I was getting ready to drive down to the store real quick and my 6 year old boy wanted to roll with dad. He of course asked if he could ride up front with me. Before I could answer, my wife loving informed me that they changed the law recently in our precious liberal state to where you have to be 14 years old to ride up front... hahaha... I responded by saying well son yer riding shotgun, hop up front with me bud, because we are Americans and the Constitution says nothing of front seat restrictions! ... I then looked at my beautiful wife and said, "It also says nothing of seat belts! Woooo!" I received a slightly unimpressed look from the wife and then the boys were off for a cruise down town! Lol oh yea!

#Patriarchy
Click to expand...
I hear ya RW4 in that PM doesn't NEED legal status to be practiced or accepted in God's eyes, but there is a difference in the two items you selected. Abortion and homosexuality are not forced activities. The government merely says it will not put restrictions against those choices, thereby making it easier to participate. We may call it abominable, but we are not forced to abort or marry the guy next door (now funding of said activities is a concern for me, but that's a different thread). If Andrew or any other big dog polygynists in the BF community was given the opportunity to make it easier to function in society with legal rights granted, would they not take opportunity and use it? I dont know the answer.
 
Last edited:
NetWatchR said:
That's a big one that people conveniently forget.
Click to expand...
True, but marriage is not a mandate (unless you count "be fruitful and multiply"). Teaching all nations, and baptizing is a mandate (commission) by Jesus himself. Paul was imprisoned for performing acts he had no choice but to follow. Marriage (monogamous or otherwise) is a choice. Not trying to be nitpicky, or get into a senseless argument, but laws that force us to do things are different than those that merely allow us to do something. I'm sure there's a fancy legal term for it, but I don't know it.
 
Oh yeah... totally agree. I was just agreeing with the pointing out that Churchians love to spout the whole "follow the laws of the land" spiel, written by the guy who being arrested for not following the laws of the land. The irony is comical and sad. There were "christians" who were mad at the bakers for saying no to the gay wedding cake, saying that they shouldn't be allowed to deny them the "right" to have a wedding cake made by whoever they wanted. Complete crap. Crap, i say! and again i say, Crapola...
 
Got it. Sorry I misunderstood.

Well, since you mentioned it, I Had a whole discussion about the "cake" thing with folks at my church, including the pastor. I will shock many on this forum, as I shocked folks at my church. As much as the gays made up a "right" to have a cake, so did the bakery owners make up a "right" not to make the cake. If it's a freedom of religion argument, the courts did not deny the owners the right to pray, own a bible, meet with other believers, etc. The bakers were operating in the public realm ,and as such, were utilizing the benefits of the tax system, as well as other laws that protected them as store owners. A business owner, or employee doesn't have a "right" to a particular trade or job either. Freedom of religion only goes so far. If you choose to work at a strip joint, you can't claim religious freedom by telling the owner to clothe all the dancers. If the laws of a state determine business owners must serve everyone, you either get out of that profession, or work around it:
  1. Bake the cakes, but subcontract out the decorations.
  2. Bake the cakes, but become like IKEA and make customers build their own decorations.
  3. Promote the heck out of your business as a "faith" endeavor. Deliver the cakes in a van filled with scripture.
  4. Deliver the cake with lots of tracts, pamphlets, and evangelizing material. Make sure each box is stamped with the gospel and maybe even verses pertaining to true marriage.
  5. Play lots of Christian music at your shop while wearing shirts emblazoned with scripture and pro- heterosexual statements.
  6. Let each customer know that purchasing a cake automatically designates 10% donation to some pro-family group dedicated to heterosexual marriage promotion.
Is the bigger goal to make a statement about homosexuality, or to exercise the true freedom of religion to proselytize? If you are going to be a "Christian" business, go all out and hide nothing about your religious stance. The Cathy family of Chik-fil-a determined that they would serve and hire anyone if it means staying in business to make money. They still close on Sundays and give HUGE amounts of $$$ to Christian causes that they don't hide. Bringing salt and light should be the greater goal.

In the end, if that doesn't fly with you, become a homesteader like Zec and raise your own food while using very little cash, if any, to contribute to the whole filthy system.

Okay, you can hang me in effigy, or burn my image in a virtual oven now.:eek:
 
Either your wife is very beautiful, or you look very different than I imagined. Thanks for the love, though. It's so warm...toasty...and comforting.
 
Mojo said:
Got it. Sorry I misunderstood.

Well, since you mentioned it, I Had a whole discussion about the "cake" thing with folks at my church, including the pastor. I will shock many on this forum, as I shocked folks at my church. As much as the gays made up a "right" to have a cake, so did the bakery owners make up a "right" not to make the cake. If it's a freedom of religion argument, the courts did not deny the owners the right to pray, own a bible, meet with other believers, etc. The bakers were operating in the public realm ,and as such, were utilizing the benefits of the tax system, as well as other laws that protected them as store owners. A business owner, or employee doesn't have a "right" to a particular trade or job either. Freedom of religion only goes so far. If you choose to work at a strip joint, you can't claim religious freedom by telling the owner to clothe all the dancers. If the laws of a state determine business owners must serve everyone, you either get out of that profession, or work around it:
  1. Bake the cakes, but subcontract out the decorations.
  2. Bake the cakes, but become like IKEA and make customers build their own decorations.
  3. Promote the heck out of your business as a "faith" endeavor. Deliver the cakes in a van filled with scripture.
  4. Deliver the cake with lots of tracts, pamphlets, and evangelizing material. Make sure each box is stamped with the gospel and maybe even verses pertaining to true marriage.
  5. Play lots of Christian music at your shop while wearing shirts emblazoned with scripture and pro- heterosexual statements.
  6. Let each customer know that purchasing a cake automatically designates 10% donation to some pro-family group dedicated to heterosexual marriage promotion.
Is the bigger goal to make a statement about homosexuality, or to exercise the true freedom of religion to proselytize? If you are going to be a "Christian" business, go all out and hide nothing about your religious stance. The Cathy family of Chik-fil-a determined that they would serve and hire anyone if it means staying in business to make money. They still close on Sundays and give HUGE amounts of $$$ to Christian causes that they don't hide. Bringing salt and light should be the greater goal.

In the end, if that doesn't fly with you, become a homesteader like Zec and raise your own food while using very little cash, if any, to contribute to the whole filthy system.

Okay, you can hang me in effigy, or burn my image in a virtual oven now.:eek:
Click to expand...

I'm not going to burn you in effigy but I would point out that everything involved in the cake issue is private until suddenly in the end it's not. The tools, the ingredients, the baker's time, the delivery van, everything was private property up until the very end when the government didn't like what they the baker did. The gay couple came on to private property, and forced a private citizen to work for them against his will and use his private tools and ingredients to do it. I never could figure out when this whole thing got into the public sphere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top