Always right?

I agree that it clearly has high utility in spawning functional civilizations.

“Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭19:1-9‬ ‭ESV‬‬ https://www.bible.com/bible/59/mat.19.1-9.esv

This is where Jesus clearly states that marriage is between one man and one woman

Actually he doesnt.

...
I, am NOT well behaved. In fact, I've even been to jail AND charged with a felony. Best year of my school career was at the "you're not in the Hall but you're not free either" school (for fighting). I am, however, a pragmatic realist (¿too many fights perhaps?); Convince me that I should accept your interpretation of marriage based solely on scientific principles, @Salacious Swanky Cat.

Nothing in that passage states that a man can have only one wife.

Just that a man and his wife become one flesh and cannot be separated.

@Mandatory Carry you can’t use science to derive morals

Not possible

As not-possible as God being three persons who are also one?

I bet you anyone *else* here can...

@uncephalized, ¿wanna take a run at it?

Nah he's right Mandatory. Science finds what is, not what ought to be.

You always come back to some kind of value judgment that can't be decided on facts.

Moral realism is true.

Well, *somebody* did try... I forgot who. 😒

Moral anti-realism is not

You guys want to move this to <#586033832277442590> ?

No

Sorry

My new bitchute avatard:

Thank you <my state>

Why were people buying though

Because there are other Florida men

@Salacious Swanky Cat the only argument you have against polygamy from a biblical stance that's semi consistent is that at one point God was like 👌then later was like 🙅‍♂️

And idk why discord adds the gender emoji.

That may be his only argument.....

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@uncephalized What do you mean by "worked", as polygamist societies tended/tend to be far more hostile.

@Shadows it works under certain circumstances that usually come about after hostility.

It doesn't just come after hostility, it actively creates it also.

polygamy causes conflict because it creates competition of for limited resources

That it does.

@Shadows "worked" means "survived for long periods of time"

@DJ_Anuz just wants a harem. How does a world come about with so many more women that polygamy is necessary? A natural disaster will kill as many men as women. As does a a nuclear bomb or another war with modern arms... They will either be over quickly without killing even 1% of the population or pretty much everyone will die, man and woman alike.

No it's clearly an adaptation to a warlike society where men die far more frequently than women.

In the more primitive/tribal warfare scenario where the majority of the men are combatants.

Inner city gang cultures would be a good analogue in the modern society.

Well yes but those times are over. You are talking not hundreds but thousands of years ago.