« A Whitman Sampler | Main | Jonathan Amith »
The economics of polygamy
The new HBO series Big Love presents a polygamous family, raising the obvious questions. Here is Ted Bergstrom on the economics of polygamy. Here is Tim Harford on polygamy. Excerpt:
It's hardly surprising that in most polygynous societies, the bride's family gets large payments in exchange for her hand in marriage. If polygyny combined with women's rights, I bet we'd see more promises to wash the dishes. Not everybody would have to share a husband, but I can think of some who might prefer half of Orlando Bloom to all of Tim Harford—including my wife.
In my bones I am a square who believes this arrangement cannot be best. Economists might question how polygamy makes women worse off, since they can always decline the arrangement. You might try a story about how the family, not the woman, captures the dowry payment and uses it to help their sons buy more wives (see Bergstrom, noting also that the very presence of polygamy shifts the outcome of the bargaining game with the family). Or you might try a story about sexually frustrated males who are led to revolt, thus destroying social order.
How about the trade-off between quality and quantity of children? A genetically talented father with many wives will likely maximize the quantity of children rather than their quality. This has a long-run negative externality, especially if you believe in the Lucas-Uzawa models of economic growth, or some approximation thereof. You would rather be in a society with fewer but more talented people. Switzerland rather than India. The loser is not the wives but rather the next generation of children. A piece in the February JPE also notes that the children may substitute for savings and thus polygamy can stunt capital formation; I take this as another version of the same argument.
The bottom line? We should encourage family structures that spur human capital formation. Polygamy does not do the trick. Comments are open...
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 24, 2006 at 07:42 AM in Economics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3576/4319791
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The economics of polygamy:
» Polygamy and Polyamory "Haters" from The Burden of Proof
Polygamy and polyamory hatin' over at Marginal Revolution: Tyler Cowen unconvincingly tries to put down polygamy and he gets corrected by a flood of comme... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 24, 2006 9:02:33 AM
» Four spouses good, two spouses better? from Asymmetrical Information
Tyler Cowen takes a brave stand against polygamy on economic grounds: How about the trade-off between quality and quantity of children? A genetically talented father with many wives will likely maximize the quantity of children rather than their qualit... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 24, 2006 11:17:34 AM
» Four spouses good, two spouses better? from Asymmetrical Information
Tyler Cowen takes a brave stand against polygamy on economic grounds: How about the trade-off between quality and quantity of children? A genetically talented father with many wives will likely maximize the quantity of children rather than their qualit... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 24, 2006 11:20:33 AM
» Four spouses good, two spouses better? from Asymmetrical Information
Tyler Cowen takes a brave stand against polygamy on economic grounds: How about the trade-off between quality and quantity of children? A genetically talented father with many wives will likely maximize the quantity of children rather than their qualit... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 24, 2006 11:23:53 AM
» VC's and the Economics of Polygamy: Is that a PowerPoint in your pocket or are you just happy to see me? from Kerabu
Tyler Cowen has a post on Marginal Revolution about the economics of polygamy, in which he examines the trade-offs: How about the trade-off between quality and quantity of children? A genetically talented father with many wives will likely maximize the [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 24, 2006 3:13:03 PM
» Blinkered Thinking About Polygamy from voluntaryXchange
The largest polygamous sect in the U.S. is a criminal racket, and it is blinkered of Tyler and Alex at Marginal Revolution and Tim Harford to avoid this fact. Don't get me wrong - I do think there is some [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 25, 2006 2:39:58 PM
» The economics of polygamy - Tyler Cowan, Marginal Revolution from The Seven Realms
See also the economics of polygamy, continued.
... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 6, 2006 8:44:16 PM
Comments
I see little reason why a free-market would choose only polygyny or polyandry, and therefore, not suprisingly, imagining scenarios regarding only one of these is unlikely to lead to good things.
I think it'd be more interesting to look at the economics of other forms of polygamy, such as the various group marriage types described in Robert Heinleing novels, such as "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
I also think it's foolish to mix up other details of societies that have polygamy with how polygamy might work in our society. I see no reason that polygamy would necessarily lead to dowries making a come-back. Nor do I think it's difficult to recognize that polygamy in Utah, where the participants are by definition willing to break the law primarily for religious reasons, is not a good case study, as the main comment on Tim Harford's piece implies. The illegal and immoral acts of outlaw-fanatics is unlikely to shed much light on legal polygamy in our society.
Posted by: Stephen Duncan Jr at Feb 24, 2006 8:40:46 AM
A genetically talented father with many wives will likely maximize the quantity of children rather than their quality.
How? You sort of breezed past this one without filling in the details.
A father who marries four women of varying intellectual candlepowers would probably produce (on average) smarter children than if he had married one dim bulb. It seems to all depend on which wives he chooses.
Maybe you're assuming things about the women he would choose from the simple fact that he's polygamous, but whatever those things are, you left them out.
Posted by: Famous J at Feb 24, 2006 8:40:52 AM
"It's hardly surprising that in most polygynous societies, the bride's family gets large payments in exchange for her hand in marriage. If polygyny combined with women's rights, I bet we'd see more promises to wash the dishes."
I bet not. Husbands promising to wash the dishes is NOT AT ALL what we see in existing societies that practice polygyny. As Tyler suggests, the enhanced value tends to translate not into enhanced status or power for the women but lower status and a tendency to treat women as high-priced property of male-dominated families and clans. And women who 'destroy their own value' (through unauthorized romantic activity) are treated as harshly as escaping slaves who were thought to be 'stealing their owner's property'.
What is far more likely to enhance female power (and lead husbands to treat them well) is independent earnings that enable a woman to leave and live with no official husband rather than leave and sign up as the Nth wife of Orlando Bloom. As, indeed, we see--the modern societies that offer women greatest independence also tend to produce the best treatment of them in marriage.
Posted by: Slocum at Feb 24, 2006 8:54:17 AM
Poppycock! :-)
2 children, each by a different wife, are better than 2 children with the same wife because genetic variance is higher therefore the offspring have more changes to survive and pass on the parents's genes.
Also, having more wives doesn't need to translate into more children per total. It can translate into a smaller number of children per wife with a constant total.
If each wife, in turn, has multiple husbands, this might lead to 1 child per couple with maximum variance. Genetic optimum.
Also, these kinds of arrangements are not about the children but about the sexual life of the parents and their preferences. Concerning the children, there is a large number of factors that have to be weighed.
Posted by: Gabriel Mihalache at Feb 24, 2006 8:57:47 AM
It is *so much* easier to augment quantity of kids with five wives rather than one. Or so I would think.
Tyler
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Feb 24, 2006 9:00:54 AM
If you assume a basically free society which allows >2 marriage, I suspect things would pretty much balance out, with small but noticable minorities of polygamous and polyandrous marriages.
I realize I've invoked the possibility of >2 marriages with equal numbers of men and women, but they presumably wouldn't affect the question you're considering.
Why are you bringing up rather hypothical large group considerations to control individual choices?
Posted by: Nancy Lebovitz at Feb 24, 2006 9:04:12 AM
I would agree with Nancy. The Middle East is the major area where Polygyny is still practiced. From statistics I've seen only about 4% of the population practices it. For those of you questioning Tyler's point about quantitiy of children versus quality, I think the implicit point is that fathers in polygynous situations will spend less time and fewer resourecs on their many children. Of course if you ahve an increadibly talented father with an enormous number of resources this might not occur. In addition, I would suggest that if people were allowed to freely choose men could only enter polygynous arrangments if they were willing to accept women of substantially lower quality then themselves. To see this imagine that quality of men and women is distributed uniformly [0,1]. Assume that people practice assortive mating, i.e they want to be with someone of similar or greater quality then themselves. Further assume that in a polygynous situation them apply a 1/n factor to the quality factor of their mate (since they only get 1/n his time). AS this simple model implies evena high quality (say 0.99) can get one high quality woman or two women of quality <=0.49 or four women of quality or 4 women of quality <=0.24 etc. Of course with different distributions the results might not be so stark. With an exponential distribution it might make sense for very high quality men to marry several women particualrly if there is some uncertainty associated with quality. However, I think the basic point holds. More of lower quality fewer of higher quality.
Posted by: Michael at Feb 24, 2006 9:46:51 AM
Polygamy of a _de facto_ sort is not at all uncommon in the United States. Consider the example of an Alpha male who is married yet keeps a mistress on the side and has children with both women. It's effectively the same as, or at least quite similar to, _de jure_ polygamy notwithstanding the existence of only one legal marriage. Come of think of it, the top executive who trades in his current trophy wife for a new one every few years is engaging in a practice that comes mightly close to polygamy.
Posted by: Peter at Feb 24, 2006 9:59:13 AM
All of the data is antecdotal, of course, but the stories that are told about professional athletes (especially pro basketball players and Steve Garvey) would seem to support Tyler's argument about quantity over quality - although you can fairly ask what we should use as a comparison on the "quality" level.
Posted by: Devin McCullen at Feb 24, 2006 10:39:01 AM
"Or you might try a story about sexually frustrated males who are led to revolt, thus destroying social order."
Actually, the loser males in the bottom quarter of all men are not the problem to worry about here, since these men never exactly achieve very much or become a relevant force in any aspect of society. Just move away far enough from these men and they will not bother you in any way, especially if they are kept drugged, in prisons or just otherwise stuck.
Far more serious problem would be the men in the middle third, who would be able to get one wife but of lower quality than she would be in the present system of the male monogamy cartel. These men would understand how precarious their position is, and unlike the loser men, these men do get things done and have political power. I might have a cynical view of humanity and mankind, but I very much doubt that women's rights and freedoms would be a big concern for most men in a polygamous society.
And of course, if polygamy were widespread in the world's richest nation where even the average blue-collar schlub is unimaginably rich by world standards, we would probably see a massive growth in the mail-order bride industry.
Posted by: Ilkka Kokkarinen at Feb 24, 2006 11:00:04 AM
"How about the trade-off between quality and quantity of children? A genetically talented father with many wives will likely maximize the quantity of children rather than their quality. This has a long-run negative externality, especially if you believe in the Lucas-Uzawa models of
economic growth, or some approximation thereof."
But there's a positive externality from genetically talented fathers having more kids, and from genetically less talented fathers having fewer kids.
Now the genetically talented father might be having his kids from several genetically less talented women, but his genes still contribute, and those women would otherwise be having babies with genetically less talented men, so there's an overall improvement.
Posted by: Ken at Feb 24, 2006 11:35:17 AM
"Economists might question how polygamy makes women worse off, since they can always decline the arrangement."
In polygamous societies that I know of the woman is never given a choice, let alone an economically realistic one.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at Feb 24, 2006 11:40:31 AM
For the reasons Ken gives, I think that any conclusion about the quantity/quality divide would have to assume quite a bit more than we know about the relative importance of genetics vs. the importance of investment/attention/etc.
Posted by: Thomas at Feb 24, 2006 11:47:15 AM
"How about the trade-off between quality and quantity of children?"
I don't get it. It's not as though wives 2 through N would simply have failed to reproduce if they had lived in a non-polygynous society; instead they would have married (presumably) genetically inferior men and had their children. Assuming a positive correlation between genetic quality and number of wives, and assuming also that the number of children a woman has does not depend on how many wives her husband has, polygyny should be expected to increase genetic quality.
Posted by: Brandon Berg at Feb 24, 2006 12:29:06 PM
Most of the comments seem to have in mind a society with relatively equal income distribution. but if you have a society with extremely unequal income distribution wouldn't you have a situation where the man that could afford multiple wives would also be able to provide his children a much richer educational--social environment then the much poorer male that could not afford multiple wives?
Of course this also goes to the comments about nature vs nuture.
Posted by: spencer at Feb 24, 2006 12:34:52 PM
Interesting to observe which commenters assume "quality of children" referred to genetic quality rather than investment in upbringing.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Feb 24, 2006 12:50:46 PM
Why couldn't we also have situations in which one wife has several husbands?
Posted by: Chris at Feb 24, 2006 1:03:35 PM
"Why couldn't we also have situations in which one wife has several husbands?"
Basic human nature. Men are much too competitive and jealous to share women with other men. Women are different.
Posted by: Peter at Feb 24, 2006 1:24:35 PM
The quality vs quantity argument seems to be missing a crucial lower bound. If the system of gender relations results in the number of children per woman falling below the replacement rate then the system will not be sustainable. Relatively wealthy nations with Enlightened gender relations find their populations dwindling even though the resources per child are higher than many parts of the world. At some point the extra quality (measured by resources and/or genetics)doesn't compensate for quantity.
Posted by: tedm at Feb 24, 2006 1:34:48 PM
"The bottom line? We should encourage family structures that spur human capital formation."
Huh? In any event, the fact that polygyny has been the preferred marriage form throughout history should be grist for the mill here as well, no?
Posted by: janem at Feb 24, 2006 2:35:19 PM
From whence comes the notion that the man with several wives is genetically superior and produces genetically superior children? Reducing the number of males who reproduce reduces the genetic diversity of the population. Recessive genes that may be rarely a problem would become common enough to produce significant genetic problems as it becomes more likely that a child inherits two copies of a bad gene. Polygyny is just another name for inbreeding.
Posted by: Max at Feb 24, 2006 2:44:58 PM
"From whence comes the notion that the man with several wives is genetically superior and produces genetically superior children? "
From assumptions (a) we're dealing with a capitalist society where better and smarter men earn more money and thus are able to support more wives and children and (b) women tend to flock to the men with money, all else being equal.
"Reducing the number of males who reproduce reduces the genetic diversity of the population. "
Well, yes. Natural selection does tend to reduce genetic diversity, since it eliminates genes but doesn't by itself produce new ones. This doesn't mean that it's bad for the species overall.
"Recessive genes that may be rarely a problem would become common enough to produce significant genetic problems as it becomes more likely that a child inherits two copies of a bad gene. "
If you've got a decent overall population size, this isn't much of an issue.
Posted by: Ken at Feb 24, 2006 3:04:25 PM
Doesn't all this talk about "genetic quality" vs. quantity imply a one-dimensional view of quality? Isn't that an absurd way to think?
Given two people who differ in intelligence, talents, health, physical abilities, hair color, etc. it is meaningless at best to discuss which is "genetically inferior." And it is truly frightening that this thread just skips past the issue.
Theer is an economic point here as well, though it is dwarfed by the moral issue. Doesn't a diversity of talents lead, among other things, to a more prosperous society, as individuals are able to profitably specialize and engage in trade.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Feb 24, 2006 3:12:09 PM
"The new HBO series Big Love presents a polygamous family, raising the obvious questions."
And here I was thinking the obvious question was whether they were going to show some hot 2-on-1 sex scenes.
Posted by: Brian McDaniel at Feb 24, 2006 3:34:01 PM
"You would rather be in a society with fewer but more talented people."
Maybe, but I'd really like to have two wives.
Posted by: Andrew at Feb 24, 2006 4:17:29 PM
The quality claim seems highly dubious to me. Haven't you posted on "The Nurture Assumption" in the past? In reality the major parental contribution to their children's 'human capital' is essentially always genetic. The secondary form of human capital, in the form of cash infusions, can also probably be predicted to favor children of polygamous relationships, as in such a society men with inadequate resources to support children will also have inadequate resources to marry, and because expected number of children will not rise as quickly as wealth (in a society where people can own multiple homes, the homes owned by people who own multiple homes tend to be imbued with more capital than only homes are for a similar reason). Polygamy, de-facto or de-jure clearly enables the standard biological solution of harmful genes being weeded out in the male line to take place, so in the long term it is radically beneficial in terms of the interests of children and in terms of human capital. If MMF and FFM differ greatly in frequency, social problems associated with locked out singles are to be expected, and especially in the case of single men this is potentially dangerous to social stability. In general, I don't see legal polygamy as likely to have any significant impact in developed countries. If the culture favors it, it will be de-facto legal. If the culture disfavors it it will be de-facto rare. Governments have far more ability to control real prices in goods than in services, and their lack of ability to control the prices of goods is an essential economic observation.
I disagree with the claim that multiple husbands per woman is intrinsically infeasible. Certainly many men knowingly engage in sexual activities with women from whom they don't expect monogamy. There are also a few actual anthropological examples of polyandry. It is fair to say that human nature creates a disposition towards MFF rather than MMF, and that this creates the risk I alluded to above regarding locked out men causing trouble. However, as an added minor consideration, human nature also creates a significantly higher frequency of exclusively homosexual men than women (for no very obvious evolutionary reason). It seems that if 2x the number of MM couples is substantially in excess of the FFs, you could easily have more MFF than MMF groups and still have balance.
Posted by: michael vassar at Feb 24, 2006 5:28:05 PM
"Men are much too competitive and jealous to share women with other men. Women are different."
I might suggest that most women would also be less than excited about sharing. This is the first time I have heard the idea that women are neither jealous of nor competitive with each other, though, so perhaps there is novel support for the claim.
Posted by: Zubon at Feb 24, 2006 5:54:15 PM
"If you've got a decent overall population size, this isn't much of an issue."
Bad math, Ken. "Decent overrall population size" is code for genetic diversity. Take a population of 100,000 and see a problem with lack of genetic diversity. Now take a population of 1,000,000 and tell me there is no problem? That 1,000,000 is ten regions of 100,000. If they are all living the same way you get the same results repeated ten times. You can't fool Mother Nature.
As to the more general claim that these men are genetically superior capitalist ubermensch may I point out that I chose the problem of recessive genes for a reason. You can be perfectly healthy (even have great hair and an impressive stock portfolio) and carry one copy of a harmful recessive gene. Two copies of the gene are the problem and that probability increases with a smaller number of men fathering all the children.
Posted by: Max at Feb 24, 2006 8:42:32 PM
Let's not forget sexual dimorphism. Human males are slightly bigger than females, which biologically means that humans are adapted to have about 3 females for each male given what we see in other mammals. That's not necessarily an argument for polygamy being good; nature is not necessarily evolving us to be in the optimal capital formation units. But it's something to think about.
Posted by: Nathan Whitehead at Feb 25, 2006 12:45:09 AM
"genetically superior capitalist ubermensch"
I may only add that the knowledge has been completed, it is time to stop mutation and close free markets as they are.
Posted by: Marius at Feb 25, 2006 12:59:10 AM
A recent copy of Utne had information related to this topic:
http://www.utne.com/pub/2006_134/
Posted by: nate at Feb 25, 2006 1:17:24 AM
Here's a very funny book about polygamy. It was just nominated for a Needle Award.
http://IsntThatBigamy.com
Posted by: mike at Feb 25, 2006 4:46:52 PM
Why are several people assuming that the primary causal direction is polygyny --> low women's rights, rather than vice versa?
I'll at least offer a suggestion:
We should also be considering the bargaining position of women when, instead of most of the "good men [being] gone", they are essentially all still available. Combine polygyny with high individual rights for women, and you seem to get a situation where a woman risks comparatively very little in breaking off an unsatisfying present arrangement. (Although support for non-biological children present a complication, which goes to genetic/memetic issues vis a vis parenting.) If the women become more mobile, then the men's arrangements naturally do as well. So perhaps low rights for women under polygyny ends up being a necessary strategy to prevent harmful instabilities in family structure.
Posted by: J. Goard at Feb 25, 2006 5:59:27 PM
The idea that polygyny improves the family because better men attract more mates does not square with the facts. Countries where polygyny is widely practiced tend to have lower average IQs than countries where monogamy is widely practiced. The average IQ in Qatar, for example, is 78, while the average IQ in Japan is 105. Countries that are intermediate between polygyny and monogamy yield intermediate average IQs.
http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm
Posted by: Marcus at Feb 26, 2006 5:24:27 AM
Oh please. As if international IQ comparisons are a useful guide to the effects of cultural differences. Why not single out cousin marriage and diet, which we have reason to expect to impact IQ, rather than the details of family structure, which we have reason to expect not to.
Posted by: michael vassar at Feb 26, 2006 4:16:09 PM
Why not single out cousin marriage and diet, which we have reason to expect to impact IQ, rather than the details of family structure, which we have reason to expect not to.
Perhaps we have reason to expect not. But we have facts that suggest otherwise.
It is unlikely that Qataris, who have a first world level of income, are malnourished. Cousin marriage is another matter.
A more complete list of IQ averages from Arab countries would help us run a few quick and dirty regressions. A comparison of polygamous and non-polygamous Mormons might shed light. At a first approximation, the proposition that polygamy increases quality is false on it's face.
Posted by: Marcus at Feb 26, 2006 9:06:01 PM
And Japan has unusually high levels of cousin marriage by Western standards.
Posted by: Steve at Feb 26, 2006 9:11:47 PM
Given the distribution of consanguinity:
http://www.consang.net/global_prevalence/map.html
.. it is also likely that polygamy begets higher levels of inbreeding. Which makes sense.
Posted by: Marcus at Feb 26, 2006 9:33:37 PM
You miss the obvious question of "What is the optimal polygomist family structure to be sure that one always has a willing hetro-partner when desired?"
Posted by: aaron at Feb 28, 2006 3:01:11 PM
Tyler,
"The bottom line? We should encourage family structures that spur human capital formation. Polygamy does not do the trick."
To clarify: Are you against a free market for marriage?
Posted by: John T. Kennedy at Mar 6, 2006 4:48:24 PM
If God had intended for Adam to be a polygamist, it would had been just as easy for God to have made for Adam a woman from each of his ribs, instead God took only one rib from Adam and made Eve, thus God gave Adam one wife, and both became one flesh.
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
When a Christian couple decides to wed, they will gather in the presence of the congregation to enter into a life lasting covenant by taking the vows of matrimony.
In the presence of God and all present, they will promise to “love, honor, cherish and protect each other, forsaking all others and holding only unto each other until death.”
Immediately after the wedding ceremony has been consumed, the newlyweds are bound for life by the Commandment that says, "You shall not commit adultery”, The Christian couple is forbidden to have sexual intercourse with no one else, except with each other.
By fomenting polygamy you are deliberately corrupting and defacing the holy word of God, it’s the same as you claiming after looking into the blue sky, that the sky it’s not blue but that the sky it’s actually green.
You are being controlled by your own sinful nature and you are molding God and his Commandments to accommodate your own depravity and self-dilution.
Matthew 15: 18-19 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality (fornication, homosexuality), theft, false testimony, slander.
Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.
God, the Creator and the Ruler of the universe has declared that polygamy is a sin; you or anyone else in the universe will not be able to nullify what God has declared to be a sin. No amount of squirming, jumbling and blurring the scriptures will justify your depravity. Jesus is commanding you to repent or perish.
Mark 1:4 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Matthew 4:17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."
John 8:11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Luke 13:3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
God gave men the Ten Commandments, not the Ten Suggestions; God is not suggesting you to keep his Commandments, God is commanding you to keep his Commandment.
You are not only living outside the will of God but you are also perverting the word of God, by promoting polygamy and leading others into sin. God will judge you most severely if you don’t repent.
God is not asking you to repent and turn away from your depravity, God is commanding you to repent and turn away from your depravity. God is not a democrat who rules by majority vote, neither is he interested in your opinions about his Commandments; nor does God needs anyone approval of his Commandments.
God is commanding you to be obedient to him by keeping all of his Commandments, no questions asked.
Hebrews 13:4 Marriages should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
1 Timothy 3:2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife
1 Timothy 3:12 A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.
Titus 1:6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
The believers are not any different from the earthly leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ, who are commanded to be the husbands of one wife; as a matter of fact, the whole world it’s under God’s dominion, and the whole world it’s being judged against God’s Commandments.
I am praying for you, that you may turn away from your depravity and surrender your will to God, who can forgive all of your sins and turn your life around.
You can’t fight against Jesus Christ and his Church; your kind and you, have been defeated and rendered powerless since the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You and your followers are deluded, deceived, spiritually death and hell bound, only Jesus Christ is able to save you.
Jesus Christ came down from Heaven as the God-Man to die on a cross, and his redemptive work was completed after he was resurrected from the death.
Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of the whole world, he is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, but you must receive Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth, and you must abandon and turn away from your life of sin in order to have eternal life.
John 3:5-8 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
After Jesus blessed resurrection from the death, Jesus not only divided time in half, but he also drew a line in the sand, thus forcing humanity, the subjects of his kingdom, to choose sides, a person will either stand with Jesus, or will crawl on the outside with Satan and eventually will be tormented in hell forever, and God will say, " you did it not my way, but you did it your way"
.
What are you going to do with Jesus Christ? Are you going to embrace him as your savior? Or are you going to reject him and at any moment find yourself in hell being tormented forever and ever? I know that you are thinking it’s all nonsense. What if you are wrong? Are you willing to risk a temporary life of sin for eternal torment in hell?
Revelation 21 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral (the fornicator, adulterer and homosexual), those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur (also known as hell). This is the second death.”
Henry
Posted by: Henry Asta at Mar 19, 2006 6:37:36 PM
how does polygamy affect parental care?
Posted by: alexis at May 8, 2006 10:37:39 AM
babe liefde in bad ^^^ vrouw creampie vredig ^^^ allievo spogliarello ^^^ ritirarsi allievo ^^^ le plus frais extraterrestre trente et un ^^^ chaude touche ^^^ chaud mere vierge ^^^ la plus chaude sequences ^^^ gradevole cowgirl ass to mouth ^^^ eccellente lesbiche prostituta ^^^ karlek lesbisk urinerar ^^^ skoj flickor grupperna ^^^ sympathetic ragazze fotti ^^^ vergognoso cameriera inculate ^^^ kaldest paps ^^^ kort sekretar ^^^ varp direkte ^^^ nydelig videoer ^^^ magoulo agapi sto diamerisma ^^^ pio drosero erasitehnis praxi ^^^ papa transistor ^^^ le plus froid papa image ^^^
Posted by: levan at Sep 6, 2006 3:25:19 AM
bonny fighette anale fotti II vergognoso infermiera fotti II epithymo koritsia kolos II i pio haritomeni koritsia diplo isvoli II divin poupees dildo II gentille secretaire cul II fighe vecchie II boutique x foto II alyton live II pieni ulkona II bionde sesso in cucina II manga hentai gratis II bedeesd grietjes II babes piss in bad II i huset cyber II bagatell europeisk II snallare tjeckisk II sympatisk laderstovlar II utomordentlig tonaring karlek II elev brudar ejakulation II diaskedasi moro piomenos II zesto mathitis piomenos II verrukkelijk videos II femdom babes II haritomeni mora katourima II karaflos servitora striptiz II tenue ecoliere spritzen II foto cipska II oralne w kapieli II
Posted by: gytuk at Sep 14, 2006 1:55:01 AM
Hello all really cool blog
cheap alprazolam online cheap fioricet online cheap hydrocodone online cheap vicodin online cheap tramadol online cheap xanax online cheap valium online cheap ultram online cheap soma online cheap carisoprodol online cheap ambien online cheap ativan online cheap lorazepam online cheap propecia online cheap adipex online cheap didrex online cheap cialis online cheap levitra online cheap paxil online cheap meridia online cheap viagra online cheap wellbutrin online cheap clonazepam online cheap xenical online cheap prozac online cheap butalbital online cheap phentermine online
buy cheap ativan online buy cheap adipex online buy cheap didrex online buy cheap levitra online buy cheap cialis online buy cheap phentermine online buy cheap soma online buy cheap tramadol online buy cheap diazepam online buy cheap carisoprodol online buy cheap meridia online buy cheap paxil online buy cheap valium online buy cheap xanax online buy cheap ultram online buy cheap fioricet online buy cheap tooth whitening buy best online pharmacy generic alprazolam online buy best car insurance buy best payday loan search web directory search business directory buy carisoprodol buy hydrocodone cheap vicodin
Posted by: linda at Oct 10, 2006 9:05:45 AM
Polygamy no matter how much it is justified..is WRONG!
God made Adam and Eve..He did not make Adam, Eve, and Sue.
There is much testimony that monogamy is of God..you can just see testimony of it when you look around you..don't be so blind and egotistical. I am a male and love my wife very very much..I would never hurt her or belittle her in such a depraved way as to share my bed with another wife, nor do I desire another wife...you men should know better than to think that you could satisfy more than ONE wife...you cannot..it is not in your nature! As a matter of fact, a woman can much more easily sexually satisfy multiple men on any given day(including herself) and put any man to shame because it is biologically possible for women to do this. However even so, I wouldn't want my wife to have another husband.
There are also too many problems with polygamy that are not problems in polyandry.
I've personally known a few children of polygamous AND polyandrous families and to be honest...the children from polyandrous families fare much better than those of polygnous families and one of the biggest reasons why is because the children who share the same mother but different fathers always tend to get along with each other and are bonded better than those who share the same father but different mothers...
Genetic problems also seem to arise at a much higher rate in polyngy rather than polyandry. Also the main carriers of many mental illnesses and handicaps are primarily carried through the males. Females have the extra X chromosome for added protection and are more apt to produce normal healthy children...at a slower rate, but overall with a higher healthy genetic survival rate, which is obvious since mitochondrial Eve can be traced back much further than y-chromosomal Adam, suggesting that we may have a more common female ancestor than a more common male ancestor AND that the female genes are generally stronger and healthier than male genes.
...but besides all that, it doesn't change the fact that ..
God sanctions and blesses monogamy, not polygamy. The earth was begun through monogamy and after the flood, the earth was populated through monogamy..even each of the male animals only had ONE female counterpart..
Men stop being egotistical...and start opening your eyes, stop using science and biology as a justification for your perversions....
Science and biology can often times be flawed and be tainted with ego (especially male), but GOD is never flawed.
Posted by: Garrett at Jun 4, 2007 3:07:17 PM
