Monday, December 12, 2005

Why, Exactly, is Polygamy Illegal?

Polygamy has always been against American custom and culture. Polygamy is against the law in the United States, though, due to the long struggle in the nineteenth century over Mormonism. As a result of this struggle, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints condemned polygamy, and, in the early years of the twentieth century, actually abolished it. Today the Mormons are so monogamous that the church’s Relief Society manual tried to portray Brigham Young with one wife – neglecting to mention the other 50+. Renegade Mormon sects do still practice polygamy, but without the blessing of either church or state. Utah could be admitted to the Union only after it condemned polygamy. Monogamy is settled law in the United States, from top to bottom.

There was another important effect of the struggle against Mormon polygamy: the Supreme Court based its rejection of polygamy on the claim that the United States is a Christian nation. In the nineteenth century, it was a legal commonplace to claim that Christianity was part of the common law of the United States. It was only in the past fifty years or so that this claim has been seriously challenged. Today, no court would declare that America is a Christian nation.

So, why, exactly, is polygamy illegal in the United States?

Something like the original Utah law would be rejected because it allowed men to have multiple wives, but not the reverse. Equal protection would take care of that statute. But suppose a neutral law were written, allowing both polygyny (multiple wives) and polyandry (multiple husbands)? William Galston, in Public Matters, notes that the Defense of Marriage Act, which was written to prohibit a federal recognition of same-sex marriages, specifies that legal marriage joins one man and one woman. If the law is challenged successfully, both the man and woman part, and the one and one part, could be rejected.

This is not a hypothetical case. There are already renegade Mormons practicing polygamy underground in the West. African immigrants bringing traditional tribal religions could argue for accommodation. Most importantly, the growing Muslim community in the USA could argue that their long-established recognition of limited polygamy, which is practiced by millions of Muslims worldwide, should be accepted under the “free exercise” clause of the first amendment. No such case has been filed yet, but it is only a matter of time.

I think polygamy is a bad idea for society. With a couple of exceptions, polygamy is really polygyny – one man, multiple women. What happens in polygynous societies is that low status men don’t get to marry at all. This, it seems to me, is just unfair and un-American. Moreover, in every case I have read about of polygyny, even in societies in which it was well established, the wives are never really ok with the fact that their husband has other wives and other children. Polygyny is one widely used way of settling the conflict between male and female strategies in mate selection and childrearing. It is not crazy, nor do I think it is barbarous. But I do think that it is unwise anywhere, and deeply unsuited to our culture and history.

It is not likely that American legislatures would ever legalize polygamy, no matter how many marriages and mistresses individual legislators have. But it is hard to see exactly how a court would now justify forbidding religions that do accept, even encourage, polygamy, from doing so here.

When we look at the numbers, there are many more polygamists in the world than there are people who want to have a same-sex marriage. It is not way out to imagine a polygamy crisis in America in, say, the 2030s, as there was in the 1830s. Polygamy, more than same-sex marriage, is, I think, more likely to result in a constitutional amendment defining marriage.

99 comments:

ken mcintyre said...

There could be a huge increase in immigration from Tibet, the world's most polyandrous culture, which would then equalize the polygynous Muslims, Mormons, et al.

More seriously, if marriage is considered to be merely a type of contractual union (which is the argument of many of the advocates of same-sex marriage), then there is no rational reason why such a 'partnership' should be limited to two people.

I believe that most people still consider marriage to be a more significant transaction than purchasing a turkey reuben at the local deli. However, as other American institutions like colleges, churches, museums, etc. come to be ruled by the ideology of the market and the commodification of their 'products', marriage appears to be suffering the same fate.

Thus, the logic that suggests that any household arrangement agreed upon by adult human beings (i.e. same-sex marriage) should be ratified by state approval suggests that polygamy be treated as a similarly 'rational' choice.

Gruntled said...

Marriage used to stand as the great example of a public good which was not a commodity. As that erodes, what are we left with to even exemplify the idea that not everything should be bought and sold? The parent-child bond? Nation-citizen? Self-bodily organs?

A completely marketized society undermines its own meaning.

(And I think the Tibetans depend on long-distance pastoralism, which keeps all but one of the husbands out of the house most of the time.)

SPorcupine said...

A turkey reuben is, itself, a monstrous example of the market eroding essential cultural traditions. Surely there's something authoritative about corned beef in Leviticus?

Gruntled said...

Genesis 41:26
The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good heads of grain are seven years; it is one and the same dream.

Anonymous said...

• You stated that, “Polygamy has always been against American custom and culture;” perhaps you should have used the term United States instead of American. My Husband’s family is Native American his great grand father had 5 wives. The Inuit traditionally everyone was part of the same family, this insured the children would be taken care of if something were to happen to the parents.
• Why do we not prosecute people who are having sexual relations with a number of people, they are everywhere and not hiding it at all. After all, polygamy is defined not only as being married to more than one person, but having sexual relations with more than one person during the same time frame. What comes to mind is all the people who have extramarital affairs, as well as those who live together. Perhaps our current US Society should rethink polygamy would it not be better to leave, polygamist who support their families and have positive family lives, alone; while prosecuting the whether married by religion or court those who choose to live in a “Married way” who abuse, neglect and or fail to support whose they choose to have children with a errant common-law spouses. This might in fact reduce the number of families with absent fathers.
• Historically the many cultures practiced polygamy including, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, “On February 14, 1650, the parliament at N├╝rnberg decreed that because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them." Larry O. Jensen, A Genealogical Handbook of German Research (Rev. Ed., 1980) p. 59 [25].”
• If polygamy was legal then it would be illegal for there married women to collect state aid, as they would be married and in eligible.
• They would have to get marriage licenses for each marriage reducing the chance of Child Brides and other similar abuses.
• Why I believe polygamy continues to be illegal, economics. If polygamy is legal, then each spouse would be recognized as would the children, the result would be chaos for the insurance companies who currently make huge profits would have to pay out greater benefits. I also believe this is the real reason gay marriage has not passed, insurance lobbyist.

Gruntled said...

Polygamy only refers to marriage (that is what "-gamy" means). The Inuit gave up polygamy when they became part of the United States. I fully acknowledge that other traditions today and in the past allowed polygamy, but we do not. I think polygamy is not only un-American, it is un-democratic, and has been abandoned by nearly all democratic societies in the world, regardless of their past.

Anonymous said...

Look,I'm not part of any of the aforementioned religions, and have only a mild knowledge of the history of the subject, but I know that I love my girlfriend and our other girlfriend who loves the two of us, and I don't see why we shouldn't be able to get married. This actually is a much better system because one of us could spend as much time with our kids as possible while the other two could ensure more than enough income to take care of the rest of us. Plus the tax incentives of being married would only further help us to provide for our family in the best way possible. Keep in mind I'm not talking about the fanatical practices followed by religious cults marrying underage children against their will, but we are all consenting legal adults who would just like to raise our family as works best for us without having to hide it. Just my two cents.

Gruntled said...

I know nothing of your case but what you have written. It is possible that two women could live happily, without jealousy or coercion, married to the same man. I am confident that this would not be the experience of most people but in the same situation. Polygamy has been a stable institution in patriarchal societies or subcultures -- the opposite direction from where our society is going. The possibility of a small number of successful exceptions is not reason enough to change the law. We do tolerate a variety of cohabiters today. I think that is as far as the law can go.

Anonymous said...

You guys are all dumb morons. Polygamy should be totally legal, because it's human instinct to avoid monogamy. And, American means "United States". If someone means Native American, they'll say that, or Indian. So there.

Anonymous said...

I pwned that shit.

Anonymous said...

There's these two lesbians that are in the library and I think they should be allowed to get married, and then they wouldn't need to slobber all over each other while I'm walking through the library.

Gruntled said...

I welcome all serious contributions to our discussions. I think the tone of the last three posts by Anonymous are not helpful. In response to the first of this series, I do not think it is the "human nature" of women to avoid monogamy, nor of thinking men.

Joseph said...

I am in love with my girlfriend, but I cannot bring myself to marry her as she is not american, and it has always been my desire to have all american kids and family, and i dont like some of the complications that a non-native born wife can cause. But if I was also able to marry an all american girl..then I could marry both of them and have kids with both of them..i love this idea.

Gruntled said...

This sounds like a bad reason to marry.

Anonymous said...

The idea that polygamy leaves some men behind and is thus unfair is sad. Who said marriage was fair? If anything that's survival of the fittest at it's best. Men who demonstrate their ability to be good fathers, husbands, leaders, providers, etc gain families, while men who are not desirable to women do not. Guy number one has time to rear/devote to family, space to house, leadership skills, a degree, and can afford to educate and feed his offspring. Guy number two didn't finish his screenplay, works at seven eleven for 6 years, and lives in his mothers basement. Guy two can’t take care of himself let alone a family. Why should I have to marry guy number two just because guy number one is married? If I’m ok and he’s ok and his wife’s ok why not? The animal world does it. A lion who can provide for and protect his lionesses and cubs gets many while the lion who is weak or slow doesn’t. Because we’re people we should make sure the weak and slow men get a wife. It sounds harsh but… too bad for the less competent guy.

Anonymous said...

There have been a number of statements declaring what women feel yet none of these are made by women. I (as a woman) have no problem sharing a husband. To assume women are so possessive and limited that a multi parent family structure is out of the question is just plain wrong. There have been such systems in place long before democracy and the US. Why modern women would all of a sudden no longer be capable of coping is a mystery to me. There are scores of us who prefer polygamy. I think the reason why people assume women wouldn’t want it is because the women who do don't have a unified voice. We are "religious polygamists", "BDSM poly households", "vanilla polyamory groups", etc. There is no heading or banner for us to unite under but that doesn't mean we don't exist. BDSM polys don't want people thinking their religious zealots, religious polys don't want people thinking they're sexually open to multiple partners, vanilla polys don't want people thinking they're into the bdsm sexual subculture etc. We all avoid each others labels like the plague which fractures us. On top of that we have to avoid mainstream inspection or face persecution. You're not going to get an accurate picture of who is agreeable to something when saying you are gets tomatoes thrown at you (actually happened). You don't come out of the poly closet just because a survey is being taken. I'm not saying all women are secretly open to a poly relationship. I'm saying there are far more women than people think. That's across the globe. Women have been doing it for ages and that includes Christian women. Christianity has it's roots in polygamy, the US founding fathers were polygamists (poor Sally Hemmings). We're all being very hypocritical. We say freedom with the left sides of our mouths and government regulation with the right. It is not the governments business who I sleep with, love with, live with. It makes no sense. Christian teaching also denounces anal sex, sex during menstruation and adultery why don't we make those illegal? Round up all the adulterers and lock them up. Consenting adults may do as consenting adults wish. And it's no ones business but theirs.

Gruntled said...

I think your catalogue of polygamous sects proves my point that polygamy is a minority taste. I do not think it is worth undermining monogamy to serve these sects. They are largely tolerated, as your experience demonstrates. And no, Christianity is not rooted in polygamy, nor were any of the Founding Fathers polygamists (though a few may have been adulterers).

Anonymous said...

Christianity does have polygamist roots.
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
Abraham had three wives: Sarah, Keturah, Hagar

Anonymous said...

I’m the woman who spoke earlier. I agree it is a minority sect I didn’t say otherwise. However, it is a large minority. And freedom for the minority is what this country is founded on. That’s why people came and still do come here, because they are free to worship/live/believe as they please whether everyone agrees or not. What is far more undermining to monogamy is adultery. That causes more divorce/single parent families and personal problems/lawsuits than polygamy. If we’re going to regulate secular laws based on Christian ethics make adultery illegal. And I think your definition of polygamy is limited to paper marriages, because many of the founding fathers had dual families who they supported financially, cared for, spent time with and whos sons had some form of inheritance (in certain cases granted freedom). Just because you don’t go to the courthouse doesn’t mean you aren’t a polygamist. It means you’re a polygamist who engages in multiple common law marriages. Which is not better by any stretch of the imagination.

Gruntled said...

... all of which is undone in the New Testament when Christianity is born. See 1 Timothy 3:12, 3:2, Titus 1:6.

Gruntled said...

(My comment on the New Testament was meant to respond to the previous comment about the Old Testament -- the intervening comment on "paper marriages" was posted just ahead of me.)

Bradley said...

Gruntled,

All of those verses you cite as proof that the New Testament did away with polygamy all deal with church officials (an elder is the equivalent of a priest prior to the founding of the church in Rome) only?

Those versus say nothing about the allowed marriage practices of everyday people.

Anonymous said...

Why do we care what others mutually agree upon with their interpersonal relationships? We are not God and therefore should not judge anyone. I see no difference between a gay couple/family and a polygamist family living together. Polygamy should not be illegal and people should not be prosecuted for their sexual and religious preferences. Yes, polygamy is a sexual and religious preference. Whereas being homosexual is just a sexual preference. So why is it legal to be gay but illegal to a polygamist? It's wrong and it's about time for the laws to change. I'm not a polygamist myself and probably will never be. That's my individual choice and preference. It's just not right to impose individual preferences on to society. There isn't a law that denies everyone to engage in homosexuality. Why have a law that denies people the right to engage in Polygamy?

D said...

People should be allowed to do what they feel comfortable with so long as no one is hurt. I don't understand why we need to dictate to adults how to live their lives.

Personally, I like to date women who are bi-sexual, so if I were to marry one, I would like for us to have the choice add another woman who is also bi-sexual, but wants to have a family.

I'm from Europe, I am not a Mormon or Muslim, this is simply my preference. I could not feel right about myself to limit another human being's ability to live their life in a way brings them joy.

Nofia Altman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nofia Altman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I am personally against polygamy, but I am more against a government that crushes the free exercise of religion. What are they afraid of ? Sex with more than one person? That happens all the time here, so why not outlaw that too? If a woman wants to have more than one husband and visa-vie it is really none of the Government's business, they do NOT belong in our bedrooms.

Anonymous said...

I am seriously looking into the legalities of polygamy on an Indian Reservation. My best friend, who is practically my sister is single with 5 children. I have known her for approx. 16 years. After high school, we lived as room mates. This is the only person in the world I would consider living with and thus share my Native American husband with. Both of us have many children and by combining households, we can share in household resposibilities and add an extra income. I don't believe in adultry, sex outside of marriage, therefore the only viable solution would be polygamy.

I never really thought of polygamy in the past, but I can imagine that more children would be raised with a good family-oriented father around and thus cause a good impact in our community.

As for those who abuse their wives or children, fry em. We have laws regarding these abuses. Any sec of society has there bad seeds.

Anonymous said...

[polygamy has been a stable institution in patriarchal societies or subcultures -- the opposite direction from where our society is going.]

Are you OK with this?

And you are a conservative American male? What is your position inside the Men's Rights Movement? Or have you decided that you hate your fellow men and want to be a chivalrous knight on a white horse by siding with the women on politics?

If so, let me note that this is THE problem with the USA.

The patriarchy will disappear over my dead body.

There is no reason for American males to succumb to a matriarchy.

The media is, of course, almost 100% in the tank for the matriarchy (except for Marc Rudov being allowed to appear on Fox News lately).

New radical feminist (matriarchal)laws like VAWA and IMBRA are now about to be challenged.

IMBRA forces American males to be background checked before they can talk to women online.

And of course Gay Marriage needs to wait until Polygamy is also OK before either are legalized.

Otherwise, we conservative males are admitting that the 20% of us who want polygamy legalized (I think it is actually more than 50% because of course I want polygamy) are not as important as gay men.

Our wishes per capita are apparently less valuable than those of gay men per capita.

Hopefully, Hillary's defeat shows that some liberal men don't really want to be castrated by new anti-male laws in an anti-male administration propped up by eunuchs.

Conservative and Liberal American men alike need to wake up and stop the pendulum from swinging so far in the opposite direction.

Gruntled said...

What is your source for claiming that 20% of American men want polygamy?

Anonymous said...

You know the strangest thing is un-mentioned,...Did you know that Jesus Christ was the result of a highly polygamist bloodline? Why would the biblical phrase "THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISSAC AND JACOB" be mentioned so many times, within the bible if God did not create the structure for Plural families?

It was said that the new testament did away with the God Inspired Divine Rights of Polygamy, then please explain why the monetary benefits of the old testament has survived, under the cloak of Godly ordinances. We still Tithe, give offerings, and use the old testament for everything but Polygamy.

Isn't it strange that two men can be legally married as they prance down to the gay parade, but if I marry two women,(or better yet,) if I marry one, and include another into my family, I must now live a secret life,...

Based on the current state of affairs, the United States is obviously in opposition to God's will and it should not come as a mystery as to why The United States (Babylon) would oppose the most sacred of all gifts,...THE FAMILY AS CREATED BY GOD

Check the 29th and 30th chapters of Genisis and there you will see the bloodline that Jesus Christ derived from, Then try and tell me that Polygamy is wrong

morbidgypsy said...

And if two are not enough to support a child should we then abolish the idea of children? Would it be so wrong for a child to have 3 parents that loved it and taught it their faith? Not only would 3 be able to offer love, but financial support much better then 2 would be able to. They would be able to support both themselves and the child much better and without draining the states economy by using welfare or other financial support as people are often forced to do now.

Also as nice as a union of 2 can be... what if the 2 both love a 3rd? Too bad? Humans are not what some faiths make us. We are what we are and nothing more.

Yes this does mean that I have no issues with gay couples joining each other in some type of union. No. I do not need it to be called a marriage. Semantics are unimportant to me and the happiness of people is much more so.

Anonymous said...

Polygamy does work both ways. There are people who believe women should have more than one husband. The woman choses whom she wants to marry and when, or if, she wants to have sexual relations (or children) whith any of her husbands. The husbands purpose is to provide for and take care of the wife, financially and otherwise. The husbands also share in household chores, cooking, and child care. One man often can not fulfill all the requirements and having multiple husbands ensures all the wife's needs are met and in the case of the death of a husband there must be another husband already in the household to take over the responsiblities.
The basic belief behind this is that men are only physically superior to women. The reason they are physically superior is to enable them work and care for a women efficiently, not so they can intimitate, control, and take advantage of women as has happened throughout history. In many species, women dominate and select their male partners, "Queen Bee" for example, although some species have been corrupted. This was God's intention and the laws of nature prove this. Women mature faster, have better self control, and higher intelligence. Men are just stronger. Men must be strictly guided by a woman because of their lack of self control, immaturity, and perverted tendancies. If a man is given the freedom to explore his preverted caveman-like sexual tendencies, such as giving him multiple wifes, corruption, abuse, rape, and molestation will result as it has in Colorado City. Men simply can not handle this type of freedom and power. Their primal animal instincts take over and they are not mature enough or intelligent enough to control it. The idea of one man with multiple wifes was created by men, not god, to fulfill their sick, disturbing, animal-like desires. The Mormon religion is centered around men having sex. If fact, they try to convince people that if you sleep around in this life you will be rewarded by - guess what - Sex in the after life!! There are more important reasons to follow the word of God then being able to have sex after you die, but this is the way men think and what is most important to them. This is why women are needed to keep our society moral and civilized.

I know very few women who live with more than one man, but it is out there. The difference is, they don't have sex with the other men nor do they consider them "husbands", although they are important members of the family. They are there for moral and spiritual guidance.

Anonymous said...

I have heard that polygamy often results when a family reaches out to a single or widowed woman with children who desperately needs the support of family. That appears to be a very caring and heart warming move - until sex comes in. Can't families reach out to these women without the requirement of sex? Sex only physically satisfies the man and does not contribute to the betterment of the family in any way. If the motivation for polygamy is to save a poor woman, then leave sex out of it. She can contribute to the family in more productive ways. The men should do a good deed for the sake of doing what is right - not to get more sex at the expense of the wives. If men could marry multiple women without acting like animals and insisting that they sex with ALL of them perhaps polygamy would be more excepted.

Gruntled said...

Taking in the widows and orphans is one of the fundamental moral acts of Christianity (and other religions, too). I agree that unattached women in need can be taken in by all kinds of families now, and they often are. This requires no more structure than kindness. Monogamy means that such women can be included in the family without having of offer sex.

I think some of the fundamentalist Mormon polygamist groups do not go this route because they have a patriarchal theory that everyone must clearly be under a male head.

Anonymous said...

Gruntled, Fundamentalist Mormon men don't go this route because their whole life and everything they do revolves around having sex.
If you see one doing a good deed or worshipping, you can make a safe bet that the only thing in his mind is "I wonder if this is enough to get laid in the afterlife."

Anonymous said...

I don't think it is the government's business. If consenting adults freely enter into polygamy, then that is their decision.

Additionally, I believe that the First Amendment "free exercise of religion" clause guarantees this right. The fact that many religions allow the practice of polygamy (i.e., Islam) means that the free exercise of religion only applies if the majority approves. Unfortunately, christian "morality" has a way of undermining the very protections that our Constitution was supposed to guarantee. It goes hand-in-hand with the other U.S. Supreme Court rulings, like reversing the right of native americans to use peyote in their religious ceremonies based on the free exercise clause.

Historically, marriages were business arrangements that were designed to produce heirs and accumulate wealth. Marriage for love is a relatively recent development.

Asserting that polygamy is un-American depends on whose vision of America. If people are free to choose and coerced polygamy not allowed, the statement that it is un-democratic is not supported.

Anonymous said...

"Blogger Gruntled said...

I think your catalogue of polygamous sects proves my point that polygamy is a minority taste. I do not think it is worth undermining monogamy to serve these sects..."

How does polygamy undermine monogamy? It's a personal choice. You either have a monogamous relationship or you don't. People who would enjoy polygamous relationships aren't going to say that everybody should have multiple partners...Just because you're monogamous doesn't mean you have to tell the rest of us "monogamy is right and you are wrong".
Sheesh.
Enforced "morality" as you people see it makes me sick.

Anonymous said...

polygamy is UN-AMERICAN? That is ludacris! America was founded on the fact that you could CHOOSE who to love. If you wanted to love more then one person, fine. It is not up to the government to ensure that you marry. It is not one's fault if the other guy is not good enough for a woman. This anti-polygamy bull is as stupid as neglecting marriage to gays. Christians represent a dictatorship, only instead of one Hitler in power, we have copies of the same. The biggest problem with our society today, is the intolerance of christians. Let gods will be done, not yours.

Anonymous said...

I have been watching CNN this evening about the Polygamists in Texas who had there children taken away and asking myself, "Why is this illegal?".

Now, I don't ask myself this because I believe in polygamy, but because there doesn't seem to be a solid reason why people who don't seem to be hurting anyone are not allowed to live as they choose. I also have to admit I think it is odd that when people know something is illegal, and they are upset when they are challenged. Don't they know it's illegal? (not wrong, but illegal)Are they really suprised when they're arrested?

Also, being that I am a feminist, I always wonder why no one ever mentions women having several husbands. It always seems to be men talking about "sexually-open societies" (meaning a man having more that one partner). I, for one, can't stand it. Almost every society in the world is male dominated...these "sexually-open societies" are just wet dreams come true not benefiting the women whatsoever. If you don't believe me, try telling a guy you'll have a threesome with him and another woman, as long as he will have a threesome with you and another man...and yes they have to touch and kiss and act like they like it.
Most will let you know right away that isn't their idea of a good time.

My point is, I am all for a person being married to several other people as long as women also get their stab at it...eliminating them from the second-class citizen spot and giving them the choice (having to share one husband with other women or having several men of their choosing). Funny thing is...I don't think men would be able to stand it.

Oh...and to the woman who said that women "would" be able to overcome jealousy and rise above......even in the animal kingdom, there is jealousy. It's a normal emotion. It's what you do with it that counts. I also hope she thinks enough of herself and other women to say "I am a great woman...and I deserve to have several men as husbands if I want". Why shouldn't she be shared as oppose to having to share? Let's keep it strong out there!!!

morbidgypsy said...

Well yes I agree completely. If men are allowed to have multiple wives then I ( a woman ) expect to be allowed multiple husbands as well. I still see no issue with loving who you want to love, however you want to love them.

And though I am not a practicer of polygamy I an now thinking, with rising gas and electric prices, that splitting the bills 3 ways or four might not be a bad idea. And wow, but still having 2 incomes while I have a child? I have no children yet and wonder if Ill be able to afford any.

Anonymous said...

Rising gas prices? That is a great excuse to have sex with various people and feel guilt free. Ridiculous. What is happening to this world? Where has our self-respect gone?

morbidgypsy said...

Ok well I should clarify that last post I made.

The gas price comment was me being sarcastic. I don't foresee me having sex with someone for a discount on gas. If I bother having sex with someone its because I honestly care for them. So. I will say that larger households ( not necessarily the married type but maybe just the roommate type) would be a good thing anymore just to mitigate the rising living costs. If you got lucky enough to find someone that you loved and cared for on top of being able to live with them... that rocks for you then.

Anonymous said...

Good Grief!!! So many posts with quotes and data based upon the bible...a book that has been translated and retranslated...written and rewritten...added to and subtracted from...interpreted and uninterpreted...polygamy has existed in most religions...polygamy has it's purposes...I am a woman and I have no problem with other women being in a polygamous relationship. Is it for me?...no...but I believe we should have the freedom of choice...you speak of democracy...democracy was supposed to bring freedom, but, if you look closely...the only freedom it brought was the freedoms that our government and lawmakers give to us. It is imperfect and no better than other forms of government...all have their good and bad points. In Islam there isn't much polygamy going on. The multiple marriages exist mostly between the royalty/very wealthy or the extreme...extreme poor. Obviously the rich can afford to provide for their 4 or less wives...but so can the extreme poor...all they do is pitch 4 tents...equality baby!!! In Islam all must be equal. Also a woman must agree to this lifestyle. The Prophet Mohammed's (pbuh)daughter Fatima was quite offended by the idea that her husband could take on another wife...so he said..."what hurts her hurts me"...and of course, her wonderful hubby Ali(seeking to please all) put that thought quickly out of his mind. But in those times polyamy was practiced for survival purposes. Islam was just bringing freedom to women who had been treated unjustly by the former laws. Many couldn't care for themselves or their familes(uneducated/broke)...and they were widowed. So many strapping, young men were married to much older women to try to please God and care for the helpless and needy. It was a duty, not a pleasure of just having a harem of women to please sexual desires. Anything can be made into something good or bad...it is always the intention of the person doing the act. I was a Christian for 38 years. I am a divorced, educated, white, mother of 2 children...and I converted to Islam 4 years ago. If/when I get married again...I have the luxury of being self-supportive(I need no money) and I do not have the grace to accept being 1 of several wives(probably because of my upbring and the things drilled in my head)and Islam gives me the right of choice. Polygamy should be legal...adultery illegal...and people should have the freedom democracy is supposed to give them by being able to make decisions about their own relationships.

Anonymous said...

By the way...I'm from Kentucky too!!! Horse capital of the world!!! Go UK!!!

Anonymous said...

I confess I haven't read every blog, but the headline caught my eye. I am an Anthropology student and we have only begun to touch on polygamous relationships. But putting the polygamy aside, this country was founded for certain reasons. Religous groups found an opportunity to live out their lives the way they chose. FREEDOM OF RELIGION was one of the opportunities awarded to the people of this country.
So it may not fall under American cultures strict guidelines (not published, but ingrained in our mindes from birth) but think outside the box. Why shouldn't practicing polygamous Mormons be able to practice there religions, just like others.
I personally am an Atheist, but I believe Religion is culturally necessary.
Here's the shocker, I believe that Church and State should be separate, BUT RELIGION SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WITHOUT ANY BIASES. That means that regardless every religion of the world should be taught, even the ones that don't fit the American mold. Only then will we begin to understand one another, and who knows maybe even tolerate one another.
Now I am a happily married woman (to one man who I will NOT share) who appreciated the simpler older way of life. Unfortunately in this day and age, unless you or your husband has a high paying job, the both parents need to work. So what does that do to our children.
In other countries if both parents work they either bring their children with them, or the grandparents take care of them.
Americans put their parents and elderly in nursing homes. So that idea is out the window.
Some families have live in nannies, which isn't the same as being raised by a mother, father or grandparent (these days who knows what you will get with a Nanny). Anyway who can afford one is this economy. Still the PHD's and the MD's still say that a parent is the best caregiver.
So what do you do if you need a two income household to survive and you don't want your kids to be latchkey like so many unruly, misbehaved children are these days. Polygyny and even Polyandry had given an alternate nurturing way of solving this situation. Children are taken care of by loved ones, and can turn out to be very functional human beings.
Now the Texas polygamy issue that I have seen in the news lately, raises a huge question. HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DOES THE MEDIA HAVE ON WHAT WE THINK? ARE THEY REPORTING THE TRUTH? The fact is we can't and shouldn't rely on the media to supply us with the truth.
Here is another question. If those women in polygyny relationships were in such dire need to escape their lives, how come none of them did when they were given the opportunity with the media circus?

Anonymous said...

I confess I haven't read every blog, but the headline caught my eye. I am an Anthropology student and we have only begun to touch on polygamous relationships. But putting the polygamy aside, this country was founded for certain reasons. Religous groups found an opportunity to live out their lives the way they chose. FREEDOM OF RELIGION was one of the opportunities awarded to the people of this country.
So it may not fall under American cultures strict guidelines (not published, but ingrained in our mindes from birth) but think outside the box. Why shouldn't practicing polygamous Mormons be able to practice there religions, just like others.
I personally am an Atheist, but I believe Religion is culturally necessary.
Here's the shocker, I believe that Church and State should be separate, BUT RELIGION SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WITHOUT ANY BIASES. That means that regardless every religion of the world should be taught, even the ones that don't fit the American mold. Only then will we begin to understand one another, and who knows maybe even tolerate one another.
Now I am a happily married woman (to one man who I will NOT share) who appreciated the simpler older way of life. Unfortunately in this day and age, unless you or your husband has a high paying job, the both parents need to work. So what does that do to our children.
In other countries if both parents work they either bring their children with them, or the grandparents take care of them.
Americans put their parents and elderly in nursing homes. So that idea is out the window.
Some families have live in nannies, which isn't the same as being raised by a mother, father or grandparent (these days who knows what you will get with a Nanny). Anyway who can afford one is this economy. Still the PHD's and the MD's still say that a parent is the best caregiver.
So what do you do if you need a two income household to survive and you don't want your kids to be latchkey like so many unruly, misbehaved children are these days. Polygyny and even Polyandry had given an alternate nurturing way of solving this situation. Children are taken care of by loved ones, and can turn out to be very functional human beings.
Now the Texas polygamy issue that I have seen in the news lately, raises a huge question. HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DOES THE MEDIA HAVE ON WHAT WE THINK? ARE THEY REPORTING THE TRUTH? The fact is we can't and shouldn't rely on the media to supply us with the truth.
Here is another question. If those women in polygyny relationships were in such dire need to escape their lives, how come none of them did when they were given the opportunity with the media circus?

Gruntled said...

The Texas case shows one of the predictable dangers of polygamy: the older men who control the women take younger and younger brides, while expelling the young men.

Anonymous said...

Then they shouldn't be considered truly polygamist. They should be considered a cult. Cults tend to weed out the men that they don't favor while keeping the women in a brainwashed state, which eventually turns them against the unfavored men. Classic cult maneuver. In South America along the Amazon there is a Polyandry tribe called the Zoe Tribe (Zo-Ayy). And I know that this is a world apart of what the current headlines portray as polygamy but this tribe has a functioning Polyandry marriage system that has worked for them for thousands of years. The woman bears her children from 2,3,4 husbands. Some of the husbands have been folded into the group because of being widowed or other circumstances...anyway they survive on hunting and gathering, so the younger men of the family go out for weeks hunting for food. Meanwhile the wife and children are left at home in a not so civilized area. Here is where it works, the older men stay home and protect, help raise, do day hunts and generally help with the well being of the family. It works for them. That is how polygamy can work. American polygamous groups ARE NOT healthy functioning polygamous marriages. It is something that has been systematically removed from our culture. The people who try it end up being selfish and controlling because they see the wealth of polygamy groups. After all you have to be high in stature or wealthy to afford a large family.

In a nut shell, American Polygamy groups are not true polygamy groups. They may start that way but they end up being cults, corrupted by power.

Anonymous said...

I just want to say that I LOVE that he said:
"When we look at the numbers, there are many more polygamists in the world than there are people who want to have a same-sex marriage. It is not way out to imagine a polygamy crisis in America in, say, the 2030s, as there was in the 1830s. Polygamy, more than same-sex marriage, is, I think, more likely to result in a constitutional amendment defining marriage."

Because I just watched a whole mess of gay marriages take place last week.

Anonymous said...

I love my wife of 15 years and our two children. I will not leave them or ever not support them. Yet I met a woman I fell in love with and who loves and needs me. I did not "choose" this. Now society gives me the choice to divorce my wife and leave my children to be with her, or abandon her to what she says will be a lifetime alone.

This has been 5 years, so it is not a moment of passion. And no, we have not had sexual relations. I would marry her before that.

I feel trapped by the world, forced to damage someone, because of how i feel. Yet all I wish is to care for both.

The solution is to marry both and care for both until the end. It is so simple, the only choice that makes any sense. Yet it will be crushed by society.

I do wish polygamy were not only legal, but accepted. Serial divorce is accepted. Co-habitation is hardly noticed. But try to commit in vow and deed to a lifetime of loving an caring, and you can be jailed.

Yes there are polygamist abuses throughout the world. But so too monogomous marriage - should it be banned? So many people sleep with different mates a month and never marry in todays society, there is no danger for some men to not find a woman. These arguments don't make sense. Polygamy is complicated, and will always be rare. That does not make it wrong, or to be persecuted.


As for the Bible, clearly polygamy was not "wrong", or God would have condemned it. Therefore it cannot become wrong unless moral law is changeable. It would be good to recall this from the New Testament as well: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Jesus didn't do away with anything. He transformed things. Paul says it's best not to be married at all!

Some of us need to marry. And sometimes, things are made so that some of us need to marry and care for more than one who needs our love.

But we cannot. And we suffer.

- Anonymous (or else be destroyed for these words)

Gruntled said...

How does your wife feel about polygamy?

Anonymous said...

I have never broached the topic with my wife. In the current society, it would be a humiliation and shame. She is a successful woman, respected in her field. With the disapproval of polygamy, the social cost and implications and pain of that, it has been hard to even raise the topic to see if emotionally she could handle it.

She does know of my feelings for the "other" woman. Assuming it meant a choice of one or the other, she said that if I left her, she would be destroyed emotionally, quit her job, and move back to her hometown, if she did not kill herself. The life-ruined comment is also in the words of the other woman I love.

There really is no "free choice" about polygamy when society will outcast those who would try it. We are social beings, and while some can handle being outcast, others cannot, and on any it is a terrible burden. But I will likely raise the issue with her soon, in the next year. It is all I have left considering the hearts of those involved.

Anonymous said...

I think comparing a 2 person union, no matter of the sex, would open up polygamy is silly. Polygamy is obviously harmful to the partners, and children in those relationships. Whereas, many organizations like the American Psychological Association, have studies supporting same sex partnerships and the children involved in them. Do we pay these people for nothing? Seriously.

Gruntled said...

The psychological studies of same-sex unions were not about the effect of changing the definition of marriage on the legal debate. That is not what psychologists do or try to do. As Dan Cere's paper, which I have blogged about, the legal debate in the United States and Canada has indeed made a direct connection from same-sex marriage to polygamy through the proposal to make marriage a purely private contract.

Anonymous said...

Obviously harmful how? Omg I wouldn't have wanted a second father to turn to for comfort when my parents split. Or another mother to spend time with while one was at work. Oh heavens no that's to awful to consider.

Anonymous said...

It is already hard enough for TWO lives to come together as one. Why complicate matters by adding more people to the mix?? No doubt in my mind that the divorce is going to rise. It is one of those natural consequences us humans bring on ourselves. (like getting pregnant or STD's from having multiple partners)

Anonymous said...

You will not get an std from having multiple partners. Its not like weight on a bridge, too many and it collapses.

Anonymous said...

I am so tired of hearing how amoral polygamy is, how unamerican polygamy is, and how unchristian polygamy is. I have news for you. America is not just a nation of Christians but of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, believers and non believers alike. Why don't we let consenting adults do with there sexuality and marital philosophies as they deem fit? I don't see how it really hurts anyone. If you wish to remain monogamous than do so but don't dictate how others "should" live there lives.

Anonymous said...

I am a highly educated woman, married for 10 years to my high school sweetheart. We have two children, the first of which was born when I was 15. We are both republicans and Christians and love our country as much as our God. I am intrigued by the idea of polygamy for many practical and emotional reasons that have been more than ennumerated on this blog. I also fear public exposure of even having thoughts of pursuing a polygamist lifestyle for fear of persecution for me and my family. I also fear the ramifications it would have on my professional life, one that I have worked extremely hard to achieve. The main question that comes to mind while reading this blog is why doesn't those who support/tolerate this lifestyle take matters to a legislative level and change it? The only answer is fear of persecution! I fear this too, but why? If those of us educated enough, financially capable and influencial enough to change legislation truly pursued this in a way that all laws are made and eradicated then we wouldn't need to be simply complaining. Use and fight for your American liberties the way you would for gun control, separation of church and state, etc. instead of passively letting your pursuit of happiness be extirpated.

Anonymous said...

If anyone can marry anyone than you blur the line of what marriage even means anymore. People keep mentioning that the government should stay out of our bedrooms and our own personal choices of who we love but then that leads to normlessness. You can argue that polygamy isn't "wrong" but just because something isn't wrong doesn't mean a society should allow it. To allow any form of marriage also entails that people should be allowed to marry animals, planets, robots, objects, and even non-existent entities of their own imagination. Animals or people too. Plants should gain just as many rights as animals as they are living organisms and even feel pain among other things. Robots blur lines in genre fiction all the time and robots are merely objects created by man. If you want to break societies norms then be prepared for this to eventually lead to people marrying their own furniture because they say they love and take care of this furniture that they own. Marriage becomes merely a means of property and loses any meaning it once held. Once all societal norms are gone than normlessness exists. Things can no longer be unique and everything becomes commodity. People become commodity and life loses meaning.

Bottom line: Marriage is an ideal that was formed in our society. Each society has their own ideals as their is no universal truth of what is right or wrong. To break the ideals of a society would break the society. In democracy the majority rules and just because one guy loves his dog and his dog loves him in return doesn't mean that everyone should agree and allow him to marry said dog.

Anonymous said...

THE SAME LAST POST WITH SPELLING CORRECTIONS!!!

If anyone can marry anyone than you blur the line of what marriage even means anymore. People keep mentioning that the government should stay out of our bedrooms and our own personal choices of who we love but then that leads to normlessness. You can argue that polygamy isn't "wrong" but just because something isn't wrong doesn't mean a society should allow it. To allow any form of marriage also entails that people should be allowed to marry animals, plants, robots, objects, and even non-existent entities of their own imagination. Animals are people too. Plants should gain just as many rights as animals as they are living organisms and even feel pain among other things. Robots blur lines in genre fiction all the time and robots are merely objects created by man. If you want to break society’s norms then be prepared for this to eventually lead to people marrying their own furniture because they say they love and take care of this furniture that they own. Marriage becomes merely a means of property and loses any meaning it once held. Once all societal norms are gone than normlessness exists. Things can no longer be unique and everything becomes commodity. People become commodity and life loses meaning.

Bottom line: Marriage is an ideal that was formed in our society. Each society has their own ideals as there is no universal truth of what is right or wrong. To break the ideals of a society would break the society. In democracy the majority rules and just because one guy loves his dog and his dog loves him in return doesn't mean that everyone should agree and allow him to marry said dog.

Anonymous said...

I will go out and say something truly controversial here. The loose definition of marriage is that of a union between one man and one woman. That said. CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE. It’s a semantics argument that has been going on for far too long. Social union, Partners, Life Partners, Mates etc… I don’t care what you call it, but stop arguing about it and make it so that two ( or more) people that love each other can be joined in some legal fashion that offers the same expectations that a married couple can expect.

The other thing I must argue about is your proposed breaking of society. When we as woman got votes, when blacks were no longer sold as property, when we touched the moon, first crossed the ocean, proved the flat Earth theory wrong, found electricity….could those two things not have broken your society all to splinters long ago? Change vs Stagnation.

Maybe we aren’t concerned with breaking a society, maybe that society is already broken and that is why it isn’t working right.

-g

Anonymous said...

The laws that do not allow marriages of more than 2 people make no sense and have no rational justification for them. The only arguments I have seen have been moral or religiously based. None have been based in reason. The the laws governmening the private lives of peopel such as the laws againsy bigomy and polygamy run counter to the ideals held by our founding fathers.

Anonymous said...

If you haven't noticed, a lot of things lately have gone counter to what our founding fathers wanted them to be. But its true that this ruling on poly has gone on for much longer than the current issues we get to deal with.

-g

wholesale plants said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

As a women, I couldn't imagine having more than one husband. Though some may be able to deal with the jealousy, I know that I couldn't. This may just be me, others may be more secure with themselves.

From a lighthearted point of view, I would i love to have more than one husband! One to joke around with, one whose amazing in bed, and one whose extremely intelligent! Hahaha!

But looking deeper into that, shouldn't one be able to find all the desired traits in one person? It may be an unrealistic ideal, but I personally think that finding that one man who you can spend the rest of your life with in happiness is by itself a reason to live. People shouldn't NEED to have multiple spouses in American society. In other cultures around the world, polygamy benefited and increased their chance of survival. Polygamy does non of that in American society.

Also, I feel that if polygamy were legalized it would only result in a decreased status of women. As seen in renegade religions that practice polygamy illegally in the US, women are forced into marriage at a young age and molested and other such horrors. Why would making polygamy legal change any of that?

Anonymous said...

"Gruntled, Fundamentalist Mormon men don't go this route because their whole life and everything they do revolves around having sex.
If you see one doing a good deed or worshipping, you can make a safe bet that the only thing in his mind is "I wonder if this is enough to get laid in the afterlife.""

Isn't it disgusting to see someone willing to bag on a religion that they obviously know nothing about? I feel bad for the person whom wrote this comment. I can only assume you believe the rumors that state that I, as a Mormon, also have horns 5 inches long that grow out of my skull, crucify roosters monthly in the back yard of my suburb, drive only mini-vans to encourage future fertility, and offer babies as sacrifices in blood rituals. Seriously, where DO you get your information?

So as to contribute something constructive to this list, I will cut that part of this topic off. I'll give you my own two cents on polygamy. In the Old Testament, Moses went up to the mountain to obtain God's Law. We know these as the Ten Commandments. We also tend to overlook that a Higher Law had been given, but the people were not prepared to follow it. That is why we have the Ten Commandments. For polygamy in the 19th century that was practiced by early mormonism vs. most commonly heard of polygamy, the difference is vast. I firmly believe in both of the following two points. One, polygamy in it's pure form was approved of by God. Two, the people of today in general would abuse the law of polygamy and therefore just like the children of God before, are not ready for it. Will polygamy ever become legal reality in the United States? I don't know. I do know this much. The United States as we are now still could not handle having it legal as the general population would perverse such a law should it allow plurality of marriage. Too many people look at polygamy as the idea of 'I can legally get laid by more than one!' when that has never in polygamy's history been the point of it. The reasons behind polygamy's beginnings were pure and beautiful and had nothing to do with carnal desires for sex. Nor should it. Anyone who thinks otherwise perverts the original intentions of the practice.

As for myself, as a Mormon male, if polygamy were made legal would I practice it? Not likely. If there was a GOOD reason for it and it was my wife who suggested it and whom to me in the first place then maybe. In it's purity there are many good benefits, and sex is NOT a good reason to do ANYTHING. Lastly IF previous conditions applied and my wife suggested it I still would definately say 'no' to it if there was neither love nor the possibility of love between myself and the second woman. I would NEVER do something so terrible as force ANYONE into a loveless union like that. So to the Anonymous who said we Mormon males were all in it for the sex, I just want to say this. "The fool talks because (s)he has to say something. The wise one talks because (s)he has something to say." And don't bother typing in something to get back at me. I'm not bothering to return to this thread, and anonymous means you'll never know when I'll pop in some other thread so you can't yell at me anywhere and believe I'll read it. Kudos!

peachperry said...

1st PAGE.

Christian Wedlock.

QUESTION:
Can a woman have more than two husbands?

ANSWER:
No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.

1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).

Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.

1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:

A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and courtesan/prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.

peachperry said...

2nd PAGE.

Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.

Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.

Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.

Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.

Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. Judah then pledged Tamar that she could marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry. Tamar came and Judah demanded that Tamar tell him by which man she was with child. Tamar then produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar could have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.

peachperry said...

3rd PAGE.

Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.

Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.

1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 5:9 King James 1611.
Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age who have only had one husband.

The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.

To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.

Luke 1:35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.

peachperry said...

4th PAGE.

Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.

Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.

But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.

1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.

2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.

But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!

A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.

Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.

peachperry said...

5th PAGE.

Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.

That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.

And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.

The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.

Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.

Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.

And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.

Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.

Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.

Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.

THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MOHAMMEDRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTI.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATI.

peachperry said...

6th PAGE.

CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.

1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.

2nd. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary or just defense, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.

3rd. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.

4th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.

5th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.

6th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

7th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.

8th. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.

9th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.

10th. If any child or children, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child or those children so offending shall be put to death.

11th. If any stubborn and rebellious son or sons, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son or sons will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son or those sons so offending shall be put to death.

12th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son in wedlock, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.

13th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny wedlock with two husbands by any marryed woman, said marryed woman having borne a son in wedlock, or wedlock with one husband by any unmarryed woman; he shall be put to death.

14th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his wife; he shall be put to death.

15th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.

16th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case he shall not be punished.

17th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case she shall not be punished.

18th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.

19th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

Nicholas M. said...

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
There is no reason that polygamy should be illegal, if 3 or more CONSENTING, OF LEGAL AGE ADULTS wish to be engaged in a plural marriage then in no way what so ever should it be illegal. our country is ran by those who think it is wrong, well its not. if you personally don't agree with it then its not for you. however if you do, and you are engaged in a plural marriage or wish to be then you must be prepared to deal with any and all issues that come with it. my wives and i have and we are ALL very happy. my family does not approve but i don't care i'm not here to make anyone happy but my children and my wives. so like i said if you don't agree thats fine it's not for you, but it should not be illegal.

Gruntled said...

Nicholas M.

I have never had the chance to ask this of a polygamist before. How do you finance your extended household?

In all stable polygamous societies that I have read about, the wives support themselves and their children by gardening and small trading. I think one of the reasons there are no industrialized polygamous societies is that that kind of household economy is not practical to support a family. Many of the polygamous sects in the U.S. today use welfare very extensively.

I was wondering how you do it.

Arathi said...

I'm amazed to see that this has been active since 2007!

Gruntled said on 10:20 PM, July 06, 2008

"How does your wife feel about polygamy?"

This is a great question. I know it wasn't directed at me, as I am just joining in, but it's one that I intended to note.

I posted above some responses to others comments, and now add my own two cents on this. I am currently monogamous. I have friends that are polygamous. I even have one set of friends that are polyandry. She has two husbands, and although it can be a little strained sometimes, it's more due to the fact that the husbands have personality conflicts.

I would prefer a polygamous relationship, not only for the financial and sexual benefits for all involved, but for the companionship. Our schedules currently don't allow us to spend a lot of time together, and it would be nice to have someone that we both could spend time with alone, and also together.

My wife is Bi-Sexual, and has on occasion initiated "threesomes" with another woman. While she likes this once in a while, she is opposed to us having another woman in our lives full time. Now, you shall note that I said woman. Before you jump all over it being one sided, remember that my wife is bi-sexual, I am not. Furthermore, I have no issue with another man in our bed to double her pleasure if she so chooses (in fact, I think it's kinda hot). She has considered it, but hasn't decided on it yet, and that's up to her.

So far in the blog, there has been a LOT of discussion over whether or not Polygamy is moral or not, or whether it would bring society to its knees. Most of you commenter’s seem to forget that just because something becomes legal, doesn't mean that EVERYONE is rushing out to do it. Gay marriage is legal here, I didn't rush out to find a husband, I'm not gay. Nor did any of my straight friends. In fact, it has been legal here for some time, and I just learned that one of my good friends just got engaged to her girlfriend. They didn't rush out as soon as it became legal either.

Quite simply, those that I know personally, that are involved in polygamous relationships, do so because they all love each other very much, and choose to do so as sane, consenting adults. They show more love for each other, than I see in most "straight" marriages. I have yet to see any of them get drunk, and beat up on each other, or the children. I have yet to see them cheat, they don't need to, they talk it over with each other to see what the family unit thinks about others becoming involved. Adultery occurs because for the adulterer, there is something missing, and yes, it's usually sexual.

Final notes:

If you don't like it, don't do it. Simple as that. Who cares if it's written in the Bible, or civilization was founded on it, we are not talking about thousands of years ago. We are talking about now.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Anonymous with the bisexual wife! I skipped a whole slew of posts towards the end, but read one last one, and it was the single sensible thing I've read here yet.
Where does the fact get lost that Polyamory is about personal interactions with other human beings? When you, Gruntled, throw out these pat blanket definitions for the minority you imagine, what -if any- experience do you have of the reality?
IT DEPENDS.
Polyamory is about mutual respect, trust, caring, and pleasure. People who pursue polyamory as I define it are more likely to be in touch with their personal motivations, and understand themselves well enough to avoid the doomsday scenarios you are describing much more ably than many people in monogamous relationships that I know.

These are seperate and distinct: Polyandry, Polygamy, and Polyamory.

The first two still imply sexual exclusivity and possession by one over another, or one over many. I think Anonymous who was talking about the different "types" (BDSM, vanilla, etc) of polygamy meant what I call polyamory. Yes, what it is called matters, because these are spectacularly different concepts of human relationships. And, hopefully that is the reason for many of these asinine remarks.

Polyamory involves full disclosure to all partners about your sexual and emotional expectations and limits. It means being honest and forthright even when that hurts. It means trusting and caring and loving. So no, "adultery" or anything that can even loosely fall under "don't ask don't tell" is NOT polyamory.

And yes, I am a woman, and yes, I am married.

No, I am not part of a world conspiracy to enslave all men, dear sir who has paranoid delusions about a matriarchal overthrow. (Not you Gruntled.)

This is not about female vs male, this is about individuals collectively coming to a rational, coherent, emotionally and spiritually responsible agreement about their personal lives so that the most happiness and least displeasure is achieved.
It is very hard work - I am sure it is much easier to remain pompously submerged in the notions you find around you, rather than stir your imagination to consider a reality that hasn't already been presented to you.
True poly relationships are a continuous labour of love.

Trinae said...

I am a female who personally thinks that polgamy is a far better system than we currently have in which people cheat on their spouses and hv children that are not taken care of. For those that favor monogamy then let them remain monogamous. My research suggest that women far out number men and that there is not a one to one correlation between one man for every woman. I see polgamy as an equalizer. Further, as I understand, all parties hv to be in agreement which is far different from the American system of hidden mistresses, kept women, and so called "outside children" aka "bastards.

Anonymous said...

I think the problem I have with this is understanding what, exactly, is ILLEGAL about it. Take the Mormon faction - they legally marry their first wives, then have a "sealing" ceremony for wives 2, 3, etc. Correct? There is no legal documentation that they have actually "married" - in the legal sense - any of their other wives. So where is the illegality? Really, it seems like they're living with their "wife" and any number of other women. Am I missing something??

twewu said...

I got down like a paragraph and still didn't see a logical point blank simple answer... and if you have to spew out 2 paragraphs plus just to get to an "answer", then it's probably not worth it.

Anonymous said...

I've read with interest everyone's points of view. I have come to my 'comfortable understanding', that polygamists are being witch-hunted - that freedom of religion in the United States of America DOES NOT EXIST - for if it did, there would be no discussion on the subject. If the world recognizes and condones GAY and gay marriages then it must recognize the religious freedom of polygamists. I hope the court is challenged - and soon - on this matter.

I am a woman who lives with two men - married to neither of them - and WE love each other to death. If we found another man whom we all got along with so well, we would expand our 'family' Does that make me a polyandrous?

AF_wife said...

I stumbled upon your blog after googling "Why is polygamy illegal?". I know this particular article is from 5 years ago but guess what I just heard on the news...! The cast of "Sister Wives" is under investigation! I can't say that I understand why it's illegal. They are all adults aware of what going on.
Don't be confused though- I'm not saying that it's right.

Anonymous said...

I am aware of the previous stigma of Polygamy. Older men with multiple young wives, children barely out of puberty being married off.

However, if you remove these things, leave it amoungst the CONSENTING ADULTS, why not allow polygamy?

It is so different than your typical married POLITICIANS who multiple mistresses and affairs?

I personally am female and belive I should be allowed to practice Polyandry! I would never even consider an underage man. Nor would we be out snatching children off the street. One should be allowed to do as they please within the confines of their homes and as long as it is safe, sane and CONSENTUAL, what the harm?

Because the moral majority say so?
Because the US Government said Utah had to abolish Polygamy in order to be admitted to the Union??

I am well aware that this will never come to pass...... but we have come out of the dark ages... we should let our ability to be tolerant suface as well.

K---- said...

All this marriage, legality business, why have marriage in this modern society anyway? It is a religious institution and even the lines used today "Do you...in sickness... I now pronounce...blah blah blah" came from the Catholic Wedding Mass.

But anyway, if you can have multiple sexual partners, be supported by him/her/them, why bring the state into this and make it a sticky unrealistic commitment? Why not just give rights to the lovers of the party in question: to visit them in hospitals, live together, adopt(with a legal check), etc?

The personally sacred institution of marriage would remain in the court of religion as no one would really need to pretend and wear white anymore.

And yes, polygamy was allowed in the Old Testament, but that(with calf sacrifices, killing bestiality enthusiasts) was thrown out in the New Testament. Divorce, Adultery, Sexual Immorality (polygamy) was condemned by Jesus and his apostles. As well as by the thousand-year Councils of Orthodox Christian Church which I belong to.

Anonymous said...

Polygamy is neither a religous nor modern government issue. the only reason it is illegal is because we as a people have allowed state and federal goverments to make and hold against us laws based on what they think is best for us and will make us slaves to their rule. Get a grip people! stand up for what you believe in and stop letting the worry about what anyone else thinks stop you from being happy.to the woman who says she is so superior against men , i say when you grow older and your breasts are tucked in your pockets so you dont step on them. then you will see how superior you are to men. Fix your own car and pay your own way through life ,buy us a drink , support your own kids without wellfare , and lets see how fucking great you are. If prostitution were leagal no man would ever consider marriage. To the so called men of this world. Get your balls back out of your wifes purses if she will let you and fight for what you want. Dont let others dictate your life to you! Shure i understand there are rules we have to follow but the rules that were written tooooo long ago to be effective today or benificial to todays society , fight to change them. Government is only people. get up off your butts and do something about it or not. if not then suffer with the consequences of letting others decide for you! I know you probably think i have gotten off subject and off on a tangent but you would be wrong. I have taken time from my life reading your thoughts on the subject only to conclude that all people want is to left alone to decide what makes them happy as an individual. Polygamists , gays , muslims , christians etc. Dont try to push your personal beliefs onto others and others will have no ammo to fight with. Therefore guess what? NO FIGHT!!! Theres a thoery! And by the way , for all of you out there who made a statement " I believe" NOBODY CARES what you believe. To everyone else. I hope you all find the happiness you search for and the tranquility you deserve.

Anonymous said...

I, personally, don't think that the government has any grounds to say that any kind of polyamorous relationship is illegal, nor should they be denied the right to marry in the eyes of the State. If all members of the marriage consent to the marriage and bringing other individuals in, they should all be granted the same rights as other married couples. There are no legal grounds, only certain religious grounds, to make this act illegal. If a church does not want to marry these people, then they don't have to. They can marry somewhere else. Marriage does not belong to a single religion, and in some cases, it does not belong to religion at all. If it did, then atheists would not be allowed to marry in the eyes of the State.

And to say that people think marriage is only a "contractual union" is really closed minded. People get married to show that they are committed to one another, to express their love, and be afforded the rights bestowed upon married couples, such as the ability to execute one's will after death or make decisions for an ailing partner. All unions consisting of consenting adults, whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, monogamous or polygamous should be afforded the same rights.

Marriage does NOT belong to Christianity. There should be no monopoly over this union.

gruntled said...

You are taking the desires of individuals into account, but not the social effects of a policy of polygamy. The state, though, does need to worry about social effects, not just individual desires.

Chris said...

Great subject. I believe in religious freedom and to that end, if polygamy is the doctrine of one's belief then it should be allowed.

That being said, any belief that proclaims love & equality yet in practice is controlling and can even be oppressive, is not a "belief", it's a cult and cannot be healthy. If one or a hundred women want to live like that, let'em.

Mental illness comes in many forms: we can't legislate sanity.

Anonymous said...

Blanket prejudice against polygamy appears to be rooted in fear- the fear that polygamists will somehow take over society and destroy the sanctity/purity of marriage if the practice is legalized. As a minority (a black woman), although I may not be a polygamist, I do not see how that sentiment is any different from racists fearing that interracial marriage will destroy racial purity and lead to the creation of one "mongrel" American race; or the fear of homophobes that okaying same-sex marriage will cause more young people to "choose" to be gay. All of our racist, sexist, and other minority-discriminating laws of the past (and present) were (and are) fear based. (No, I'm not gay or in an inter-racial relationship either; but, if I were, I would refuse to love myself any less.) People who hold on to such prejudices are irrationally fearful, as they are forgetting the most important factor here- the element of choice. There will always be people in society who prefer monogamy and intra-racial or heterosexual marriage; therefore, this closed-minded paranoia that "the others" will take over once being different is legally condoned is foolish. If one is different in a way that harms oneself or others, that is reason for ostracism. However, if one's "otherness" is not harmful, then a nation that proclaims itself to be a beacon of freedom and individualism (and is actively invading other sovereign nations in the name of freedom) will see a society full of hypocrites when it looks itself in the mirror. It is also evident in the above posts that people who hold such fears are often ignorant of much of both Christian and overall human history, hearing only what they want to hear and picking out the bits and pieces of history and the Bible that fit with what they want to believe. If the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christianity, then it shouldn't be included in the Christian Bible. And there are plenty of practices condemned in both books of the Bible that our society has conveniently (and hypocritically) brushed under the rug, simply because they are practiced by the majority (i.e. adultery). One of the reasons I turned away from organized religion is the hypocrisy typified by most followers; but, if I'm not mistaken, three of Jesus' core messages were to love one another, treat others as we would want to be treated if we were in their shoes, and to stop judging so much. There are unhealthy polygamous unions (i.e. the leader of the Polygamist faith who had child brides), and there are unhealthy monogamous unions (i.e. the 50 percent divorce rate)- and vice-versa. Harmful practices are logically worthy of our condemnation because they are self-protective of the human species. It's the people within it- whether their intentions are rooted in love (healthy) or the self (unhealthy)- that makes a relationship what it is. I say, as long as people aren't hurting anyone in doing what they are doing, then live and let live already! The truth is, this country was built on both persecution and the idea of freedom; but none of our real gains were achieved by indulging in the former.

Anonymous said...

Another point I forgot to make in the first post on 11/3/11:
-Separation of church and state means just that.

Anonymous said...

my prayer is that the truth on this be revealed.....lookin around though, i see women far outnumber men and affairs and second and even third households are going on ANYWAY....how many women (if they will be honest) are sharing a man right now in some shape or fashion....how many? more than you might think knowingly....and i dare say even more than that unknowingly

gruntled said...

Actually, men outnumber women now. This is unique in world history.

Runescape Gold said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

As a woman, I am totally opposed to this. This only benefits the man. I asked a male friend today if he would like to be one of three or four husbands and he said, "NO," that women don't mind sharing, but men do and that it was biological. Excuse me, but we do mind and I don't want to share my husband, period, end of subject. I am not some religious fanatic, but an athetist; always have been. It is just not for me and if you really asked most of these women how they are digging having their men have intimate relations with others, they are not liking it. They just pop out babies and that's it. I think it is totally anti-woman and I don't like that. I would not like it the other way around.

Siarra Nielsen said...

Mormons didn't stop practicing polygamy because the government said to... It's in the Book of Mormon in Jacob that it's wrong. You have your mormon history confused with a different church called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. It's an easy mix up if you don't research. The FLDS follow a different religious leader, don't use the Book of Mormon, and practice polygamy. LDS (real mormons) have an entirely different religious leader, use the Book of Mormon as the "keystone of [their] religion, and haven't practiced polygamy since before 1830.

gruntled said...

No, ma'am, the official LDS church openly practiced plural marriage until 1890, and the leaders continued to practice it in secret into the 20th century.

HeatherAtWork said...

I also don't understand why it is currently illegal. I do understand that the politics and Victorian morals of the time combined to make it illegal in the US.

I am currently living with two wonderful men. One I am legally married to, and one I would be legally married to if I possibly could. We are all happy with this arrangement. While it is more common for polygamy to mean polygyny, it is not exclusively the case.

You have stated that you don't think it is a good idea. I see that statement was in 2007, so your views may have changed since then. This is still a topic with a lot of interest and (obviously) one that I have a personal investment in. Do you mean that you don't think this is a good idea for YOU or for society as a whole? Because if you would rather have a monogamous relationship that results in marriage, that is, without question, your choice. However, how would MY polygamous marriage affect you or your family in any way?

Opponents of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples say similar things. They say that same-sex marriage wouldn't be good "for society." However, I can guarantee that gay men and lesbians do not force people to get gay married or have gay sex and they will not break into your house and make your children gay.

One of the main benefits in a society like ours is the freedom to choose. To choose whether or not we are going to get married at all, whether or not we have children. To choose to get married young or wait until we are older. To say that women are a limited resource and younger, poorer men would not "get any," is not only farcical, it is incredibly offensive. A statement like that basically implies that, as a woman, I would not legally have the choices that men do in a society that allows polygamy. Two women in a polygamous marriage to a man would still have the option to marry other men.

People who are going to manipulate young people into unwanted physical and emotional relationships, abuse their partners, and brainwash their children are going to do that regardless of the legal status of any of those things. Because they are horrible people. Allowing polygamy and same-sex marriage would not increase or decrease the instances of those things happening.

Truthseeker86 said...

I'll say this for those who want to make an argument based on Christianity or religious purposes period. I was raised as a Baptist until the age 18 then I chose to study/practice Wicca, and finally a few years ago I took my Shahada and now practice Islamism (what some would call Mohammedanism)and the whole time I was always interested/intended on taking on multiple wives. I told my predominantly "Baptist" family at the age of either five or six that I intended to have more than one wife and of course being a child they probably didn't take that seriously, but my point is monogamy and polygamy/ polygyny/ (even polyandry) have a place in this society if people have the resolve/will to follow through with that regardless or persecution. On the other hand if that's not for you then please don't stand in the way of those that want/intend on that way of life (since it is a way of life) also if you are for polygamy/polygyny/polyandry don't let others dictate to you if that can/should be done or not. I mean come on as others have stated as long as it's between consenting adults what's the big deal? Now with that being said I just want to say that someone mentioned that if a woman had multiple husbands then no you wouldn't be able to know the father, but the argument to that would be although said woman could have multiple men's semen in her system it would only really be for about 72-120 hrs., and that remember since a woman can only carry one man's child at a time the rest would be purged from the body within that window of time. So really as long as she's only sleeping with one of her husbands then that wouldn't really be an issue also it was mentioned that paternity checks can be done, but that's really unnecessary again as long as the woman is sleeping with the one and not both or many. That's a whole other can of worms though which is/should only be left to the discretion of the parties involved in said relationship. All of that to say is that after delivery the safest way to having children with multiple men is to at least wait eight months after (minimum) before having another child so that would take a while, but that would be the safest route. One more thing the whole situation of polygamy v.s. civil unions I personally don't agree with it (and not due to religious reasons) I always thought that the joining of man(men) and woman (women) one of the main reasons was to bring another generation into this world so that can't be done between people of the same gender/persuasion so if anything polygamy/polygyny/polyandry shouldn't even be a contest and that the former should be considered before the latter. With that being said I bid all adieu.