Gay bigotry towards polygyny

Bigotry is still very much alive. Those who've fought for the right of gay marriage are threatened by the growing interest in polygyny. They worry about the horrific social effects.

Let's be clear here: gay marriage is wrong. It's bad for society and Biblically wrong. But Jonathan Rauch, a staunch defender of gay marriage says, "polygamy is a profoundly hazardous policy." {Article may not be available by the time you view this. Source: National Journal, March 31, 2006}

I think it's fair to consider Rauch's arguments while they're hoisted on their own petard.

What are his arguments? Well, he says you must concentrate on the meaning of two words -- "marriage" and "polygyny."

About marriage, he writes, "Because a marriage license is a state grant, polygamy is a matter of public policy, not just of personal preference."

But every fundamentalist, political activist has made exactly this same point about marriage. It's their core argument.

This is why civil government (the State) should never be involved in the issue of marriage. The State exists to punish evil-doers, period. Marriage is, in a Biblical model, under the domain of the church. For those disinclined to come to a church for their nuptials and who still yet believe marriage is important, there are many ways to enter into contracts. (I'll have more to say about this at some point in the future.)

Clearly gays have been discriminated against in several areas (who visits you in the hospital, plans your funeral, executes your estate, shares your assets, etc, is up to you). But the very totalitarian hand that Rauch caresses in opposition to polygyny, is the very same hand that has smacked gays.

Regarding polygyny, Rauch basically argues that as a "policy" (remember, we're all cogs in the State's wheel, not individuals made in the image of God) it would be dangerous, and probably increase crime. Rauch would feel much better if polyandry -- group love with varying numbers of partners with roughly equal representation of both genders -- were the way of the world. But he seems worried that some men would lose out and they would be driven to life of frustration, and ultimately crime, as a result.

Mormon polygamy gives him some grounds for this argument. [This site does not defend Mormon polygamy, which initiates force against women and does not treat them as if they are made in the image of God.]

However, I'm still surprised Rauch makes such an argument. He writes, "Other things being equal, when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don't marry." But others things are never equal, as any good economist can tell you. That's nonsense.

But, for the sake of argument, as well as to demonstrate how intolerant and bigoted it is, let's take Rauch seriously. "Other things being equal, when one man marries another man, some other woman marries no man." Would Rauch take such an argument seriously as opposition to gay marriage? ...or would he be offended?

Rauch then talks about so-called "bare branches" and in so doing, goes way out on a limb (pun intended). Bare branches are men who lose the marriage lottery in polygynous societies. His intellectual cover comes from the slip-shod social science of Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer. They write, "Scarcity of women leads to a situation in which men with advantages -- money, skills, education -- will marry, but men without such advantages -- poor, unskilled, illiterate -- will not. A permanent subclass of bare branches [unmarriageable men] from the lowest socioeconomic classes is created."

If that were true, then that's Darwin-in-action, and it would be hard to understand why Rauch, who doesn't make a single moral, spiritual, or religious argument, would object. But the real reason China, for example, has a problem, is abortion. In China, females were disproportionately aborted in a poverty-stricken culture that limited families to one-child. Most gays support abortion -- believe it is a right. How interesting that Rauch, who blows-off the significance of abortion, thinks that polygamy is the real problem.

Contrary to Rauch's assertion, polygyny would be much better for society -- much better for individuals who should be the primary consideration here. My wife has a friend who is, from everything I can tell, a good wife and mother. But her husband decided to engage in "serial polygamy" -- he (I'll call him Dean) cheated on her and committed adultery. A statistic I just heard on TV is that nearly 2/3 of men and roughly 1/3 of women, do cheat on their spouses at least once in their married life.

Since Dean cheated, their marriage has been full of mistrust (which is to be expected) and strife. He had, long before the "affair," started ignoring his wife (lost interest, I guess). She feels trapped now. They have children they're raising. What if she could marry a better man who already had a wife?

Rauch's concern over the coming debate on polygyny is hyperbolic. Let's assume this woman was available -- she has, after all, Biblical grounds for divorce. Much as I might be interested in exploring the possibility of marrying this woman, I would never broach the subject with her. The social taboo is still too strong.

And the question needs to be asked: Does Dean really deserve this wife or should his actions relegate him to the status of "bare branch?" Ahh, but Rauch knows full-well that Dean will do just fine once his wife leaves. So you see, the entire bigoted argument is all wet.

Most wives need... more wives

It's good to think outside of the box. From the Woulda: Coulda: Shoulda blog, comes this stream of consciousness.

Now I, probably not unlike you, had always assumed that polygamy was some weird Mormon sex fetish thing. Then I saw the story about Tom Green of Utah on Dateline NBC a few years back. They devoted an hour to the inner workings of this polygamist household. The topic of sex was touched upon, but only briefly (the "head wife" is responsible for scheduling the husband's sleeping schedule). Most of the story centered on how the wives run their day-to-day lives with the kids.

Can I tell you? I've had extensive discussions about this with my girlfriends and (now ex) sisters-in-law, and we all agree. The concept is brilliant. How is it that the mainstream has shunned this possibility so? I think it's all the men who couldn't possibly handle multiple wives, who are walking around trying to convince every one that this is a bad idea...

First of all, what struck me most about the Dateline special--other than the interesting sight of one "team" of children being driven into town in a van to go shoe shopping--was how much the women genuinely enjoyed one another. They referred to each other as sister-wives and had nothing but praise for one another. I don't think it was an act. Picture it: you've got four girlfriends right there in the house with you. You don't like to do laundry? Fine, hand it over to the sister-wife who loves her some Tide. Need a few minutes to yourself? Direct whichever of those twenty-five rugrats are yours to go bother one of the other moms so you can pee in relative peace. Stuck on a word in your crossword puzzle? The sheer volume of other adults in the house greatly increases the odds that someone will know the answer. (Okay, I doubt any of Green's wives do crosswords. I'm just sayin'.) Once the kids are all in bed at night? You can stay home and actually hang out with other adults, or if you want to go out for something, there is never a need for a babysitter.

Secondly, can we talk about this nighttime scheduling thing? My guess is that the head wife is well-loved by the other sister wives. The ones with more libido slip her extra cookies and hand-wash her delicates for some extra nights with the love machine. The ones who are just as happy to sleep alone and not have to deal with a midnight grope put just the right amount of starch in her crisp blouses in return for more nights "off duty." Who amongst us that have experienced long-term relationships haven't relished a reunion after a few days or weeks apart? It probably keeps things interesting...

The benefits for the husband are obvious, too. The beleaguered man who spends a day in the rat race, only to arrive home to no dinner, a frazzled wife, and wild children? He would be no more at the sister wife commune. Heck, I could have dinner on the table every single night if I had four other women there with me every day. No problem. And with five moms to tag-team even the most disobedient children? There wouldn't be any Mommy Meltdowns. You could just hand off to the next in line while you went outside and ate some chocolate and counted to ten. Naturally the entire house would be in order by the time the husband arrived home. Everyone benefits!

Polygamy -- an Old Testament sign for the New Testament 'Bride'

Not everything in the article I'm quoting is profitable or sound. That's why I'm not reprinting it, but quoting part of it.

Without a union with the quickening spirit in our Soul, we tend to serve our carnal senses. So God introduced the polygamy law for males. Now we learned last week, 'If they cannot contain their passions, and to avoid fornication, it is better for the unmarried and widows to marry than to burn with lust,' (I Corinthians 7:2, 9). This is not speaking of polygamy, but I this Scripture illustrates why God permitted men to have many wives under the Old Covenant. Their unregenerated souls could not always bring their body and spirit subject. But no woman could have more than one living husband.

Some without a knowledge of the Bible or understanding by the Spirit may flush with moral outrage at the thought of God introducing polygamy in all nature following the Fall. So let's repair to His unchanging Word as our authority, rather than our carnal passions.

Abraham's father Terah had two wives. Abraham married his step sister. And the law that no woman could ever have more than one living husband was universal for when Abimalech discovered Sarah was Abraham's wife as well as his sister he knew he could not marry her. Abraham, the father of faith, had several concubines (Genesis 25:6; I Chronicles 1:32). And Jacob bore the Patriarchs by his two wives, Rachel and Leah, and their concubines, Bilhah and Zilah.

Gideon the judge, had many wives and at least one concubine who bore him over seventy sons, and presumably many daughters (Judges 8:30-31). There was a Levite who had a concubine (Judges 20:10). Elkanah, the father of Samuel the prophet had two wives (I Samuel 1:1-2), and Saul a concubine (II Samuel, 3:7). We find David, a man after God's Own heart, with five hundred wives, and Solomon, a type of Christ, with 1,000 wives.

Now the prophet Paul instructs us that all of the Law and the history in the Old Testament section of our Bibles are shadows and types of things to come under the New Testament. The NATURAL types the spiritual. So the natural polygamy before Pentecost was a TYPE to establish a pattern for the Spiritual Marriage Union between Christ (ONE) and His Bride (MANY). If there were no polygamy, there could be no election and no new birth.

Likewise, were there no NATURAL divorce, there could be no remission for past sins, and JUSTIFICATION by grace through faith, according to Acts 2:38. You see, we were born in fornication with the nature of Satan. Not by our choice but as a consequence of the Fall. We had to CONFESS our Spiritual UNCLEANLINESS before accepting Christ's proposal. Our espousal is justification by grace through faith.

Following justification, the second stage in our Christian walk, or our Spiritual romance with the heavenly Bridegroom is called SANCTIFICATION. Sanctification is a further step of revelation wherein we become aware of our shortcomings as we begin to compare our life to God's Word by faith, and separate from the things of the world.

The natural types the Spiritual. As an espoused maid seeks to identify with her man so she may please him, separating herself from anything or anyone which would not meet with his approval, so Christians cleanse themselves from habits and desires and thoughts and associations that do not please her Lord.

Finally, comes the marriage. The union is consummated and Christ and His Bride are united by God through faith in the Living Word, or the PRESENT Truth manifesting through her. She is a written epistle of the Word God promised to fulfill in her day. She and the Word are one, and she cannot be deceived on the revealed Word for her day. Like the marriage of a man and woman in the natural...

Now, Christians - those truly born-again by the Word for THEIR day are united by their NEW Husband, Christ, through a New Covenant of Grace. By faith alone, and not works. A Covenant which cannot be disannulled... the shadows of the old Order are still present.

Of course, if a man has several wives and is subsequently born-again, and they are also born-again, or pleased to dwell with him, he is not to put them away. However he would be disqualified from the (lay) office of Deacon or Bishop.

I Timothy 3:1-3, 'This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, NOT A POLYGAMIST, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach';

I Timothy 3:12, 'Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, (i.e NOT a polygamist) ruling their children and their own houses well'.

Titus 1:5-6, 'For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, [or NOT a POLYGAMIST] having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly'.

Yet in this day of grace, we see the shadow of the old polygamy covenant in the (many-membered) Bride of (one) Lord Jesus Christ. Its evident in the separate covenants wherein God deals with the man and the woman. And in the matter of marriage and divorce.

If anyone doubts that God established separate covenants with man and woman following the Fall, ask yourself these three questions. Does the serpent still move upon his belly? Must man still toil against nature to produce his daily bread? And does woman still conceive in sorrow? If the answer to these questions is yes, then man and woman are NOT co-equal in nature as it was in the beginning, and she serves God as she obeys her husband.

God Bless you Brethren, we live in the LAST times. Don't become involved in any of these unscriptural movements seeking equality for women [genderlessness]. Seek to know the mind of Christ that His will may be seen to manifest through your life.