Academics Say Polygamy Is Good for Women

Academics are beginning to say that polygyny is not only good for women, but driven by them -- and good for children too. As Douglas Todd reports,

A few U.S. academics have recently weighed in with support for voluntary polygamy, saying it's not really about sex, but alternative family structures.

In her book, We Want For Our Sisters What We Want for Ourselves, Georgia State University professor Patricia Dixon, a feminist, defends the long non-European history of polygamy and positively portrays the lives of African-Americans who have "co-partnered" with several women and one husband.

As well, anthropologist Philip Kilbride, of Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania, says in his book, Plural Marriage for Our Times, that on a continent with a 50-per cent divorce rate, children could end up with more parental security in a polygamous household.

John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 reported on Dixon's work...

Ten years ago, University of Georgia professor Patricia Dixon thought polygamy exploited women, but after spending years living in different polygamous communities — some in the United States and some abroad — she was surprised to find something else.

"It's female-centered," Dixon said. "The women are the ones who are benefiting when they're in a [polygamous] situation. … It's not about another notch on your belt or anything like that. It really is the women who really promote this idea."

Twelve Brothers, Four Mothers, One Man, God's Plan

Jacob, a.k.a., Israel, was a polygamist. God selected him to be the father of a great nation -- His people. And he had twelves sons who (basically) became the tribes of that nation. How could God choose such an immoral relationship as the basis for a nation?

Perhaps it wasn't -- and still isn't -- the least bit immoral.

Leah was Jacob's first wife. She wasn't favored by Jacob, but God saw her distress and favored her with Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, the four eldest children. Later she would give birth to Issachar and Zebulun (as well as a daughter, Dinah).

Rachel, Jacob's favored wife, was barren and wanted to even the score. She gave her handmaiden to her husband as a concubine, Bilhah -- not even a wife. So...

Bilhah gave birth to Dan and Naphtali, who were considered equal sons.

Leah sought to stay ahead in this race, so she too gave her handmaiden, Zilpah, as a concubine for Jacob. So...

Zilpah gave birth to Gad and Asher.

Finally, Rachel gave birth to Joseph and Benjamin.

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that this was the ideal relationship -- a norm on which to pattern your marriage. Leah was married to Jacob as part of a deception by her father, and it doesn't sound like Jacob loved her as he should've. Bilhah and Zilpah probably didn't have much choice in the matter, given that they were slaves. The family itself was, in many ways, full of dysfunction.

Yet the point should not be missed: Nowhere in Scripture are these conjugal relationships condemned -- not ever, not once, and not even slightly. Jacob is not accused of adultery or fornication. Nor are his wives and concubines of any sin for marrying and/or bearing Jacob's children.

Who wishes to cast the first stone at this man and these women? If God did not prohibit or condemn plural marriage -- if God didn't call it sin -- should we?

If so, on what basis?

"In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity."

Pro-choice? Women, not Men Choose Marriage Relationship

Many object to polygyny because of a latent feminism. By feminism, I simply mean, they believe women are at a disadvantage in the transaction. Men get more than one mate, and they are in control.

But nature teaches us something completely different. As evolutionary biologists know, in most creatures, it's the male that's beautiful. He is appealing for a female mate, who chooses or rejects him. Get that? The female chooses!

This is true in humans as well. Comedians get a great deal of fodder out of this phenomenon; that is, women know if they're going to get laid tonight, while guys work for it, hope for it, and generally make asses out of themselves to get it.

Men are applying. Women are approving or declining. In sexual relations, women hold the cards.

And the natural reasons for this are obvious. Women have a lot more at stake in the sexual transaction. They are the ones who must be careful for a host of reasons, not the least of which is pregnancy.

So if a man has two wives, it's usually safe to assume they chose him.

And rather than have a feminist reaction, it might be better to ask why they chose as they chose as they did?

Healthy individuals act in ways that they believe will bring them happiness.

Everyone assumes that the male in a polygamist marriage enjoys more sex and sexual variety. People tend to settle down after the honeymoon, so that may, or may not be true. But what do the women get from this arrangement? That is the question that should be asked.

Well, maybe they know a good man when they see one: One who treats them with decency and respect. A man who appreciates them and demonstrates it. A man who is affectionate and would never abuse them. A man who holds down one or more jobs, provides for his family, and spends time with his children.

Believe it or not, such men are in short supply.

Now a woman with a man who is disrespectful and rude, who is insulted and lonely, who sleeps alone or feels like she does even if "lumpy" is snoring next to her, who has suffered abuse, and lives with a deadbeat, who ignores, or worse, abuses the children, is she better off than a woman who shares a decent man?

Men are required to behave better, work harder, and meet emotional needs in a society that permits polygyny. Women may benefit in several ways, not the least of which is from having better choices still available to them.

Gun control and marriage control?

CNS News reports, "Polygamy Activist Compares Gun Control to 'Marriage Control'"

A campaigner for polygamy said conservatives seeking to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman are using the same arguments liberals use -- and conservatives strongly oppose -- in the gun control debate.

Gun controllers and "marriage controllers" use the very same arguments of "society's rights," "democracy" and re-defining "the people" as "the collective," said Mark Henkel, founder of TruthBearer.org, a group promoting non-Mormon "Christian polygamy." Polygamy is defined as the practice of having more than one spouse (usually a wife) at the same time.

In a message posted on his website, Henkel cites the April 16 tragedy at Virginia Tech, where a student shot dead 32 people before shooting himself.

Many liberals "misapplied" the shooting to call for more big-government gun control, at the same time as "constitutionalists and many conservatives opposed it as infringement of individual rights," he noted.

"Yet, most of those same would-be conservatives had already justified identical big-government control," Henkel argued.

"Gun controllers assert that 'society has a right' to control guns, that 'democracy' justifies infringing individuals' rights for the supposed good of the people," he said. "They frantically purport that society is imperiled without gun control.

"Yet the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment expressly declares that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,'" he stated, so "gun controllers re-define the meaning of 'the people,' asserting that it only means 'the collective' [as] represented by the government."

Along the same lines, Henkel asserted, "marriage controllers assert that 'society has a right' to control marriage, that 'democracy' justifies infringing individuals' rights for the supposed good of the people," he said. "They frantically purport that society is imperiled without marriage control."

Henkel noted that marriage -- "appropriately" -- appears nowhere in the Constitution. "Yet marriage controllers cry, 'Let the people choose' the re-definition of marriage [through a majority vote.] Hence, their re-definition of 'the people'" means that "the government -- not the individual -- has the supposed right to determine marriage."

"The [gun control] issue is not about the guns, hunting or sports. It is about individuals' God-given right to protect themselves," Henkel said.

"Marriage control equally infringes the God-given right of individuals," he continued. "Marriage pre-dates the invention of government. Ironically, marriage controllers cite Adam and Eve from the biblical book of Genesis. Yet that very story never involved government. In fact, no one in the Bible was ever married 'by government.'"

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Henkel predicted last year that "freely consenting, adult, non-abusive, marriage-committed polygamy is the next civil rights battle" after same-sex "marriage."

He called the one man-one-woman model "marital Marxism," saying it was established by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.

"You don't have to be a pro-polygamist to see that 'marriage control' infringes the individual rights of consenting adults," the activist told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday.

"The dichotomy of people supporting marriage control while opposing gun control could not be more obvious," said Henkel. "It suggests that they believe that the individual right to marriage [is] more dangerous, necessitating big-government control, than the individual right to keep and bear arms."

"The only way to truly protect marriage -- and to prevent anyone from ever legally re-defining it -- is by entirely removing government from all marriage control," Henkel said.

Martin Luther approved of polygamy

Luther and Melanchton - who were not opposed to polygamy on principle - granted Philip von Hesse a bigamous marriage in 1539, on condition that it would remain secret.

It almost happened. The Protestant Reformation nearly stayed true to principle. If Christ's bride was a universal catholic church, then monogamy must be correct. But if Christ's brides were the various denominations, perhaps even the various local churches (the New Testament model), then polygny was just and righteous.

Luther and Melanchton knew that this was a political hot potato, thus their request to keep it a secret. But they had no objection in principle. They were both right and wise. Unfortunately, modern followers are not nearly so righteous or wise.

Rampant Reformation & Enlightenment Polygamy for Christians

As soon as the Bible could be read in the vernacular, the polygamy of the patriarchs began to stimulate the imagination. It suffices to remind of the Anabaptist Jan van Leyden who openly propagated polygamy in Munster in 1534, of the 'Dialogus Nebuli' written in 1541 by Lening on instigation of Philip van Hesse, who wanted to obtain permission for a bigamous marriage from Luther and Melanchton. In 1563, the former Franciscan Bernardino Ochino, a Calvinist with growing sympathy for Anabaptism, wrote his 'XXX Dialogues'. Only in 1823 was discovered the manuscript 'De doctrina' written by Milton simultaneously with 'Paradise Lost'. In 1637 Johan Lyserus (Leyser) writes a 'Discursus de Polygamia', and in 1676 he publishes a book wherein is written that Adam had many ribs: 'Das Koenigliche Mark aller Laender'. 'Polygamia Triumphatrix' is published in 1682. Think also of the former Methodist Westley Hall and the 'Thelyphthora' published in 1780 by the equally apostate Martin Madan.

- Source: http://d-sites.net/english/eros01.htm

Tucker Carlson: Polygamy will become legal

March 1, 2006 - Yes, it's really Tucker Carlson of MSNBC!

He said...

Twenty years from now, polygamy will be legal in the United States. How do I know this? Because there's no longer a good argument against it. Gay marriage has made polygamy inevitable.

Confused by the connection? Here it is: Once we agree that it is unreasonable to limit marriage arbitrarily to one man and one woman, what is the argument for limiting marriage to two men or two women? There isn't one.

But, wait, you say. Polygamy is immoral. It's icky and weird. It's never been legal before. And you may be right. But those aren't arguments. They're reactions. And they're not good enough. In the absence of a rational justification for banning something, it becomes legal. That's the rule in America.

If anything, the case for polygamy (or more precisely the absence of a case against it) is even stronger than that for gay marriage. Unlike gay marriage, which was unheard of in human history until a few decades ago, polygamy has been around forever. It's still the norm in many parts of the world, including parts of Utah.

But wait again. Isn't that precisely the case against polygamy, that the societies in which it exists tend to be the most sexist? Doesn't polygamy demean woman? Maybe, but so does collagen lip augmentation and nobody is proposing to ban that. The point is, both are voluntary. (Yes, there are cases of very young girls being forced into plural marriages, but the crime there is statutory rape, not polygamy.) And in a society in which the highest value is freedom of choice, you can't tell consenting adults how to express their affections.

Next week, HBO will roll out a new drama about polygamy called Big Love. The show stars an otherwise ordinary man who happens to have three wives. Already Mormon leaders have complained that the show casts unfair aspersions on their church, which officially banned plural marriage more than 100 years ago. While that debate may be interesting, it's about the past. Big Love is a show about the future.

Have something to say? Email Tucker@msnbc.com

I have something to say: that's awesome!

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.

'I Would Never...Go Back to Being a Monogamous Wife'

An excerpt from 'Voices in Harmony: Contemporary Women Celebrate Plural Marriage,' written and compiled by Mary Batchelor, Marianne Watson, and Anne Wilde, was published on the multi-religious site, BeliefNet. It demonstrated that women in polygamous relationships in the United States would not give up what they had. It is all-too-easy to judge that which we don't understand. But it would be far better to take the word of those who know from experience.

I love how this piece begins, "I would never ever, worlds without end, even if I could control all events, willingly go back to being a monogamous wife... the blessings I enjoy... are enough to cause me to become a she-bear when someone threatens them."

Is polygamy, or more precistly "polygny," really that great? Read for yourself.

NOTE: It will need to be constantly repeated on this page that any marriage must be consensual, with other adults, and that welfare fraud is a crime. Tom Green and Muslim arguments just won't fly here. I'm not defending that. -- M.M.