You know, what you say is only half true. Many other cultures do accept polygamy. But you didn’t talk about how those cultures actually live. Our life style is so much better than any other culture. Also, you didn’t go back far enough. In the beginning this was not so. Life was to be with one man and one woman. I kind of like thinking of it like Canadian geese. They mate one male with one female for life and stay with each other until one or the other dies. I can’t think of one man who made any significant contribution to society who had more than one wife. On the other hand, I can think of many men who made significant marks with the love and inspiration of one woman. Also, if I was a woman I sure wouldn’t want to be one of several wives.

Though polygamy may be accepted in many places, I believe monogamy is still the best. Yes, not all cultures are equally good. Many cultures have bad ideas that go against our God given conscience. Other scemes of multiple partners will usually cause a lot of jealousy and deep pain. Women in polygamist relationships are not treated with much love when a husband’s love is divided.

Also, many people may view this article as an excuse to cheat on their spouses, because people look for ways to rationalize it, and I hope and pray they will remember their commitment to be a one man woman, or a one woman man.

Thats why my wife and I are “swingers”
We married to acquire wealth, power and property. Together! Because we love each other.
Sex on the other hand is much more fun when there are others to chose from.

Though monogamy was actually introduced in “the beginning” (Genesis 2:24 – the two “shall become one flesh” can’t be done with more than two). Jesus affirmed this in Matthew 5:31,32 with his condemnation of divorce. The biblical reason for this was to mirror the marriage of Jesus and his Bride (the church – which I suppose a case could be made of the ‘many’ represented in the Bride) which is found in Ephesians 5. All this to say that the strict intention of God, according to these verses, is a monogamous relationship. But any Old Testament scholar knows that many, if not most, of the Old Testament patriarchs fell short of the mark and often had many wives (or mistresses, concubines, etc.) for many of the reasons outlined in this article as well as propagation. This practice continued into medieval times and even now continues in such cases as many non-western nations and odd cults, but in a sense continues even in our modern culture. Divorce just means that they are not legally with the original spouse, though in many cases many spouses follow. So for many, the question remains of value when it comes to being faithful to one spouse. But in the case mentioned in the article, it goes beyond adults making a choice (even if it is societal or economic in nature) to protecting young girls from abuse as well as affirming the value of women.

Thank be to God for the Christian influence in the 1:1 husband-wife relationship. Jesus Himself addressed this issue, reiterating that God’s plan was one man for one woman joint together for life.
Thank you/

Jesus is the answer, not some sex expert, people looking for advice from people of the world are lost and in need of a savior. And sex is only honored in the sanctification of marriage. No wonder society is messed up. What are you doing for the next generation? Feeding them lust. REPENT!

Have you ever studied your bible? One man for one woman was actually the original concept(not a recent one)! It’s how God intended for things to be. Man is the one who perverted it.

Long before Christianity came around monogamy was practiced in the Greek and Roman World. It is not a Christian invention. This does not mean is was vice free, v.g. concubinage. Also, the origins of marriage are not poltical and economic even if the institution can be bent to such ends. It is neither accidental that the “equality of the sexes” is due to monogamy as such. It is due to the Christian doctrine that MEN are created equal in dignity, even if both sexes have different roles to play in society.

The suggestion that monogamy is a recent development is completely false. Monogamy is the original form of marriage which has been set up from the very beginning of time. When God made Adam He said it was not good that man was alone, so He made Eve to be a “helpmeet” for him and said that they shall cleave to each other. The standard of marriage. That is the only legitimate form of marriage, one man + one woman. Anything else is adultery or fornication.
Read the Bible, it can answer your questions.

Slavery was also very common until very recently, and practiced world-wide. We are evolving.

The article is presumptuous. I think it takes a lot to comment on all of humanity for our entire existence. True, there have been pockets of polygomy. So what? Murder, rape, incest, theft, deceptiveness…I could go on….have also been ever evident in the human race. But still, as with polygomy, I would hesitate to imply that the existence of these deviant behaviors would qualify them as ”the standard” or ”the norm”.

I think it is also worth noting that many of these cultures who embrace polygamist marriages are also considered “third world”. We no longer ar covered in thick hair because we don’t need it. Our appenix and wisdom teeth are no longer needed, so sometimes we have them removed. We no longer must live near a river or in groups in order to survive. It’s called evolution. Sure, 2000 years ago, it might have been common to have multiple wives and treat them like property, but today we have changed and evolved. Thats why the argument for polygamy is dead for me.

Because polygomy existed or still exists does not give it any merit. Murder exists in every culture. So does theft and incest and rape and oh yeh….child sacrifice. The point of the article is what? Because something exists it is good????
Polygomy is not good. Monogomy is good. Period.

This column and these comments are just more evidence that the proponents of laws enforcing “traditional marriage” really want their version of “Christian marriage”. It is just another attempt to enforce (and inflict) Christianity upon Americans by law. This is not a nation of Christianity. It is a nation of Law. And decisions of law are not based on the Bible. They are based on the Constitution of The United States.

I find it interesting that all the Christians are using the Bible to defend their positions on monogamy. “God set it up with Adam and Eve for monogamy…”

Well that story was written by the Christians to defend their beliefs so of course it is going to promote monogamy. It suits their purposes in establishing their beliefs and projecting those beliefs onto others. It is all a circle. If you were creating a new religion what is the first thing you would do? Write a story that justifies what you want to believe of course and then pass it off as historically true and the word of god, whether there is any evidence or not.

I for one don’t have a problem with polygamy. I also don’t have a problem with swingers and I don’t have a problem with monogamy. What I do have a problem with is coercion and abuse. If everyone involved are consenting adults and they all agree with the arrangement, whatever that arrangement may be, then what business is it of anyone else? But if you are coercing children into these relationships through fear of some “hell” or religious persecution that is a whole other matter. And that is what these FLDS people are doing.

I’ve been overseas to third-world countries…and some of those inhabitants did not believe me when I said only one woman and one man can be married. One responded…”how do you keep the other women out of prostitution.” They, the ones I had contact with, believe there are five women to one man (population ratio).

While I am a Christian, literal interpretation of the Bible as the root of everything is a bit scary, especially coming from women. I think a just and righteous God would want us to think a bit introspectively. Gender/racial equality is not exactly in top form in the Bible. One thing no one has mentioned in all this is that it was very common for folks to get married at 15 years old not too long ago. We all react with horror now. Were all of our ancestor’s perverts? Have our longer life expectancies changed our moral compass that much? While I personally think getting married young is a big mistake, a 15 year and a 16 year old that are dumb and get’s married young is not a big shocker to me. What is repugnant is these 50 year olds who are merely having all these “brides” for an obvious sexual outlet under the guise of religion. This case will be a bit hard to prosecute, but we will see how things pan out.

I realize that you are limited in space, but it would be helpful if you would cite your sources of historical information. This would aid your readers in doing their own research before responding. As for me I take issue with your view of the origins of monogamy. Yes, the majority of cultures today and in history allow for either polygamy, polyamory, or concubines. What you do not state is that in most situations this applies to the mans choice not the womans. Many tribal groups around the world allow for polygamy, but it is the mans choice of the woman, not the womans choice. In most cases, as it is in Texas, polygamy represents the control of women rather than the freedom of women. The normal state of most polygamist societies is that women are demeaned rather than uplifted. I think it is an error not to recognize the plight of women discarded and children abandoned in most of those cultures. Though I am sure there is more to know about the history of monogamy, I do know that it did not start with Christianity. Early Jewish writings also commend monogamy. Though some characters in the Old Testament of the Bible were polygamists, or polyamorists, the results were always devastating. Finally, we cannot ignore the plane human factor. jealousy, rage, hatred, and violence are common to all cultures were people are not faithful to one partner. This cannot be blamed on Christianity, judaism, islam, or any other monogamous faith. It is the human condition. One must squash his innate human desire to be valued and loved uniquely in order to participate in polygamy. In the end I believe monogamy requires men and women alike to place difficult controls on their lives. The result for those who are successful are more valuable than the personal pleasures experienced through open relationships.

Your textbook research on polygyny or polygamy is just that, textbook. Try spending years within communities like FLDS or in muslim countries, as I have and see how painful it is, mostly for women.

There is a reason polygamy was banned in Islam but it was instituted as a result of taking care of the many women left as widows or alone after the many wars the fledging religion was involved in.

I do not know why the Mormons banned it, but after reading their prophetic fantasies and the bizarre rituals (and not those temple rape ‘beds’) I could care less.

In every instance I have encountered women in plural ‘marriage’ situations, the cruelty, jealousy and lies in vying for one man’s love, attention and money, affection for HER children, not the other woman’s children, is really heartbreaking for the women and children.

And for those that say, its the solution for men who cheat anyway, this way everyone knows who the competition is–he just takes the girlfriends and makes them wives.

Women will never learn that this goes on because we allow it. We fight one another, rather than coming together and calling all of this what it is; adultery and child abuse.

But monogamy has to do with wealth and position, i.e. who inherits.

Show me one culture today that doesn’t adhere to that concept that’s considered a 1st world nation? Pragmatical it works. So it seems to be right in there with a survival necessity.

Monogamy is an invention by the religious leaders as a way to control the populous. i am a catholic, but over time i have become scepticle on many issues. the bible was wrttten by man, not god, so by following a book we are allowing ourselves to be dominated by humans, not god. also, sex has nothing to do wtih love. people can love each other, but sex is just sex.

“The mortifying child sexual abuse that allegedly has taken place is absolutely not the standard for this lifestyle worldwide.”

Baloney; it is absolutely the standard for this kind of marriage. Pick up a Bible and ponder the average age of concubines.

It’s sick and immoral and it’s exactly what the new testament preaches against!

To directly address Matt’s coment regarding “…that story was written by the Christians to defend their beliefs…If you were creating a new religion what is the first thing you would do? Write a story…then pass it off as historically true…whether there is any evidence or not.” Since the justification of one man and one woman in marriage comes from Genesis, the Old Testament, Christians could not have invented the concept. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940’s scholars were able to reproduce the entire Old Testament with the exception of the Book of Esther, and all the documents were dated before the birth of Christ – some as early as the fifth century BC. Perhaps Matt might want to do some reading before making a blanket dismissal for lack of evidence.

To address the article, simply because something is broadly accepted doesn’t make it good or advisable. The idea of “friends with benefits” seems to be a broadly accepted idea. The result is proving to be the incredibly rapid spread of STD’s among adolescents, out-of-wedlock pregnancieas and the related issues, emotional trainwrecks. But it is broadly accepted, so surely it must be good… Just as has been noted several times this article makes a broad brush assumption that “culture” originated the concept of marriage. That assumption is dramatically inconsistent with our available historical information. Polygamy has certainly been practiced for millenia, and it is still practiced in many parts of the world today. However, the resulting societal issues from the practice are also the same today as they have been for several millenia as well.

Perhaps the words “In the beginning…” are worth more serious consideration.

In Nepal ,Polygamy is prevalent in Nepal- Tibet bordar.Mainly they are all mangolians(Tibeti origin).Hindus community do not accept polygamy.

“But a marriage in which a spouse of either sex has more than one partner at the same time has been accepted globally for centuries.”

Well that explains it. With much of the world a 3rd world backwater of culture and anti-modernization who now are accurately called “state of the art primitives” by Mark Steyn in his book “America Alone”, polygamy can surely be the common link between their dysfunction as they now rise out of their holes to declare war on western civilization.

Polygamy only leads to mental retardation as generations of offspring essentially breed within their own bloodlines. It creates a culture where people are property and love is cheapened over politics or convenience or worse, theology.

Western civilization, specificaly during the italian renaissance where the notion of romantic love was bron is where western civ began to move forward in many ways, leaving the state of the art primitives in their holes.

I’ve seen a couple misconceptions I want corrected. 1) This great Nation is a Christian Nation based on the Constitution of the United States. If you actually read the Constitution, then you may realize it refers to God. Our laws are based on Judeo/ Christian values. 2) The old Testiment talks repeatedly about polygamy; though, it was never encouraged and monogamy was also prevailant in the Old Testiment. 3) Monogamy is not new; though for a Nation to ban Polygamy appears to be new; but then again, there are a lot of “firsts” when looking at this great Nation.

Monagamy is an unnatural act. Humans can be monagamous, but it is not in our nature.

I have lived in Saudi Arabia and seen that Men 25+ marrying teenage girls is NORMAL. I have talked to Saudisand they say that marrying young women is the best way to be sure that they are virgins.

So stop with the denial. Polygamy besides multiple also means YOUNG (teenage).

I completely disagree with Yvonne and here ideas of about polygamy being a worldwide social norm and monogamy being the abnormal. A wise person once said “which is the greater lover, one that can please a 1000 women or one that can please one women a thousand times”.
The problem with marriages failing is a lack of commitment. I got married at 19 and have remained married for 34 years. I have never thought of divorce or committing adultery (call it what it is, don’t dress it up with affair). I have remained married because I promised I would.
The justification in the bible for monogamy is true. One man, One woman. If people waited until marriage for sex, had only one partner till death separated them we could eliminate all STD’s from society.
Taking the bible literally, absolutely. Why take it any other way. If you do you are trying to make it fit your preconceived beliefs and ideas.
Christians writing the bible to justify there beliefs, what a lie. Do your research, you will discover that Jews wrote over half of the bible.
Polygamy, adultery, swinging, alternative lifestyles has added nothing of substance to society. They have only added to the destruction of society.
Read “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” and you will see that the bible and Jesus are true.
One man One woman raising children and society will be far better off.

“It’s sick and immoral and it’s exactly what the new testament preaches against!”

Baloney! The New Testament does NOT preach against it!

Monogamy-only is sick and immoral and that’s exactly why God’s Law only recognizes “marriage”, regulating polygyny and sometimes even requiring it!

Let’s not forget that marriage was “invented” to prevent the spread of venereal disease long before a shot or pill could cure you of impending death. This was a good thing and thusly found its way its way into the various religious tomes of our era and became ORDAINED BY GOD. LOL!! Truth is marriage is nothing more than a complication, espoused by man, on the very basic instinct of pro-creation. Let the Bible thumping begin.

Philip, if you knew your American History, you’d know the founding fathers were Deists not Christians.

Deism: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

A common mistake of Christians.

The messages left by John at 4:53 and John at 11:12 are spot on! Yvonne (the author of the article) contradicts herself and has no clue what she is talking about. God creating Adam and Eve and having a monogamous marriage is God’s original intent. This was far before Christ was born so obviously it was not a “recent social invention”.

Polygamy is wrong for a reason. You will always see immoral men all for Polygamy and Swinging. I would love to see women get on here and say they want there man to sleep with multilple women and her still be in love with him. A woman does not feel cherished, nourished, or loved if her man is being intimate with someone else. THis is why the polygamous marriages do not lead to anything good. So you have a polygamous marriage that brings power, wealth, etc. What does it do to a womans heart? This is SOOO wrong to do this to a woman. She was made for more than this. She was created by a Holy God for a man to treat her like his queen…to love her unconditionally..to take care of her when she needs it… There is a reason a woman desires to be swept off her feet, wanted by a man, loved by a man. She was created that way. You would have to kill this God given desire in her heart in order for you to sleep with multiple women. So since some other country is practicing polygamy that means that all the women are living fulfilled lives and enjoy their husbands freedom to sleep around? Its just not right and it hasn’t been since the creation of time.

There are many here who appear to be viscerally opposed to polygyny.

May I point you to a blog being written by a man who is the husband of two wives?

The url is http://www.my2wives.com

The author has expressly invited those opposed to polygyny to post their thoughts and, hopefully, engage in a dialogue.

Rewriting history serves no good purpose – truth is still truth. From the beginning it was God’s purpose to be monogamous – for a time, mankind was permitted multiple wives, but never allowed mistresses. Jesus brought it back to the original intent.

Sin permeates this world; it is no wonder man perverts the PURPOSE of sex – to draw a man and wife closer together. Interesting that while touting multiple sexual partners, you fail to mention there is always a price to pay for sin. Jealous rages and the violence they spawn fill our news. Venereal diseases come to mind – in fact, if just a generation or two would behave, these diseases would cease to be passed on and would die out. Kids having kids and society desperately seeking ways to absolve them of the consequences of their behavior. The upshot is simple:

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.

As long as we fail to respect God and His word, we will pay the price.

“…but then again, there are a lot of “firsts” when looking at this great Nation.”

One of which was to allow people to live their lives free from tyranny.

Compulsory monogamy-only is tyranny.

Dear Madam,
This information is not correct and shows a woeful lack of knowledge. When God made man in the beginning He made them monogamous. The Jewish religion allowed but that was certainly not the ideal and was not what God wanted or established. The New Testament shows how imperative the idea of monogamy is for it shows that as the example of the church, the bride of Christ.
A worldly view which does not accept God may as we know when our missionaries go to the foreign fields but everywhere the Gospel of Jesus goes it changes those wicked ideas.
Thank you for allowing me to express my extreme disagreement with your thoughts.

Some questions for those of you who think that the Bible condemns polygyny:

Why is it that there is no commandment against polygyny? (Remember the Bible bears witness to God’s Law that it is perfect.)

Why does God’s Law regulate polygyny? (See Ex. 21:10, for example.)

Why does God’s Law require polygyny under some circumstances? (See Deut. 22:28-29, for example.)

Why does God portray Himself as the husband of two wives? (See Ezek. 23)

Why, if polygyny is wrong, are none of the many men of God who were polygynists criticized for that anywhere in the Bible?

Why, if polygyny is wrong, does Jesus not condemn it? (Many point to Matt. 19 as condemning polygyny; however, Matt. 19 is about divorce – not polygyny.)

Dr. Fulbright couldn’t be further from the truth when she writes that monogamy is “a relatively recent social invention”. Unless by recent she means sometime since the Egyptian 19th dynasty (1200BC).

When God gave the law to Moses after the Israelites left Egypt, it included monogomy. Extra-matiral affairs were punishable by death. For those who disagree, please refer to the Law of Moses found in the first 5 books of the Old Testiment. Yes poligamy existed then, but monogamy was introduced as law to help set Israel apart.

Secondly, Yvonne misses the mark concerning the “perfect union” late in her article when she writes:

“It has only been in the last couple of centuries that Western Europe and North America have developed a new values set around organizing marriage and sexuality.”

I would refer her to the teachings of Jesus, referenced by the apostles in the New Testiment. I, as a husband, am called to love my wife to the point of giving my life for her. I am supposed to love her and care for her as I love and care for my own body. If that’s not devoted love, I don’t know what is.

Monogamy was instituted 3 millenia ago. The love and devotion that is to represent the relationship between Christ and the Church (“perfect union” marriage between a man and woman) goes back 2 millenia ago. Neither is hardly recent.

Accept it or not, history is what it is.

Bible: 1
Dr. Fulbright: 0

“After all, polygamy is the original ‘traditional marriage.’”

Would Yvonne care to enlighten us on this one? It sounds like it’s more based on evolutionary psychology, which is based on a lot of speculation rather than actual evidence.

Having multiple sex partners doesn’t necessarily make for ‘marriages’. What is the definition of ‘marriage’?

Nothing “accidental” about monogamy and love. At same time that the early Christian church advocated monogamy, it also upheld the equality of men and women–the only world religion to bind men and women to the very same sexual ethic–only between a man and wife married to each other. That equality is the foundation of love, and the New Testament enjoined love on both married partners.

I’d like to ask all my fellow Christians out there: if polygamy is evil, then why did God call David, a polygamist, a man after his own heart? Why did He continue to give him wife after wife, as He reminded David after his affair with Bathsheba?
There is no verse in the Bible, not one, that condemns polygamy. The only verses in the New Testament that *appear* to condemn it are 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, which state that church leaders must be the husband of “one wife.” Arguably, the Greek word for “one” could be translated “first.” This would mean that church leaders should be still married to their first wives, i.e. to have not divorced them.

I can see making arguments from a social perspective that we as a monogamous society have come farther than any other culture; but I cannot see how anyone can try to protect monogamy as a Christian tenet.

I am completely amazed at the number of people who trot out the Bible as God’s plan like nothing else existed before the Genesis story was commited to parchment. I wonder what they would believe had the Mongol hords succeeded in conquering Europe and consigning Christianity to a historical footnote like has happened to so many other religions.

Religion aside, people wrap up to many unrelated behaviors under one word. The definition of polygamy does not include abuse no matter how some people practice it. Most of these monogamists would have you assume that spousal abuse and pedophila would disappear if the monogamous/faithful/loving/till death do us part marriage was a global standard to live by. What nobody ever studies is the damage wrought by trying to hammer people into that mold. How many suicides, how much abuse, how many divorces, how much self destruction just because people are conditioned to believe that their feelings are wrong and that they are deviant. If monogamy works for you 2, great. If polygyny works for the group of you, great. The bonds that CONSENTING ADULTS form which result in happy people, who are more likely to be productive members of society, should be unregulated by government. But taking their finger out of the pie is something the gov’t never does.

BTW My wife has a boyfriend. Polyamory was the light at the end of the depression/divorce tunnel we were in.

You know, a wise man once said, “I have liberty to do everything, but not everything is profitable.”

If polygamy is so wonderful, why don’t people interview the women who are a part of it? Oh, that’s right! Most of these women are in oppressive societies which relegates them to second class citizens. And besides, there must be something important about monogamy, or why else would the first wife almost always hold sway over the rest of the wives?

And for the record, just because the patriarchs of the Jewish and Christian faiths were polygamists, that didn’t make it ok. Since polygamy is natural read about it in Ecclesiastes credited to the most famous polygamist King Solomon (700 wives, 300 concubines).

Perhaps your opinion might change then.

In direct response to Jack at 1:13pm on Apr. 11:

Jack, you raise some excellent questions. I would respond to you this way:

1) “Why is it that there is no commandment against polygyny?” – The world was created perfect and free from sin. The first two chapters of Genesis present the world God created as He desired. Chapter 3 of Genesis present man’s insistence to have his own way. Man chose to reject obedience to the Creator’s morality or code of ethics and make his own. The short version is this is the introduction of sin. The commandments are given later to reveal to man his sinful nature, not simply a checklist of specific actions but a complete nature or condition, and leave him no excuse for his offense to God.

2) “Why does God’s Law regulate polygyny?” – Because man is by nature disobedient, and God still desires to offer him a roadmap to life. Two great examples are divorce and Israelite monarchy. God “regulates” divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1, yet He explicitly condemns it in Malachi 2:16. Jesus interprets this paradox in Matthew 19:8 and Mark 10:5 and says God made the “regulation” not because divorce is acceptable but because man’s heart is hard. Man would practice divorce anyway. The regulation is to protect the woman who is rejected. God regulates the Israelite monarchy in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, yet God strongly implies that Israel has rejected Him by demanding a king in 1 Samuel 8:4-9. Again, God does not want Israel to demand a human king, but He will regulate the king’s actions in advance so that those people who did not demand a king might have opportunity to live in right fellowship with God. As Romans 3:23 states, “..all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” Yet because God is good, He has from the beginning provided a way that man might return to right fellowship with Himself.

3) “Why does God’s Law require polygyny under some circumstances?” – This is not a “requirement” of polygyny, as you suggest. That is a gross misinterpretation due to brutally carving these two verses out of the context of the text. These two verses fall within a text that begins around 22:13 and ends with the chapte at 22:30. This command falls within a text that clearly condemns sexual immorality and explicitly defines the consequences of that immorality. In the specific case of the two verses you mention, God is again protecting the virgin from rape and abandonment. In this case a man finds a virgin girl, forces himself on her sexually and the two are discovered. If the man abandoned the girl she would probably never be marriable in that culture, so her father would have to care for her until he died, then she would be passed off to her brothers (or some other next of kin) and very likely left to eke out a painfully poor life in a male-dominated social structure. The requirement for the man unable to control his lustful actions is to marry the girl. There is NO reason to believe he would be encouraged by God to marry another woman later, and if he is already married this forced marriage is to protect the girl and her family – not to encourage the pologyny of the man of uncontrolled passion.

4. “Why does God portray Himself as the husband of two wives?” – This is once again a misinterpretation of the text. This illustration portrays two “daughters” adopted of God, not wives taken by God. The only way you can understand this is to understand the history of the nation of Israel and read this text, unquestionably a parable, in that context. This illustration portrays the Northern Kingdom (ten tribes of Israel) known as Israel and the Southern Kingdom (Judah and Benjamin) known as Judah. The Northern and Southern Kingdoms came about because Solomon married MANY wives, many of them foreign women, and began to worship the foreign gods of his wives. As a result, God split the orginal united kingdom of Israel (twelve tribes descended from the twelve sons of Jacob) into two nations. This is recorded in 1 Kings 11:1-13.

5. “Why, if polygyny is wrong, are none of the many men of God who were polygynists criticized for that anywhere in the Bible?” – While I agree there is no specific criticism of the pologyny of men in the Bible, some of them held as patriarchs of faith (Abraham, Jacob, all twelve of Jacob’s sons, for example), there are very clear examples of the consequences of multiple spouses. Consider the strife that rages even today between the descendants of a man named Ishmael and a man named Isaac (Genesis 16:1-4, 11-12; 17:18-22; 21:9-11). Consider the family of Jacob (Genesis 29:10-11, 16-35; 30:1-24) and the strife within that home. Consider the consequences to David of not being able to remain the faithful husband of one woman (2 Samuel). Consider the consequence to the entire nation of Israel of Solomon’s inability to contol his hormones (1 Kings 11:1-13). There are plenty of life examples in the Bible showing polygyny as harmful or painful even if those practicing it are not explicitly criticized.

6. “Why, if polygyny is wrong, does Jesus not condemn it?” – I would agree with your comment that Matthew 19:1-12 is in the context of a response to a question regarding divorce. I also can’t strongly disagree that Jesus does not explicitly condemn polygyny. That being said, using the argument that Jesus does not explicitly condemn something within the record we have of admittedly only a few months of His 33 year earthly life is a fairly weak way to support the practice. The primary theme of Matthew is that Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish Messianic prophecy – target audience assumed to be Jewish and desire of the author to prove to the audience that Jesus is the Messiah they await; the primary theme of Mark is that Jesus is the Servant – target audience assumed to be Roman and desire of the author is to contrast against Roman belief that wealth, power and prominence equate to preferential position in the eyes of god; the primary theme of Luke is Jesus’ humanity – target audience is Gentile and desire of author is to prove that God’s love extends beyond the descendants of Jacob to all mankind and the primary theme of John is Jesus’s deity – the target audience is more general and desire of the author is to prove Jesus is God. In summary, the primary intent of the Gospels is to present the identity and purpose of Jesus Christ – not to restate religious restriction. As a result you would not necesarily expect to see a religious code recited in the texts.

Ultimately, even if you choose to believe the Bible does not explicitly condemn the practice of polygyny, it is impossible to claim the Bible presents it in favorable terms. Yvonne Fulbright suggested that monogamy is a “modern” development, and that is clearly false. The consequences both individually and societally of the practice of polygyny have been demonstrated both positively (in the success of cultures primarily monogamous) and negatively (the weakness of cultures primary polygamous) throughout recorded history.

Looks like someone is seriously lacking in cultural anthropology.

I love it when someone publishes something as “fact” and pruposely leaves out many crucial elements of the real facts to further promote their own agenda.

Bottom line is the author of the story is looking for a moral obligation to go and sleep around with people, that us their right to but please don’t go around condeming others because they choose not to.

The author also has failed to mention these women’s place in the society that allows and or promotes polygyny marriages, usually it is second class in nature.

As a side note, I love how the author compares the west with all such great places as poor rural India and people from some poor slum of Africa, as if those people are setting the pace and standard for the world. Not condeming the way they live, that is their freedom, but those people hardly represent the majority of the world and if ever given the chance, would drop everything and move to the west.

I agree with other commentors: not enough information here. For instance, the author notes the Dogon allow women to practice polyandry publicly? I don’t think so! I’ve lived with these folks and although women have relations with others, they do so very discretely so as to respect their husbands. Many Dogon men have multiple wives (usually 3). When the wives don’t get along, they must sustain separate homes for each. For the Dogon, it’s all about natural instinct and harmony. Women do not publicly flaunt sexual relations with other men, ever! Their society is profoundly disciplined. And last, their compound with their husband is sacred territory. Relations are conducted in other villages or another natural setting, beyond the woman’s home.

The author is throwing out headlines without any substantial information to support them.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. However, you left out two of the most important characteristics of the ideal monogamous marriage –

1. sexual fidelity, mentally and physically, for life;
2. placing the welfare, safety, and character development of children above personal desires
Without the “forsaking all others” and the “mission: successful children” aspects, it’s too easy for the partners to stray.

One other comment — by the time of Christ, Judaism was for all practical purposes monogamous. Polygamy is always shown in the Old Testament as a source of conflict, heartache, and disorder within the family and society, even though it is not prohibited.

Not comment on wrong or right, but wasn’t polygamy and marriage at a young age a neccesity early on to continue the species. Wars, early death, that kind of thing. We have gone beyond that in western civilization, haven’t we? Formal marriage was not instituted until the 1800’s, I think, people might get married in a church but often just said they were married and they were.

I agree with the article, except the last sentence. Why do so many think that monogamy is so great, it’s not even practiced in other mating species!! The pressures created by an engineered set of morals have caused so much havoc on people. What are we really trying to accomplish? More for the police and psychologists to do? I think so.

Yes, this seems to be true. But since when have traditional practices become the right practices? Why do we not go back to slavery, why do you not talk about the other laws of cultures that still accept polygamy, you can not pick and choose what you think is the correct way of life. Have you lived in these places, have you seen the women stoned to death because of adultery? These are the very same women that have multiple wives and maids that they also have sexual access too according to the law? Have you seen the brutality of a hand being cut off because of thievery? Have you seen how women are executed when they kill there rapist in self defense? Have you talked with the women in these loveless marriages, which are abused emotionally and physically because they have no where else to go, because they have no rights, and there husband has the right to even beat them when they disobey?
writing an article like this, although true…is leaving out the facts and reasons for these practices, and giving people that are ever so ready to degrade others , a winning written article to bring up every once in a while. Yes, I agree that once due to the need for women to be fed and taken care off, and the relatively fewer men due to the wars and etc…There must have been a need for polygamy, in order for the human race to survive. But referring to history to justify something that is being practiced in some countries, and as a person that has lived in such countries, is condemned by most of the people even there, is unreasonable.
Hey, why don’t we do everything wrong that has been done in history before? History is to learn, be able to tell right from wrong, not to follow blindly, or use for our benefit to prove our thoughts.

It is an interesting subject. I don’t agree with what appears to have happened at that ranch. It does seem strange though that men have more of a drive than women (even though some disagree with that)…