Polygamy (Again)
With some regularity the subject of polygamy seems to rear its’ head in the blogosphere these days so I’d like to take some time and talk about it a bit and see if there is any validity to the arguments against it — and maybe lay a few myths to rest.
The usual argument is a religious one – lets see what Rick Warren has to say about it, he’s campaigning for California’s Proposition 8 on gay marriage in this video, but it his thoughts on what marriage is are clear.
The important parts, in relation to this discussion anyway, follow.
@ 25 seconds “defination of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years”
@ 58 seconds “the traditional, historic, universal, definition of marriage, one man and one woman, for life”
@ 1:05 “every culture for 5,000 years, and every religion, for 5,000 years, has said the defination of marriage is between one man and a woman”
@ 1:38 “a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture, and every single religion, for 5,000 years“
Every culture? Every religion? For 5,000 years? That’s a rather wide sweeping statement isn’t it, maybe the good pastor should read a little bit of history – maybe even the bible, because polygamy can certainly be found there.
Genesis 14: verses 1 – 3
(1) Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. And she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar.
(2) So Sarai said to Abram, “See now, the LORD has restrained me from bearing children. Please, go in to my maid; perhaps I shall obtain children by her.” And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai.
(3) Then Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan.
Judges 8:30-31
(30) Gideon had seventy sons who were his own offspring, for he had many wives.
(31) And his concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, whose name he called Abimelech.
My, my, my…. wifes and concubines.
There are even inheritance rights from polygamist marriages discussed in Deuteronomy 21:15-17
(15) “If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved,
(16) then it shall be, on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn.
(17) But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his
Already I can hear the “but that was the Old Testament, Jesus changed all that” – did he?
Matthew 5:17-18
(17) “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
(18) For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
— end of biblical argument.
Lets move on to other arguments, a favorite one is the slippery slope argument, “as soon as people can have multiple spouses what’s to stop them marrying pets and domestic live stock“?
Lets use history top answer that one, first off Warren is telling lies, every culture and every religion for 5,000 years did not have a one man, one woman, marriage concept. Different cultures and religions practiced polygamy down through the ages and we do not see rampant families made up of a mother, a father, another mother, a sheep, and 6 children…. 3 of them woolly — if that had happened I’m sure we would have read about it somewhere, maybe even in the Old Testament.
Through out history there have been those who take an uncommon liking to their favorite milk cow, or the dog that guards the house, but what is the connection between that and the marriage arrangement?
Another favoured talking point is the “multiple powerless women enslaved to a single husband” – there is no doubt in my mind that that has happened in the past, it happens in the “one man, one woman” arrangement to doesn’t it?
I would hazard the opinion that if a fella (lets call him Bob) had a wife (lets call her Betty) and decided he wanted another wife that he would have to talk it over with Betty, and Betty, being a free person would have decide if she wanted to allow another wife into the current arrangement — and if she didn’t, well, Bob would have a decision to make wouldn’t he?
And while we’re talking about Bob having a second wife…. I know of an Inuit woman who, way back in the day, had two husbands — so why is it that we only seem to discuss women who are meekly subservient (indeed probably forced into bondage) to their husbands and who have no voice in the family/relationship decision making process?
Contrary to what those who are dead set against it claim, polygamist marriages (for differing reasons) are a historical fact within many cultures, and within many religions – to say otherwise is to lie, it really is that simple.
Personally I wouldn’t even briefly entertain the idea of entering into a multiple partner relationship, nor do I believe that there are in fact too many people in our society who could make it work – it sounds like way too much work for either my liking or my temperament, but that’s just me, there are others who will (and do) see it differently, and at this point I’m not willing to force my way of thinking on to them simply because it wouldn’t work for me.
…. but you could change that, you could be the one who presents such a compelling argument against polygamist relationships that I change my mind, and if that happens I will write a post telling the world (or at least that small portion of it that stops by here every now and again) that I have been a deluded fool.
Who can afford a second wedding while still married to a woman? I’m going broke with just one spouse, I cannot imagine trying to cover 2 credit cards!
Also, what if a mans 2 wives take a liking to each other? Where does that leave me? You see, it’s all about my OWN insecurities!
Mahvelous, darling, just mahvelous! Should that leave any doubt, Daphne and I agree with you.
I doubt there are any valid arguments against different types of marriages because the modern fact of divorce means that marriage is really only meaningful to the people in it. The roles of men and women have evolved such that marriage is much more of a choice than it was even 20 years ago – particularly for women.
Having said that, polygamy really doesn’t have much to recommend it. And it certainly wouldn’t catch on with young people today.
Thank you for a lovely, non-judgemental of anything else, take down of those stupid arguments. I especially like how you took on power imbalance within marriage.
PeterC
I would hazard the opinion that if a fella (lets call him Bob) had a wife (lets call her Betty) and decided he wanted another wife that he would have to talk it over with Betty, and Betty, being a free person would have decide if she wanted to allow another wife into the current arrangement — and if she didn’t, well, Bob would have a decision to make wouldn’t he?
Rant Alert:
And if Betty is so repressed and hung-up that she doesn’t understand Bob’s needs, Betty can go a lawyer (let’s call him Ed) who will try to take Bob for all he’s worth and she can also spend years with a therapist (let’s call her Margaret) to deal with her overwhelming grief, depression and senses of loss and betrayal at having been so foolish to invest so much materially and emotionally in a life with Bob. The kids will be caught in a terrifying, scarring custody dispute and thrown into the arms of a psychological assessor (let’s call him Mark) and the whole mess will, after several rancorous, frightening years, be thrown to a judge (let’s call her Jennifer) who, after hearing days of painful accusations and recriminations that put every last detail of their private lives under a public spotlight, will preside over their mutual impoverishment and deliver sanctimonious homilies about how they both should meet over flavoured coffee once a week and cooperate for the sake of the kids and move on with their lives.
We’re all libertarians now, aren’t we? SL, I may be a traditionalist, but this sort of stuff gets me in touch with my inner marxist. The only people who actually tend to behave with the cool, non-vindictive rational self-interest in your model are couples of means with roughly complementary professional careers with no children or grown children, and even then many fall far short of your ideal. For those lower down the ladder we’re talking serious, objectively-predictable material and emotional disaster. Yet on blog after blog, both left and right, I see the mythical, perfectly-informed libertarian hero coolly deciding what is best for him/her and making “rational” choices ( I mean, is there any other kind worth talking about?) in their best interests, which of course only they can know and which we can assume on faith take full account of what is best for their children. Oh, and wisely settling all these things in advance when they are star-struck, naive young lovers by soberly playing “Let’s Play Divorce” to work out all the perms and cons of their futures through a detailed co-hab agreement. Libertarians do so love their contracts, which seem to play a key role in the project to build a happy world composed of unhappy people.
sooey is right that no-fault divorce makes a principled opposition to relaxing marital laws logically impossible, but there is more, starting with the fact that all these fun, creative arrangements are perfectly lawful outside of marriage. Then there is also the fact that, through a combination of a rigid atomistic mindset and popular psychobabble, we can’t put two sentences together about any curve life throws us without wanking on at length about our precious freedom. We are more and more in denial about the nature and purpose and reality of marriage (hint: it ain’t about individual self-expression and freedom) and we now look to extremes and exceptions and failures to define the norm or deny there is one. It’s almost impossible to challenge this stuff without running into a wall of cant and rants about the state “imposing” lifestyles on people, even though there is far, far less legal and social imposition in 21st century Canada than anywhere else in any era.
If we can agee that the 19th century was the height of Victorian/ultramontane criminal and social enforcement of marriage and sexual morality (much stricter than in earlier times), we can trace the steady unravelling of these through numerous controversies followed by reform. The debates were similar in many respect. Reformers argued the case for compassion for folks with innocent personal pleasures of nobody else’s concern or caught in the grip of misery when the ideal/model failed them. Traditionalists warned of slippery slopes and consequences far more wide-ranging and pervasive than the reformers forsaw. The reformers indignantly denied this and insisted the vast majority of folks would stick with the norm (just like what everybody is now saying about polygamy), but I think a good case can be made that the traditionalists were, very generally, right more often than not. What they didn’t forsee is that nobody would give a damn anymore or be able to articulate a defence of what both they and the reformers ( including many leftists like Lasch) at least agreed was a good and important ideal.
Looks like I’m stuck waiting outside the principal’s office.
Good one SL…well said.
Imagine, Rick Warren, lying. Tell me it isn’t so!!!
“..Warren is telling lies..” – SL
“Imagine, Rick Warren, lying” – Mike
I think it is harsh, rude and crude to say this about Warren, you are calling him a “liar”. Please, the man has feelings.
I think “wilfully ignorant” is a more accurate and kinder description.
I no longer buy the line that kids are best off in a traditional family – mom and dad staying together through thick and thin – than in any other type of family.
It never did work sooey, those kids grew up in unhappy homes and developed their own issues that they in turn made their kids miserable with.