Why restrict to the Bible? Let's not forget Brigham Young, a U.S. citizen (and a leader in the Mormon church) had fifty-five wives.

This explains marriage according to the bible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

To be fair, the New Testmanent, which is followed by Christians and therefor most of western civilization, advocates one man for one woman. This has been the accepted norm for over a thousand years.

Yeah, I wouldn't use the argument presented -- no one is advocating the legalization of polygamy, for good reasons. Part of the problem in this whole discussion is not making a rash legal decision that would open the door to polyamory, the social harm of which can be easily demonstrated.

You know what you still don't see in there? Dudes marrying Dudes and Chicks marrying Chicks.

To be fair, the New Testmanent, which is followed by Christians and therefor most of western civilization, advocates one man for one woman. This has been the accepted norm for over a thousand years.

Well, Paul preferred no marriage at all: "better to marry than to burn" is hardly a rousing endorsement. Of course, the Shakers demonstrated the flaw in following Paul's line of reasoning on this issue too closely.

1. Every portrayal of polygamy in the Jewish Bible is negative - part of a concerted move to monogamy that was continued by the Rabbis. As others have noted, by the Christian era monogamy was the norm in Judea.

2. The law you quote from Exodus is a prime example of how Judaism began the liberation of women from being chattel - and moved to covenantal marriage that included communal property rights for the woman. This obviously encouraged monogamy.

3. You're just plain lying about levirate marriage: there most definitely was an exclusion for previously married men, and other Biblical references indicate it quickly fell into disuse (such as Ruth 4:6) ...again, this law originated as a protection for women - in this case a woman with little economic equality in an agrarian society, and few marriage prospects due to her history of childlessness.

But hey - at least you glanced at some verses on Passover.

Happy Holiday, mameleh.

@ Cousin Dave "no one is advocating the legalization of polygamy, for good reasons. "

I keep hearing that in the news but my personal expeience, is the opposite. I have known way more poly people (mainly back in SCA days) than gay people who wanted to be married. Frankly the only gay couple I currently know, one has told me he secretly hopes it never passes because he doesn't want to ever be married. but his partner does, and he has been hiding behind it being illegal.

Aside for divorce lawyers, and the way it had been practiced, (which is not that different from the way other marriages were practiced at that time) what is the easily demonstrated harm?

There is no reason not to allow any two consenting adults to marry. None.

I'm still not sure what societal harm comes from polygamy, but I'm also not sure that would be compelling enough reason to keep it illegal.

There are plenty of legal activities undertaken every day in America that cause demonstrable societal harm, but I don't see picketers against the sale of alcohol and tobacco, for instance.

So all those laws against polygamy will be struck down?

To be fair, the New Testmanent, which is followed by Christians and therefor most of western civilization, advocates one man for one woman. This has been the accepted norm for over a thousand years. - NicoleK

No it doesnt, Paul advocated celibacy, and Jesus advocated men leaving their wives to come with him down to the shore and go crusing for even more men

Also the first marriage in the bible was between two twin brothers one of whom got a sex change from god

"I'm still not sure what societal harm comes from polygamy...."

Lost Boys. In order for polygamy to work, most of the men have to be eliminated from society.

"Lost Boys. In order for polygamy to work, most of the men have to be eliminated from society."

Lot of people don't much care about that anymore , Cousin Dave. Some might consider it a benefit.

"To be fair, the New Testmanent, which is followed by Christians and therefor most of western civilization, advocates one man for one woman." NicoleK

as luj pointed out... it actually doesn't, as much as it's leaders eventually thought it was a bad thing. Even Luther couldn't find much in the Bible to prohibit it, he just thought it wasn't a good idea.

Go read the wiki article that Amy linked and you will get a whole boatload of info on what the reformation did in this regard.

OTOH, Amy, why list an article like this? This is MUCH MORE ABOUT how the Jews saw polygamy.

Christians didn't find a scriptural reason to prohibit it, but obviously a philosophical one.

Why claim the Christians allowed it in a period when Christanity DIDN'T EXIST?

seems like you are just stirring the pot to me.

"Lost Boys. In order for polygamy to work, most of the men have to be eliminated from society."

But that's assuming all the poly relationships are polygynous (on husband, multiple wives). There are "couples" who are polyandrous (one wife, multiple husbands). And arrangements that include multiples of both gender.

Now, I don't know the ratios or how that would skew the pool of mates for young men, but I do think there would be a big difference between a culture that only embraced polygyny as opposed to one that was accepting of any sort of polyamory.

"I'm still not sure what societal harm comes from polygamy"
Somewhere I read quote about how guys can't dress slutty, we can only dress douchey. Trying to get laid seems to bring out the D-bag in even decent guys. So it seems like making it ever harder to get laid will at very least mean more douchebags.

Lost boys assume 2 things :
1. all or most plurals will be one man many wives.
2. There will be a statistically significant number of plurals at all, so that single females are a rareity. Culturally in the US, it won't happen. In individual communities maybe, but not in the US in general.
I see neither happening.Just as homosexuality is a rareity in society, so is people who want or would get plurality.

What I do see is potential chaos in child support/divorce. I want to divorce him but not her.
Or the basic question, Do all parties have to agree before a new on is added.

...if priests and nuns don't do the nasty, they leave no heirs, which means everything they have goes to The Church.

They take a vow of poverty along with a vow of celibacy. So, everything they have is already the Church's.

"The first polygamist mentioned in the Bible is Lamech, whose two wives were Adah and Zillah.."

There's a town of Zillah in central washiongton named Zillah! Now I know where that name came from! A church there, a Church of God congregation, went and named itslef The Chirch of God, Zillah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zillah,_Washington

"To be fair, the New Testmanent, which is followed by Christians and therefor most of western civilization, advocates one man for one woman. "

I'd like to see chapter and verse on this. Jesus mentions marriage twice - once to restrict divorce to actual cases of adultery and once to point out that there was no marriage in the Kingdom of Heaven. There are other places where He does refer to specific marriages - the women at the well for instnace - but not on marraige as an institution. Paul may say something I am forgetting, but that quotation about marraige being accpetable asn alternative to fornaication is prety representative.

The church favored monastic life over married life for centuries and centuries, considering it more spiritual.

Christians didn't find a scriptural reason to prohibit it, but obviously a philosophical one."

More like a cultural one. Early Christians worked really hard to be accepted as normal, respectable people in a world dominated by Greek and Roman cultural norms, which meant a world where Middle Eastern cultural norms were despised - and that included polygamy. And in any case, as Ben David has already pointed out, early Christians, who were overwhelmingly of Jewish origin, already didn't practice polygamy.

Roman elite men had mistresses rather than harems or else a series of monogamous marriages (how very modern).

Ben David:

1. Every portrayal of polygamy in the Jewish Bible is negative -

Bullshit.

Nothing negative was said, for instance, about Moses' two wives. Aaron and Miriam had a problem with it, but judging by the Almighty's response, He didn't.

NicoleK:

To be fair, the New Testmanent, which is followed by Christians and therefor most of western civilization, advocates one man for one woman. This has been the accepted norm for over a thousand years.

Not true. Paul said that those who wish to be bishops, we should be "the husband of one wife." But for us laymen who want to get laid, man, we can have multiple wives.

There is no reason not to allow any two consenting adults to marry. None.

I would say in cases of incest there is a reason. But outside of that, I agree completely.

My understanding of the old testament is that marriage was about the exchange of property from parents to husband. If a woman was raped the property was therefore deemed damaged and the rapist either had to buy it (marriage) or pay damages to the family.

Through wars only undamaged property of the enemy was marriage material, the rest had to be destroyed.

Polygamy had no negative connotation as Patrick points out, why would it anyways?

As for male gayness, I think one of the reasons it was forbidden was because men were essentially lowering themselves to a woman and this was an insult to the male gender.

One last thing I've heard there is a ton of male homosexuality going on in ultra orthodox settings, for the same reason it's pretty common in Saudi Arabia. Men don't know how to deal with women.

The Romans also had nothing against homosexual sex. In fact if you were the dominant party, it increased your stature as a "man" It was only a problem, if you were the receiver, because blowing another man, or allowing him to mount you was slave behavior and beneath a real man's dignity.

Joke's were made about Julius Caesar's relationship with a powerful mentor, not because it was assumed to be sexual, but because, if it was, Caesar was assumed to be the submissive party.

Of course, the Romans practiced traditional marriage, but since marriage was not about sex,(and it never was until the the Brothers Grimm starting writing fantasy chick lit) it was about property, and inheritance.

Fidelity was optional for most of the upper classes, and only women were expected to behave with any kind of decorum.

What I find ironic, is all the gay couples chasing marriage for the government benefits, when the tax benefits are mostly imaginary, and the the health insurance, and social security benefits are being legislated, spent and inflated away before our eyes.
Everything will be gone, or means tested, before anyone currently under 55 ever sees a dime of return.

Patrick:

Nothing negative was said, for instance, about Moses' two wives.

Because he didn't have more than one wife.
The "two wives" is a deliberate modern misreading trying to run down the Bible.

Moses sends his wife and children back to Midian when he returns to his brethren in Egypt - and his father-in-law reunites the family after the Exodus (Exodus 18).

The traditional interpretation of Aaron and Miriam's gossip is that they publicly criticized Moses for ignoring his (beautiful, dark-skinned) wife and remaining celibate due to his frequent prophetic encounters. They didn't want monastic influences in Judaism, which holds family life as an ideal.

This also explains God's response, which otherwise makes no sense.

The explicit reference to Zipporah's African complexion clinches the fact that it's the same wife.

Nice try though.

Why are you arguing about the Bible at all?

Marriage does not depend on it.

The Bible is not the point.

The State, as the modern embodiment of the Tribe, has a vested interest in the identity and rights of succession of its inhabitants. It does not matter that this tribe calls itself The United States of America.

That is WHY you do not have to be married in a Christian church, by a Christian official or under any other stipulation of the Christians.

Get a license, to register your affiliation with another person with the State, have one of a dozen different officials recognize and sign your intent, bingo! Married. It is custom, supported by derivative laws all based on assumption, that set the one-man/one-woman idea in place. This is why DOMA is being debated.

This argument is about power and money. One group sees its influence wane, so much so that it attacks a measure than can clear probate courts across the country. One group seeks "benefits" of marriage, which can be seen in the State's response to unplanned events for which a couple has no contingency.

And Americans - especially Christians, are totally fascinated with sex. Government can do anything they want so long as there's something scantily clad on a magazine cover somewhere. It's that whole "forbiddin fruit" thing.

Hey, Christians! If you want to do the most amount of good is the least amount of time, go after single motherhood. I don't think you will, because I've seen a lot of noise about researching the Ark, but one local church put more money into building Six Flags Over Jesus than anyone has put into finding a boat.

They are pretending.

"My understanding of the old testament is that marriage was about the exchange of property from parents to husband. If a woman was raped the property was therefore deemed damaged and the rapist either had to buy it (marriage) or pay damages to the family."

Women were not property of the family, they were wards of the family. they were basically defenseless, had to be fed and housed by men's efforts - they were wards - and furthermore, they were liabilities, because their conduct reflected on the family.

If they were property they could be sold. There's n record of anything like that, not even bride prices. Dowries are in fact the opposite of bride prices, in fact they are husband prices.

> This argument is about power and money.

This argument is about a large percentage of society deciding that marriage isn't about stability of a broader culture or about the best way to guarantee intimate support for the greatest number of people across a lifetime. The large percentage of people have decided that marriage is mostly about having Daddy Government WhiteGuy at the Courthouse kiss you on the forehead in a loving affirmation of your own precious Disney Very Specialness.

Divorce culture made this happen, indisputably. People saw a few generations of children's hearts ripped apart in family court and decided that marriage wasn't about anything more than the sentimental claptrap from the ceremonies.

And by that measure, there's certainly no reason to exclude pairs of gays.

Some of us have expected, AND RECEIVED, more than that from marriage... If not always from our own.

Cousin Dave: Part of the problem in this whole discussion is not making a rash legal decision that would open the door to polyamory, the social harm of which can be easily demonstrated.

I'm not as certain as you are that polyamory is socially harmful but let's go with your assertion.

Do you think that, even if it's socially harmful, it's likely beneficial to the people who engage in it?

Jim: There's a town of Zillah in central washiongton...

Home of El Ranchito!

Agree, Crid.

And I find it amazing that so-called "conservative" radio people will actually call on tradition and "the will of the majority" when discussing the rights of individuals. Gee. When it's convenient, i.e., what you believe, Mr. Commentator, rights can go take a flying leap in favor of majority opinion.

"Hey, numbskull," I wish to say, "point at an American, born and raised here, and tell me that you wish to tell her what her rights are."

Like Ben-David, they haven't thought at all, just emoted, and they have no wish to think, either. That gender is not binary has not only never occurred to them, it's so terrifying it must be denied at every possibility.

I've a co-worker who actually said, "I don't have to do research to have an opinion." He was mystified when I asked if he heard what he said.

Crid, is entirely correct for all the right reasons.

Divorce culture, and no fault divorce trivialized marriage and erased its main purpose, which is to provide stable families, and extended families, an organizational structure to pass on traditional cultural values of long term commitment, and loyalty to children, who will then value these traditions and culture and raise their own children the same way.

The financial freedom to do "whatever feels good" is going to come to a screeching halt in this country, in the next ten years , and anyone who enters a "marriage" with someone because of their desire for social attention and approval is likely to find themselves alone with no means to "buy" the kind of loyalty, and dedication, that you need to stay alive (and keep your children alive) when the shit hits the fan.

In short, get "married" for a trivial reason, like insurance, or the party, or your friends think you are a cute couple, expect to be divorced when the fun ends, the friends find another cause, or the policy goes away.

Any culture, that focuses on anything other than producing, educating, and providing for the next generation, goes into the dustbin of history. Some faster, some slower, but always gone, like the Shakers.

There will always be free riders, people who either can't or won't produce or nurture the next generation, and a wealthy society can tolerate quite a few of those people, but for that lifestyle, to become admired, or the norm, is a cultural death sentence.

Gay marriage is only part of the problem, but the fact that the focus in the US seems to be on these trivial "rights" for people who mostly have no children, is telling.

Amy- I'll give you $5 to change "larger culture" at March 29, 2013 1:16 PM to "broader culture".

Style thing. Word frequency.

"I'm not as certain as you are that polyamory is socially harmful but let's go with your assertion."

What motivation is there for the person with many partners to stick with one of them in dire need?

What motivation is there for a group of sexual partners to see to the welfare of one of them in dire need - and how does that work in the face of their ability to rationalize that it's someone else's job?

Radwaste:

Like Ben-David, they haven't thought at all, just emoted

I was just insuring that any Bible-thumping gets done by people who've actually read it :)

My own, non-Bible-thumping take starts with the existing secular definition of marriage that requires sexual fidelity - therefore disqualifying the compulsively promiscuous hookup behavior that is the norm even among "committed" gay couples.

The Swedes and Dutch have found this out already - with Health Department studies showing that "married" gay couples have upwards of 20 partners a year.

Yes, this IS a stealth redefinition of (secular) marriage.

No, the dysfunctional behavior doesn't change magically after a piece of paper is issued.

See? No Bible-thumping.

Religious Jews have a very old continuing culture, which has been very successful at raising intelligent competent people, having children, and passing on cultural traditions and values.

I think we should listen to them when they tell us what they value, and why. Not necessarily because we share their beliefs, but because they have a culture, that has endured, for several thousand years.

History has very effectively eliminated cultures that lose their values, no matter how backward the urban elite considers religious beliefs.

I went to a predominantly Jewish School once, and learned some things, I didn't realize I had learned until years later.

Religion may seem useless, but it serves a very valuable social purpose.

Did you know that Russia has returned to the Orthodox church with a vengeance? (I guess 3 generations of Marxism wasn't enough to kill the Russian culture and values, the church reflects.)

Islam is winning the demographic war, and the enlightened West is losing it.
Any culture that fails to show up for the future has lost.

Do you know what you get when you cross a Unitarian Universalist with a Jehovah's Witness?

A person who knocks on your door, and has nothing to say.

What motivation is there for the person with many partners to stick with one of them in dire need?

What motivation is there for a group of sexual partners to see to the welfare of one of them in dire need - and how does that work in the face of their ability to rationalize that it's someone else's job?

I dont know, what is the motivation for a simple couple to do the same, and why would it be inherently invalid as a reason for polys?

Let the sputtering begin!

Goddess:

"Marriage Has Always Been Between One Man And One Woman"
Except when it wasn't. Like all those times in the Bible

.... aaaaaand when the cherry-picking misquotes don't work, it's back to:

your fundamentalist religious beliefs and your need to confirm that your evidence-free belief in god and all the trimmings are rational and right.

So which one is it?
Is the Jewish Bible one big polygamous orgy - or is Judaism intent on promoting repression?

(And where do those *repressed* Orthodox get all those babies from....)

The truth has been discarded - so it's back to blah-blah generic label slapping, hoping something will stick.

In fact I discussed how monogamy liberated women.

And you yourself have frequently posted about how hookup culture is doing the opposite.

Judeo-Christian monogamy (and other restrictions on exploitative sexual behavior) flow from a view of humanity that made the West an increasingly free and equal place.

You should be so lucky to be raised under such "fundamentalism". In fact, you are lucky to have been born in the free Judeo-Christian West.

As on the threads dealing with your favorite European neo-pagan experiments (prostitution, euthanasia, infanticide, pederasty) - you slap labels on Judaism without ever articulating a secular moral code that leads to the same freedom and equality, and is strong enough to withstand human selfishness, stupidity, vanity, and treachery.

You kick the Jews on whose coattails you still are coasting.

Goddess in fantasy-land:

your fundamentalist religious beliefs and your need to confirm that your evidence-free belief in god and all the trimmings are rational and right.

IN FACT, I laid out a completely secular reason for rejecting the sham of gay "marriage". Based on actual observed facts, and widely held, not at all "fundamentalist" social norms.

The vast majority of gay "couplings" are cracked open by the compulsive promiscuity that is the norm in the gay community.

The Dutch and Swedes found this out - numerous studies and papers confirm that "married" gay couples have multiple partners, and remain a major vector for AIDS transmission.

I've also posted the sources, several times on this blog alone.

Google "Xiridou gay marriage" for the ground-breaking Dutch study.

Google "McWhirter Mattison" for the first agenda-driven research into "gay couples" that revealed the pervasive promiscuity - and suggested that "emotional fidelity" could withstand dozens of sex partners a year.

The Goddess sputters

there are a good many heterosexuals who behave horribly vis a vis their wedding vows and we don't boot them from being married.

In fact, we do - infidelity has (until now!) been a valid reason for divorce.

Yes, heteros also break their vows.
But it's not the norm as it is in gay couplings.
And not nearly the same (debasing) volume of partners.

And yes - society DOES have valid interest in "private" sexual behaviors that can be potentially exploitative or degrading to society - so spare me the same naive libertarian "nobody's business" line you tried in the Dutch prostitution threads...

Fact, fact, fact.
Basing myself on widely held notions of what a healthy emotional/sexual life looks like, not particularly "fundamentalist" - some of which you have yourself articulated in describing how bad hookup/divorce culture has been for men and women.

causticf has a point. It's very hard to find examples of marriage that are not pairings of men with women. Even in polygamous marriages, the women are married to the men, and not to each other, and vice-versa. If the man with multiple wives dies, the wives are no longer married. Likewise in the case of the woman with multiple husbands dies.

I've asked for specific examples of cultures that consider same-sex marriages "normal", and I've yet to hear of any. (Some people cite the case of "twin spirit" individuals in Native American cultures, but these are examples of individuals who undergo a legal sex change under the laws of their culture.)

As to the question of what's wrong with polygamy, I'm tempted to say nothing at all. To be sure, every man who marries more than one woman is "shorting" some other man a woman he might otherwise marry. However, a woman who marries more than one man is doing the same to other women.

I have a feeling, though, that polygynous and polyandrous marriages tend to devalue women. (Not men? I haven't seen evidence of it.) When one man marries many women, he has a collection or a harem.

Is polyandry the flip side of this? Does that empower women?

Not really. Polyandry seems to show up in cultures where poverty is rampant, and men may not have the resources to support a wife. So several men marry one woman and pool their resources. When one man gets rich enough to support his own wife, he leaves the polyandrous marriage and finds a woman of his very own.
When many men marry one woman, it seems to act more like a time-share.