Polygamy? It's positively biblical

The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 5/18/08 | Martha Nussbaum

[ansel12]

What is wrong with polygamy?

Nineteenth-century Americans coupled it with slavery, calling both "the twin relics of barbarism." Today, it is used as a scare image to deter people from approving same-sex marriage, lest it lead down a slippery slope to that horror of horrors.

But what, exactly, is bad about it? Looking at the Texas sect at the Yearning for Zion ranch, so much in the news, will not tell us, because that sect allegedly forced underage girls into marriage. The case then becomes one of child sexual abuse, a crime hardly unknown in the monogamous family, although it gets less splashy publicity when it occurs there. Disturbing things are fun to contemplate when they can be pinned on distant "deviants," but threatening when they occur in families like one's own.

Mormon polygamy of the 19th century was not child abuse. Adult women married by consent, and typically lived in separate dwellings, each visited by the husband in turn. In addition to their theological rationale, Mormons defended the practice with social arguments - in particular that polygamous men would abandon wives or visit prostitutes less frequently. Instead of answering these arguments, however, Americans hastened to vilify Mormon society, publishing semi-pornographic novels that depicted polygamy as a hotbed of incest and child abuse.

Self-righteous Americans hastened to stigmatize Mormon marriage as "patriarchal," while participating contentedly and uncritically in an institution (monogamy) so patriarchal that, for many years, women lost all property rights upon marriage and could not even get a divorce on grounds of cruelty. In one respect, Mormon women were miles ahead of their sisters living in monogamy: They got the vote in the territory of Utah in 1871, 49 years before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment gave the vote to women all over the nation.

The hypocrisy of the monogamist majority reached its height in the denial (often heard in Congress) that there could be a serious religious argument for polygamy: hypocrisy, because the monogamists were denying their own heritage. Joseph Smith did not pull polygamy out of the air. He found it in the Old Testament, where many patriarchs are represented as polygamous. The very wording of the Ten Commandments, a chief pillar of American public morality then as now, presupposes polygamy. In Deuteronomy, the commandment not to "covet" is divided into two parts. The command not to covet the neighbor's spouse is addressed only to men, and the command not to covet the neighbor's house, field, etc., is addressed to all of the people of Israel. A standard Torah commentary used in my temple puts it this way: "Because men could have more than one wife, an unmarried woman could covet another's husband and even end up married to him."

Yet in 1878, the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold an anti-polygamy statute with these words, extraordinary from justices who were supposedly Bible readers: "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people." (The Jews were in fact an Asiatic people, but mainstream Christians usually forgot that, thinking of Jesus as a blond, blue-eyed child. So the justices did not see themselves as repudiating their biblical heritage, although this is precisely what they were doing.)

All this shows us a deplorable, if ubiquitous, human tendency: People who feel threatened by a new group demonize the group by imputing to it allegedly nefarious practices in the areas of gender and sexuality. Think of anti-Semitism in European history, Islamophobia, and - perhaps above all - fear and loathing of gays and lesbians.

But what should we say about polygamy itself, in our own time? What, if anything, is really wrong with it?

First, as traditionally practiced, polygamy is one-sided. Men have rights that women do not. Sex equality could, then, give the state a strong interest in disallowing religious claims to practice polygamy, as long as the one-sidedness is maintained.

What about, though, a practice of plural contractual marriages, by mutual consent, among adult, informed parties, all of whom have equal legal rights to contract such plural marriages? What interest might the state have that would justify refusing recognition of such marriages?

Well, children would have to be protected, so the law would have to make sure that issues such as maternity/paternity and child support were well articulated. Beyond this, a regime of polygamous unions would, no doubt, be difficult to administer - but not impossible, with good will and effort. It is already difficult to deal with sequential marriages and the responsibilities they entail.

The history of Mormon polygamy shows us that the state and public opinion are very bad judges of what adult men and women may reasonably do. When people are insecure, they cling to the "normal" and vilify those who choose to live differently. Someday down the road, we may recognize that adults are entitled, as John Stuart Mill saw long ago, to conduct such "experiments in living" as suit their own plans and projects, as long as they inflict no harm on nonconsenting parties. The state must protect vulnerable dependents: children and the elderly. It must also protect adult men and women against fraud and force. Beyond that, it should leave the field of intimate sexual choice to a regime of private contractual arrangement. If polygamy turns out to be a bad idea, it won't survive the test of free choice over time.

[Colofornian]

Yes, a heritage that also includes savagery, cannibalism, butchery of live animals, sexual debauchery and abuse of every description, murder, mass-murder, every conceivable transgression against the Noahide Laws, the Laws of Hammurabi, the law of Moses, and, as Marlon Brando once said, "what have you got?" If this scribblerette were any gamier, she'd be covered in maggots.

Well-framed. Several concubines--one a servant belonging to one of Jacob's wives, and two or more concubines part of David's royal households, slept with the adult sons of Jacob and David. So does that mean this was part of "our biblical heritage" those in the Judeo-Christian heritage are to ensure that all household help are to sleep with any adult household members?

Or since God told Hosea to marry Gomer, a prostitute who continued to ply her trade post-nuptials, that the Judeo-Christian "heritage" is to go & marry practicing prostitutes?

Or what about Lot's adult daughters to got him drunk to become impregnated? (Is that a biblical "heritage" worth carrying on?)

Folks, when somebody says something is "biblical"--like once-mentioned Mormon baptism of dead people--the importance of reading context is relevant...because some events & practices in the Bible are negative examples (like "don't make his or her mistake") while other references are merely illustrations not to be literally carried out (like hand-chopping off).

[ansel12]

WoW. No matter who you are, you need to take a deep breath.

[Zakeet]

violence is needed to maintain polygamous relationships.

Sometime do a study on the Mormon Doctrine of Blood Atonement.

The idea was that the death of Christ did not pay for certain sins -- rather, a person's blood needed to be spilled to complete the process. Additionally, this would prevent the individual from repeating his evil acts (thus enhancing his "progression to godhood"), and deter others from committing similar acts.

Blood atonement most commonly took the form of beatings and whippings, although an individual caught in indiscretion with someone not "sealed" to him in his harem would be "cut close and square." Persons deemed guilty of especially heinous acts would be "used up."

According to the historian, Hubert Bancroft, in his History of Utah, Mormon disputes over allocation of women (and reallocation to more "more worthy" males) led to six Mormon "civil wars," not to mention dozens (some say hundreds) of murders.

If interested, you can learn more about this terrible Mormon practice HERE, and can see how it continues to plague the Latter Day Saint movement to this day HERE.

[bvw]

She’s right.

[ansel12]

You dog, jump on this.

[normy]

This kind of garbage is laying the groundwork for legalizing polygamy. It will accomplish several leftist goals at once. An increase in radical “freedom” - always a liberal goal, so long as it fits with their cultural agenda. Further weakening and degradation of the traditional family as the basic unit of society - the family has always been the great enemy of statism. The next step in the liberal multicultural appeasement of muslims.A slippery slope indeed.

Jacob had a wife, he then married another wife, he then had sex with them and brought forth children. He later took a slave girl from each one of his wives and brought forth more children. In total he had 12 sons with 4 different women. Those sons became the twelve tribes of Israel.

For background, Abraham had a son by his wife's servant named Ishmael. He had another, the child of promise through his original wife. That childs name was Issac who then begat sons , one Esau one Jacob. Jacob became the father of the twelve tribes.

How bad was Jacobs family in your eyes and Gods I wonder.

I know of quite a few women who lived the feminist dream and are now in their mid to late 30's with no prospects. They are cool girls but the though of being unmarried for their whole life depressing.

Why is it your business if they were fine with living with a married man and he brought up children with these women?

I don't think the government should give tax breaks for these extra wives and would have to cap the child deduction at a certain number but other than that what is the problem?

[Colofornian]

Jacob, David and various other Biblical figures had more than one wife at the same time and some had many concubines as well. If Biblical precedent doesn't work for you than the code of moral law you abide by is yours alone so why subject everyone else to it.

Read post #59, plus consider the following:

Jacob:

We know that...
Labanite deception, and not God, was the author of Jacob's original polygamous wife. [Jacob had been told by his monogamous father, Isaac, to explicitly take "a wife" (not wives plural) in Gen. 28:2.]
...nothing but one big pregnancy rivalry and poor emotions reigned in Jacob's household (see Genesis 30).
...the two wives' servants were brought into the equation to simply fuel that baby competition, and that one of the servants was only referenced as a servant/concubine.
...the other servant/concubine, Bilhah, later slept with one of Jacob's adult sons, Reuben...hardly what would be done even in those times--to sleep with somebody who might be deemed a "stepmom."

David:

In David's era, wives and concubines were accumulated in royal households, often as part of peace pacts with other tribes. David simply inherited Saul's wives or concubines (not sure which is was) from Saul as part of the kingdom transfer. Beyond that, the OT mentions Michal's death (David's first wife), so that may have preceded Bathsheba's relationship. And the references to "wives" in 2 Sam. 12:8--we know they were concubines who were not sexually loyal to David by comparing 2 Sam. 14:21-22 to 2 Sam. 12:11. The Hebrew word for "wives" in 2 Sam. 12:8--ishshah--was used even more commonly as the basic word for woman and is even used for female animal mates boarding the ark in Genesis 7. (I don't think we would call them "wives").

[Fawn]

I’m all for it! I’ll take a husband to cook, a husband to clean.....and 3 more for various activities, a couple for shopping and trips. OH and another one to fix the vehicles and one to maintain the grounds.

[bvw]

Such a intellectual argument!

/ not

[goldstategop]

Liberals can't complain about polygamy. It has biblical sanction whereas same sex marriage isn't to be found anywhere in the Bible.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Fawn]

Trophy Wife=Horny men and smart women.

[bvw]

Many, indeed! You are incorrect to make polygamy to be a extremely rare exception under biblical code. One modern example: The Jews of Yemen practiced polygamy until they were returned to Israel in the 1950s and 60s. Second example: Samuel’s parents.

[cdcdawg]

just so everyone is clear, this piece is not in favor of polygamy. It’s purpose is to attack traditional morality, using polygamy as a weapon.

[puroresu]

Yes. Polygamy was accepted in many ancient lands because it allowed for more women and children to live in an upscale environment. Liberals are too dense to grasp this, but for much of human history there was no social safety net, not to mention no concepts of human liberty, individual rights, and so forth.

Polygamy meant that a wealthy man could have multiple wives. These wives and their offspring ate better, got better medical care, had better clothing, than the wife & kids of some poor subsistence farmer scratching out a living on a tiny plot of rocky land.

Of course, this left many lower scale men unable to find mates at all. But the excess males were put to work building pyramids, rowing ships, fighting wars, and so forth.

Polygamy clearly does not fit into a society where people on the whole are well off, and where concepts of human liberty are important. Ditto for slavery. Many people project backwards on these issues and react with horror that the Greeks owned slaves. But slavery basically served the function of a social program, providing the rich with an incentive to care for at least some of the poor. If you owned a slave, it was in your best interest to feed him and keep him healthy.

This is why neither slavery nor polygamy are outright condemned in the Bible. But neither are they mandated. As our societies grew wealthier and as our understanding of human liberty grew stronger, we discarded these institutions as inappropriate for our Western Civilization. The fact that liberals are now talking about bringing polygamy back shows they have no historical understanding whatsoever, and are merely trying to destroy us and make life easier for our sworn enemy Islam. They'd bring back slavery, too, if they had a chance.

[normy]

I am not trying to justify polygamy or tear it down but I am honest enough to know the twelve tribes were built by God and how it was done was never condemned by God since he ordained it.

I am not a polygamist or a Mormon and find the religion to be made up.

Condemnation from God doesn't seem to rest on many of Gods men in the Bible for common things we call sin. David was condemned once because he sent a man to die in battle so he could take his wife. God actually told David he would have given her to him if he would have asked.

The problem is Christians have gone from walking by faith in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus to going around trying to establish their own righteousness which is of the Law.

[ansel12]

Yikes! Get out much.

[puroresu]

BTW, I should have added that same-sex “marriage” is of no value whatsoever in any society, and is always destructive of the social order. This is why homosexual acts are thoroughly condemned in the Bible.

[dmw]

“Trophy Wife=Horny men and smart women.”

LOL! You got that right! : )

[najida]

Excellent post!

[lentulusgracchus]

As you showed in your post above, authoress Nussbaum appears to be a hitpiece writer whose stock in trade is Mau-Mauing the straights. I wouldn't be surprised to find out she's been leading Human [Gay] Rights Campaign workshops for seminar posters. The combination of effrontery and deceptiveness in service to the "movement" that Nussbaum has manifested in the past seems very familiar.

Sidney Blumenthal, "Sid the Squid", house serpent to Hillary Clinton and her goat-footed consort, does similar drive-by magazine articles attacking conservatives from time to time.