My Five Wives: The Push to Normalize, and then Legalize, Polygamy is On

Divorce

First it was Big Love and its top tier talent. Then it was Sister Wives.

Now, we’ve got My Five Wives from TLC.

The commentary that I’ve seen on this show so far has been unalloyed promotion of polygamy. There are no complicating questions or even allusions to hint at a darker side of the misogynist practice of polygamy. It’s sell job, flat out.

I also haven’t heard a nay-saying word from the sisters in the feminist tier. All is silent on the feminist front as the mainlining of uncritical acceptance of polygamy to the American public moves forward.

The polygamous My Five Wives is being hyped as “about love” and “freedom” and, well, as normal and attractive as apple pie and Fourth of July fireworks.

We are treated to beautiful white bread kids with million dollar smiles, lisping “we just love one another,” while the American-Girl-grown-up wives assure us that this is just another alternative lifestyle. There is, if they are to believed, no misogyny roiling beneath this unctuous elevation of polygamy to a new norm, and certainly no sick or destructive agenda.

Remember a few eye blinks of time ago when anyone who said that redefining marriage to allow two men or two women to “marry” would lead to polygamy was called an idiot/bigot/homophobe/hater?

Now, it seems that anyone who dares to say a critical word about polygamy is an idiot/bigot/hater. I’ve got the insults in my delete file to prove it.

Meanwhile, those earlier idiot/bigot/homophobe/haters who said that redefining marriage would open the gates to who knows what — including polygamy — are looking more and more like prophets.

The legalization of gay marriage is still moving and the sell job on polygamy is already well along.

You do remember how this works, don’t you?

These entertainment series are a softening-up process that the media pus the American people through. This process makes the case that polygamists lead Ozzie and Harriet lives, and objections to polygamy are all in the minds and mouths of narrow-minded and backward-looking Christian zealots. There is, of course, no corresponding “case” from the other side of the question allowed. It all goes one way, and it the drum beat in favor of gay marriage and now polygamy never stops or slows.

The arguments that the “stars” of My Five Wives make in interviews fit the template we’ve had used on us before.

We’re “normal times five” they tell us. The man and his harem are not looking backwards to some old-school polygamy. Not at all. They consider themselves “progressive” and “independent.” Rather than being part of an evil right-wing religious sect, they are “spiritually driven.”

“We want to dispel all those, you know, myths about rumors about polygamist families,” they tell us. “We’re healthy, our kids are amazing, you know, and good citizens, good students, and you know, we’ve got a good family.”

Or, as it says on the TLC website, “love keeps us grounded.”

They are, in short, Ozzie and Harriet on steroids; the next new normal in cultural implosion of post Christian America.

From the Mail Online:

Just because he has five wives and 24 children doesn’t mean Brady Williams isn’t normal.


Or at least that’s the message he wanted America to receive during an interview with the Huffington Post in which the polygamist stars of TLC’s ‘My Five Wives’ spoke candidly about hopes to dispel the myths surrounding their unconventional lifestyle. 


‘All of America’s having sex,’ Brady said. ‘And it’s no big deal to just answer it and to just say ‘Duh no we’re not perverted, we’re not twisted, we’re just normal.’

‘Normal times five.’

The family, which belongs to no church, considers itself progressive and independent.

Williams and his wives slowly withdrew from the fundamentalist Mormon church in their rural community outside of Salt Lake City during the mid-2000s after re-evaluating their core beliefs.

The family no longer teaches the tenets of fundamental Mormonism to their children at home, opting instead to take from other teachings such as Buddhism to instill good, morale values in their two dozen children, who range in age from 2-20.

Brady now calls the family ‘spiritually driven.’

‘We want to dispel all those, you know, myths and rumors about polygamist families,’ Robyn said.

‘The ones that have been in the spotlight, there’s things like abuse and stuff that go on but not every polygamist family is like that. We wanted to show that we’re normal, we’re healthy, our kids are amazing, you know, and good citizens, good students, and you know we’ve got a good family.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572599/Were-normal-times-five-Polygamist-stars-My-Five-Wives-ask-people-not-judge-unconventional-family.html#ixzz2vDmjBraz
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    In a country with no right and no wrong, the only Christian position left is indiscriminate charity. Until they take that away too.

    • Bob Marley

      Funny, I thought that was what Jesus was about

      • Rob B.

        Christ didn’t say “Go, you haven’t really sinned.” to the woman at the well, but “Go and sin no more.” Our Lord recognized sin for what it was, which is hardly “indiscriminate charity.” Those who say otherwise are trying to mold Christ in their own image when they should be molding themselves in His.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    I don’t know if it will happen in my life time but I expect at some point that polygamy will be legalized. It’s actually more logical than same sex marriage, and unlike SSM there is historical precedent for it. If one agrees with the supposition that whatever two adults do in a free agreement is legit, than how can one stop polygamy? This country has become a mess. Western civilization is in tatters. All I can hope for is to try to slow this garbage down so I can exit this world with a good conscience. Notice though, there is never any “family” where a wife has several husbands. The indignity is always on the woman’s part.

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      As a matter of fact you are wrong. Such arrangements are known, for instance in the mountain regions of northern India, and if you read Rudyard Kipling’s Kim you will come across the character of the Woman of Shamlegh, a minor queen in the Himalayas who treats her several husbands like servants. Kipling was Indian and knew the country of his birth very well. They are, however, far less frequent than the opposite. Another important distinction is that between civilizations, such as ancient Egypt, where polygamy was admitted but only really practised by the king or by a few very high status individuals, and where therefore the ruinous effects I outlined upthread were limited, and cultures like Islam where it was presented as a universal ideal and left to work its poisonous influence from the top to the bottom of society. Now if polygamy is ever allowed in the USA, or for that matter in any other Western country, it will be in the latter form unleashing appalling competition for women between rich older men and the rest of society. It is not commonly appreciated that polygamy effectively existed in the USA, not only in distant Mormon Utah, but, for much longer and with much deadlier effect, across the slaveholding south. One of the effect of slavery was to place every one of the few hundred thousand slaveholders in effective charge of a potential harem, with the results to be expected; and just by coincidence, and even though the competition for women was less direct and damaging than in Islam, we find in slaveholding southern society all the poisonous effects of polygamy that anthropologists observed in Islam and elsewhere: the extreme class distinction between landed slaveholding gentry and poor whites, the violent and ugly mood of unfocussed resentment that expressed itself first in lynchings and mobbings, then in Bleeding Kansas, and finally in four years of hopeless and incredibly bloody struggle. Listen to a contemporary Southern witness, the diarist Mary Boykin Chesnut, draw out the underlying sexual perversity in the daily realities of slavery:

      I wonder if it be a sin to think slavery a curse to any land. Sumner said not one word of this hated institution which is not true. Men & women are punished when their masters & mistresses are brutes & not when they do wrong-& then we live surrounded by prostitutes. An abandoned woman is sent out of any decent house elsewhere. Who thinks any worse of a Negro or Mulatto woman for being a thing we can’t name. God forgive us, but ours is a monstrous system & wrong & iniquity. Perhaps the rest of the world is as bad. This is only what I see: like the patriarchs of old, our men live all in one house with their wives & their concubines, & the Mulattos one sees in every family exactly resemble the white children-& every lady tells you who is the father of all the Mulatto children in everybody’s household, but those in her own, she seems to think drop from the clouds or pretends so to think-. Good women we have, but they talk of nastiness tho they never do wrong; they talk day & night of -. My disgust sometimes is boiling over-but they are, I believe, in conduct the purest women God ever made. Thank God for my countrywomen-alas for the men! No worse than men everywhere, but the lower their mistresses, the more degraded they must be.

      My mother-in-law told me when I was first married not to sendmy female servants in the street on errands. They were there tempted, led astray-& then she said placidly, “So they told me when I came here-& I was very particular, but you see with what result.” Mr. Harris said it was so patriarchal. So it is-flocks & herds & slaves-& wife Leah does not suffice. Rachel must be added, if not married & all the time they seem to think themselves patterns-models of husbands & fathers.

      Is this a coincidence? The Hell it is. Polygamy is a sewer which pours poison at every level of society, and it must be resisted.

      • Bill S

        Fabio,

        I’m really impressed with what you know. Even though I advocated gay marriage, I am against polygamy. But the court decisions that strike down laws that defined marriage as between one man and one woman, or in some cases just a man and a woman (assuming one of each) might be very well opening the door for polygamy. If same-sex couples are entitled to the pursuit of happiness, I don’t see where polygamists would not be entitled to that same pursuit. Mind you, that doesn’t change gays rights to marriage, but it does set a precedent.

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          If you want to know what shape polygamy would take in a modern plutocratic society, I invite you to study the last ten years of Silvio Berlusconi’s life. Italy has a certain habit of foreshadowing evils that are to embrace the whole West: we have, alas, put our names on both political criminality (Fascism) and modern criminal organization (mafia), and if we have not patented Communism, we have at least improved it, mainly through the unfortunate genius of Gramsci. Now Berlusconi shows the whole world the future of the family… if you want to call it that. Here is one part of the story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039202/Silvio-Berlusconis-women-Bunga-bunga-escort-fixer-spent-80k-euros-9-months.html . The difference is that since Italy does not yet dream of having polygamy, these women were effectively prostitutes, and as such had to be paid for their services and could walk out of Mr.Berlusconi’s harem if they felt like it. The first plutocrat of Mr.Berlusconi’s kind who can claim to have “married” his women, whatever that means, will have a permanent claim on them, probably enforced by that all-purpose deadly weapon of the modern world – a corporate lawyer. Who will probably earn well enough to have his own harem.

          • Bill S

            Fabio,

            When I argue for same sex marriage, there is no way to do so without conceding the right to marry to, say, a threesome. That does not change my support for gay marriage. But I admit that it opens the door for polygamy and other non traditional marriages. Do you agree?

        • AmyI

          Hi Bill! Had to send out an apology. I had made an assumption on a post an hour ago, replying to one of yours, where while I was praising your willingness to be fair and unbiased about gay marriage, I assumed that PRIVATELY you were against it. Thinking back on exactly why I would make that leap with absolutely NO information from you, I think that I did so because of your willing and thoughtful, steady participation here. Wow, just goes to show that we all need to be humble. That our thoughts ans assumptions are sometimes dead wrong. Lord knows I needed that particular lesson. Might help me with an issue I’m going through with my 22 year old daughter. Remember when you thought you knew absolutely EVERYTHING and everyone else was just plain stupid or wrong? Not tone defensive, but a few of our compatriots here appear to be stuck in that emotional stage. And I know what that feels like, because it is really hard to see someone else’s point of view. As my kids grow, and my husband ages(he’s 18 years older than I, so I need to learn to be sensitive to the issues of a 65 yearl who love madly and is a blessing, but the age difference makes me have to stop and think. Otherwise I am selfish and need forgiveness. Forgive the digression).

          But my apologies again for not asking you and posting things that made assumptions. Another lesson learned!

      • donttouchme

        A lot of rich guys do this already, just in succession rather than simultaneously. And didn’t Liz Taylor have like 8 husbands or something?

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          Yes, and that’s bad enough. But imagine it turned into law, with rich guys having their own harems and the power of law behind them.

          • donttouchme

            I think we’re more likely to see the greater emergence of unmarried harems, which is something we definitely have today. And not only rich guys pull that off, but some men have multiple girlfriend-type girls who support themselves and are cycled through, “friends with benefits” kind of thing, in the common parlance.

        • AmyI

          Not simultaneously!!! You guys make absolutely NO sense!!!

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        I love Kipling’s novel Kim. I don’t remember the character, but I’ll look it up. Thanks.

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          Chapters 13 and 14, when Kim accompanies the lama to the mountains and tangles with a couple of Russian and French agents.

          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            I do remember when he’s in the mountains and now I do remember the woman. Perhaps the multiple husbands went over my head. Thanks.

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      I recall reading about an island in Polynesia (I think) that practiced polyandry. Because there was so little land, all the brothers in a family would marry one woman and work the family’s land together. That woman’s sons would then all marry one woman and work the land, and on and on. It was a way to keep the land in the family without causing disputes, I guess.

      • donttouchme

        Right. This occurs in rural China sometimes.

        • hamiltonr

          Also in India. From what I’ve read, it’s a result of the practice of killing unborn (and born) baby girls, which is also a misogynist practice. Also from what I’ve read it’s quite terrible for the women.

          • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

            Actually, I would say it is because of the influence of the national epic, the Mahabharata, whose protagonists are five brothers married to one woman. The reason for this is rooted in ancient mythology (the brothers are the incarnations of various gods, and their wife is Soveregnty incarnate – the message being that Sovereignty belongs not to individuals but to families), but these things have a way of imposing themselves on reality. In ancient Persia, the Zoroastrians started with the idea that God (Ahura Mazda) married his “daughter”, the angel of the Earth (Spenta Armaiti) and ended up with endorsing incestuous marriage as positive and indeed sacred, a destroyer of demons. Needless to say, it was never popular, and vanished when Zoroastrianism was reduced to a minority religion; the modern Zoroastrians (the Parsis) refuse to believe their ancestors taught it, in spite of the evidence of their own texts. It is a fairly similar fact that, in spite of the immense and fundamental role of the Mahabharata in Indian culture, only a few marginal communities have imitated its central relationship in real life.

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          As a legalized marriage?

          • donttouchme

            Yeah I think so. It’s pretty remote from the centers of power though according to what my friend told me who lived there.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        Boy if that’s true do I find that repulsive.

      • george-a

        Doesn’t that have unfortunate genetic effects after a few generations?

        • Rebecca Fuentes

          The woman would be unrelated to the men she’s marrying, so I wouldn’t think so. I suppose that the whole gene pool of the island might have been very small. I wish I still had my notes from cultural anthropology so I could look up where it was.

    • donttouchme

      Polyandry does exist. Usually it’s a matter of, for example, two extremely poor brothers who can only afford one wife, which they share.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        That’s not the same as a legalized marriage. Where is an example of that?

    • Rob B.

      Remember, Manny, the words of Saint Thomas More: “The times are never so bad that a good man cannot live in them.” Keep calm and pray often! :)

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        Thank you. I will. But it’s so bad I’m disheartened.

        • hamiltonr

          Don’t be disheartened Manny. I’m not. We’ve just got our marching orders. This is our time and we are privileged to stand for Christ in the midst of it.

          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            OK, I’ll tyy not to.

  • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

    Of course the sisterhood has nothing to say against this abominable retrograde step. Having nailed their colours to the mast as “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”, they can hardly go back to the Victorian ideas (the very idea would make them shudder) of exclusive, lifelong marriage in whose name the American government nearly went to war against the Mormons, They can never admit that marriage itself changes a person’s status and that the demand for single, exclusive, lifelong marriage is a protection for women against overbearing masculine power. The Victorians were certain of it: the whole crusade against Mormonism was motivated by only two reasons – a detestation for a church that brutally interfered in state affairs in a way no Christian church would have dreamed of, and a furious resentment on behalf of the dignity of violated American womanhood. Just read the Mormon chapters of Arthur Conan Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet – one of the most widely read stories in the world – to see what an average middle-class Anglo-Saxon thought of what Mormonism meant for women.

    The Victorians were right. What sociology and anthropology tell us about polygamy is that it not only is an expression of brute power of man over woman, but also of man over man. Polygamy expresses, and is meant to express, the superior economic power of one person over many; and, by massively subtracting women of marriageable age from the marriage market, it creates a whole class of frustrated, politically powerless young men, helpless before the very class of older married polygamists who ultimately defraud them of their own life chances. The young men in a polygamic society are lucky if they can look forward to the humble status of husband of one single wife in their forties. Meanwhile they are left to stew. This is one reason why heavily polygamic societies are notorious for military aggression. When large numbers of young men have no prospective of family life, with its innately civilizing and pacifying qualities, and are cut off from female company except for the occasional prostitute, not only are their naturally violent tendencies encourages, but they become aware that there are potential sources of female bodies to soothe their frustration – among enemies, once they have killed them. And this, if replicated over centuries, brings to the relationships between sexes, already deformed by the equation one man=many women, the further poisonous taint of war and enslavement. Imagine family lineages in whom, for generations, many or all the women have been slaves, taken in battle or bought at auction from those who had taken them, and think what that would do to the status of the whole female sex over time.

    Islam is the most successful such society, but hardly the only one; and indeed the brutal and aggressive tendencies of a polygamist society could be seen in the early days of Mormonism, in such an institution as the Danites, until Mormon society was forced into peace by the overwhelming power of the US Army. Things might have been very, very different, had the USA not taken over the nominally Mexican lands of Utah as part of the loot of 1848, and had the Mormons had a generation or two to develop in isolation from any modern power.

    Polygamy is brutal, sexist, classist, and in every way an outrage to a free country. Its adoption will be a step in the slow rotting of American institutions where no public official can safely be expected to fulfil their oath of office any more.

  • Bill S

    I don’t think something like this should affect my views on gay marriage. I don’t like polygamy, but who am I to judge?

    All I know is that healthy traditional families will still exist and will not be affected by same-sex marriages, polygamist marriages or any other kind of nontraditional marriage. Good advice to those in traditional marriages would be: just worry about you. Work on making your own marriage as good as it can be and you won’t have to worry about what other people are doing.

    • Jhawk77

      Traditional marriage has already been affected by same-sex unions and the erosion has only begun.

      • Rob B.

        I agree with your sentiments, but could you please provide some specific examples? Otherwise, Bill S is perfectly justified in saying “Nuh-uh!” and leaving it at that.

      • Bill S

        Jhawk77,

        If same sex marriage is a constitutional right, it doesn’t matter what impact it has on traditional marriage. A right is a right. Period. Traditional marriage proponents should focus on making it work and stop looking for a scape goat.

        • donttouchme

          Now you switched from saying it doesn’t affect traditional marriage to saying it doesn’t matter that it negatively affect marriage. Of course it matters. It matters for the whole country and the country’s children, the country’s future, the common good, etc.

          • AmyI

            Please read what Bill said!! He never said gay marriage negatively affected heterosexual marriages. He merely pointed out that within the law, the impact is irrelevant. And I do have a question for you, donttouchme. Since I have two girls in their early twenties (20 and 22) I unfortunately know way more about people like the Kardashians than I would care to. Now, forgive me that I don’t know which young woman this is, but what is your opinion about the marriage of, I believe it was Kin(?), who spent millions on dollars on some fantasy wedding to a famous sports figure, only to file for divorce something like 79 days later. Now, without dragging in the issues you may have with a no fault divorce, because I’m pretty sure divorce could have been easily proven on both sides, how do you think THAT marriage in any way glorified God. I believe she got her divorced finalized in time for her to be single again when her baby by Kanye West was born. To me, if we are saying here that marriage is sanctified by God, it looks to my like those people just spat in his face.

            Then I look at my dear friends John and Steve who were finally able to marry. Over two decades of monogamous love for each other. Active church members, community leaders, truly humble and wonderful people, who merely wanted the right that you and I have to stand before God and promise fidelity and honor. So which brings glory? Ms. Kardashian and Mr. We’ve forgotten his name, or John and Steve?

          • AmyI

            Please do excuse the numerous typos and errors in the following post. I type quickly and proofread after finishing. However, I am having severe difficulty editing with my iPad – indeed, it’s almost impossible. So, since everyone here seems well educated, I am assuming that you’ll pick up the mistakes and correct them. I’ll be more careful DURING typing going forward. And a big thanks for welcoming me into the discussion. A healthy debate is what makes our country pretty great.

          • Bill S

            First of all, there is no reason that allowing non-traditional marriages should have the effects you fear so much. And if it is someone’s right and judged to be so in the courts, it doesn’t matter what people like you think about its effects on society. A right is a right.

      • donttouchme

        Bill has you there. If like Bill you care about the newest interpretation of the Constitution more than the Bible and objective truth you can do whatever is right in your own eyes. And a homosexual can tell God at judgment that he had a Constitutional right to embrace the perversion of God’s design and that Bill S agrees with him too BTW so there!

    • Romulus

      Sorry; the head-in-the-sand option you outline is a fantasy.

    • Jacob Suggs

      This would be fine if morality was completely unimportant. What is true matters. Following truth matters. This position is essentially “look out for yourself, and if the rest of the world goes to Hell then that’s their problem.”

      If there is such a thing as truth, as morality, as goodness, then the world ought to reflect it, and any person who seriously believes this should work to make it happen.

      • Bill S

        …and any person who seriously believes this should work to make it happen.

        I think you should live your life according to what you believe is true and let others do the same. The world would be a better place if we all did that. Of course, we must all do so without violating the law of the land. But we all can’t make our values apply to everyone else by making them the law of the land. It has to be reasonable.

        • Rob B.

          Unfortunately, the laws of our land our forcing us to accept gay marriage as right and proper. No one seems to care about how that is “unreasonable,” though…

          • Bill S

            “Right and proper” are kind of subjective and we all have our own opinions. However, if gay marriage is legal, it must be accepted as such and not be discriminated against by those providing goods and services to the public.

    • donttouchme

      That’s satire, right?

    • donttouchme

      Don’t you understand that the legal definition of social institutions influences the behavior of the citizens of a country? It’s like saying that no-fault divorce surely won’t affect the divorce rate! After all nobody is Forced to get divorced. Happily married citizens are free to remain married. Or eliminating laws against adultery and fornication. Or, yes, saying marriage has nothing to do with the biological complementarity of men and women but it principally about happiness. Surely that won’t affect how children grow up to understand marriage!

      • Bill S

        Children need to be disabused of the prejudices of their parents. I’m against polygamy. But it’s not my place to say it should be illegal. Same with gay marriage. What I do oppose is discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation. Children should be taught not to do it.

        • donttouchme

          That’s not the point. The point is the legal recognition of sodomite duos as “marriage” does in fact affect healthy, traditional families. And the legal recognition of an adulterous group like this as “marriage” will also negatively affect healthy, traditional families.

        • AmyI

          God bless you Bill!!! Thank our dear Lord for the much needed breath of sanity,tolerance and love. After all, isn’t that what Jesus came to earth to teach us? And for those of you who think no fault divorce is evil, walk in the shoes of an abused woman who needed that law in order to rescue herself and her children from a life of terror. Most battered women do not have the means to sustain years of court battles. They are trapped by their abusers. But I digress. I have so many problems with what is said here, I am just happy that one person saw My Five Wives and was unhappy with it, but refused to condemn millions of people he didn’t know just because he could. So again, thanks Bill. My thoughts and prayers are with you and yours.

          • Bill S

            I have to frame this response. I usually don’t get positive feedback. Thanks.

            • AmyI

              Bill, I HAD to reply to donttouchme. I’m pretty sure I should not be a regular here!!! Then my iPad got funky and I had to just post what I had written, mistakes and all. But this is for you. I applaud your willingness to be here and try to educate/minster to those who hold on to hate so tightly. I’m not level-headed enough for reasonable debate. It makes me a little sad that you rarely get an “amen brother” for your intelligent, educated and compassionate posts. But I’m glad you do it. I’d bet you and I disagree about gay marriage. Idk, maybe you’re a fan. But I admire how you don’t gay-bash. I find hate speech abhorrent and illogical. So hang in there and know that I think you are pretty spectacular. No matter what you believe about The LGBT community. You don’t spout hate. And that’s what we need. A world where we can disagree without condemning those who aren’t exactly like us. Peace out!!

    • ponerology

      Willful ignorance and foolishness will be rewarded with its just desserts.

    • fredx2

      Just a few problems.
      1) The kids. Until you are certain it has no effect, why gamble with their lives? This is the most massive gamble with kids lives I have ever seen. (despite what proponents say, there is zero good science telling us whether it has a good or bad effect on kids. Most of the studies so far have had sample sizes too small, or self selected populations, which does not give you good science. They are junk science, one guesses developed solely to help the cause.
      2) The whole idea of marriage
      Since gay marriage has changed the definition of marriage, marriage as an institution will now be based on “love and commitment” – as we have been lectured, it has nothing at all to do with kids, or man-woman complementarity. As soon as either party doesn’t feel it anymore, then they will break up. Gays in Denmark (Or was it Belgium?) have a 50% higher divorce rate and Lesbians have a 147% higher divorce rate. Our society will drift even further into the morass of “children of divorce. ”
      3) Since gays by and large do not believe in Monogamy, (google “Monogamy gay marriage” the very idea of marriage has fundamentally changed. Over the years, you will no longer be expected to be faithful to your wife. Now monogamy is gone from marriage, and so is procreation. In what sense is the result a marriage? We will start seeing shows on how wonderful it is that gays aren’t monogamous and that it actually is a better way of living! This has already happened, see Liz Mundy in the Atlantic.

      • Bill S

        The kids. Until you are certain it has no effect, why gamble with their lives?

        Fredx2,

        If you are voting on a piece of legislation, by all means, consider the kids. But if you are a judge and your job is to rule on whether a state law defining marriage as being between a man and a women violates the constitutional rights of same sex partners or a man and several women, the potential impact on the kids is irrelevant. Either it is or it isn’t a constitutional right and we are all entitled to our constitutional rights regardless of their impact on society. That is how judges rule.

        • hamiltonr

          Bill, there are times when I think you live in an alternative universe of your own devising. :-)

          • Bill S

            I’m sorry I hit you with so many comments on Sunday. My wife was out most of the day and it was either do the things I was supposed to do or respond to comments and I chose the latter.

  • peggy-o

    I don’t mean to appear cynical but I think if we hear from “feminists” it will be to have a show with one wife and five husbands for equal time. Then women can “own” it like what happened when Gloria Steinem put on the Playboy bunny suit. As always, my heart goes out to the children.

    • Rob B.

      Imagine the books those kids will be writing in twenty years time…

  • http://platytera.blogspot.com Christian LeBlanc

    I expect the entire Western model of sex to collapse. Forget polygamy, I’m watching the clock on pedophilia.

    • Biff Spiff

      Possibly. However, that would require a more fundamental “about face” in the relativistic arguments being spouted in favor of the latest “acceptable” perversion. The watchword right now is “consent” and the term is “consenting adults.”

      • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

        Which is why I exext.pect incest between consenting adults to be n

    • Taryn

      The Western model of sex? Because consenting adults engaging in committed sexual relationships automatically leads to adults engaging in non-consenting sexual relationships with children? Are you saying that all women are no more knowledgeable and capable of making personal decisions than children, or that all men are no less cruel, perverted, and abusive than pedophiles?

      • http://platytera.blogspot.com Christian LeBlanc

        Huh?

  • DEE P

    These women are crazy to be with one man and allow him to do this.

    • hamiltonr

      Amen!

    • donttouchme

      Allow him to do what? This is a formalization of feminist ideas about free love.

      • hamiltonr

        I disagree. This is a perversion of feminism, brought about primarily by the destruction of feminism as a human rights movement when it turned toward abortion.

        • donttouchme

          Feminism never was a human rights movement. It was an anti-rights movement from the start, to eliminate or curtail the legitimate rights of husbands and fathers. So it was inevitable that it would eventually work to eliminate the rights of children, too. That’s just feminism.

          http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/FEMLAUNC.TXT

        • HigherCalling

          Before feminism turned toward abortion, it turned toward contraception and then inevitably turned toward abortion. The question to ask is why feminism turned toward contraception. If the turn to contraception is intrinsic to the feminist mindset, (or a natural progression from its initial “human rights movement”), then that mindset is deeply flawed, even wicked. If the turn to contraception is also a “perversion of feminism,” then we need to ask what caused that turn. How far back do the turns go?

      • DEE P

        This is not love, this is psychological slavery. Call it what ever one wants, this is just wrong. The man will be marrying more women and these women are “ok” with it. Their heads need to be examined. One can share free love or have free love with other people without opening up your vagigee to one man. It’s called volunteering to care for children who have been abandoned by others, this way, you can still be a “mom” and love freely. These women do not know what feminism is …

  • Jhawk77

    Before the promotion of pedophilia, we’ll likely have a competing show about polyandry…sigh…

  • Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

    I recall a situation when I live for about 11 months in Utah (about all I could handle). We had just moved there and my wife was outside talking with some neighbors — Mormon women — and she said something disparaging about polygamy, expecting agreement. Instead, she got cold, icy stares. These women were, they told her, descendents of polygamous “marriages” and there was no way they would repudiate their ancestors. So the culture goes much deeper than many people suppose.

  • Elizabeth K.

    No fault divorce is already part of the equation, here. We’ve seen the fallout to women and children for decades; it will be easy to make the argument that it’s financially better to just stay married and let the man (usually) have his new wife. The old wife and the children won’t fare that well, but we’ll see pretty pictures of how she fares better than her divorced counterparts. Maybe some biological “facts” about male sexuality will get thrown in, as well.

    • george-a

      Thanks to easy divorce, we already have polygamy, albeit serial polygamy, not simultaneous. Accepting simultaneous polygamy will just be a step toward /sarc “being honest.” /sarc

      • Elizabeth K.

        Yup.

  • donttouchme

    It’s pointless to use feminist terms like misogyny to try to critique this behavior. This is pure feminism. It’s not any different than multiple women sleeping with the same man without a pretense to marriage, which happens all the time in feminism. This is probably actually a healthier expression of feminism. Haha. Somehow I doubt feminists in the Church are going to be all soft and sentimental about this particular deviancy like they are about homosexuality. “They’re just looking for love!” (subtext: they’re not sexual deviants abusing each other). No, he’s a misogynist; his wives are being abused, plain and simple.

  • ponerology

    No one saw that coming, huh?

  • Rob B.

    While I am sympathetic to Ms. Hamilton’s point of view, I think this piece might be an example of “post hoc ergo propter hoc” thinking. While the advocacy of gay marriage and polygamy are linked, the first is not the cause of the second. Rather, they are both rooted in the same fundamental problem: the disintegration of traditional marriage.

    Of course, the best way to start getting yourself out of a hole is to stop digging… :)

  • Jackson

    Why does the author call this ‘right wing’? Since when do conservatives (which are the ones for traditional marriage) support polygamy? Good try, but the right does not support this when it is just the fallout of the left wing movement.

    • hamiltonr

      Huh?

      I had to go back and search for what you’re referring to. If it’s this, I was speaking metaphorically on behalf of those pushing polygamy. I was not saying that conservatives favor polygamy. In fact, I was poking fun at that thinking.

      “Rather than being part of an evil right-wing religious sect, they are “spiritually driven.””

  • Thomas Vogler

    Well, I take a little comfort in the thought that there is no existing legal structure commensurate with polygamous/polygynous marriages. (Unless they want to go with joint stock corporation, or some such business model.) Even if there is a groundswell of advocacy for multiple marriage, it would be hard, I think, to make a case that they were being denied access to a civil good that others were enjoying. Rather, they would be proposing that civil society invent a different sort of good, and one that would entail a huge revision of property laws, custodial laws, divorce laws, and so on. Maybe I’m naive, but it’s hard for me to see that happening.

    • fredx2

      No, you are wrong. According to those few liberal judges who have ruled that gay marriage is constitutionally mandated, “marriage” (goes the argument), is a fundamental right. No one can be denied a fundamental right. Furthermore, they have the constitutional right to define what marriage is to them. Society has no business telling anyone what their marriage should look like. (according to these judges.)

      Once you believe in gay marriage, there are no limits. “Love” is the only requisite, and since you can love your horse, you can marry your horse. After all, who are you to judge?

      • Thomas Vogler

        Subsequent events may indeed prove me wrong, but I’m going to cling to optimism for a while on this one. My sense is that the legal strength of the ssm cause rested, not on claims of some abstract “right to marry,” but on exclusion from an existing civil contract, called marriagewhich confers many financial and social benefits, that exclusion being based entirely on the sex of those wishing to participate in such contracts. If the state wasn’t in the business of organizing such contracts, and conferring benefits on the participants, there would be nothing to talk about — nothing to sue for, no civil right denied.

        For polygamists (or polygynists, or horse fanciers) it will be harder, I think, to make the case that there is an existing civil benefit that they are being denied. They may be able to sanctify their unions within the auspices of some church or other, and enjoy whatever abstract and spiritual benefits such marriages may have to offer, but they can’t claim to be excluded from an existing form of civil contract and the benefits associated with it on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, or anything of the sort for two reasons. First, there is no such discrimination, and second, the civil benefit they would be seeking does not actually exist as such, for anyone. It would have to be invented, which would be no small order. Is it, for example, one man with five marriage contracts, where each of the women have specified rights against the man, and he in each of them, individually, and the women have no legally dictated rights in eachother? Or are all rights and responsibilities the same? ANd when one thinks of all the permutations of multiple marriage that would be in play, and the children of various provenance, it becomes even harder to imagine the set of civil statutes that could govern the mess, and the process of determining what the benefits were, and how they would be conferred… I don’t think so. Especially when there is no wrong, no discrimination, to be corrected.

        A polygamist’s best shot would probably be to claim religious discrimination, but even that seems unlikely to succeed. There may be some religions that permit polygamy, or encourage it, but I’m not aware of any that require it. And even if there was such, the government has not tended to be eager to allow religions to violate federal laws, even in cases that would only require the issuance of an exemption, (say, for combat duty, or the ritualistic use of Peyote) rather than the production of vexatious and complicated new law. The current struggles around religious organizations and insurance coverage for contraception testifies to that.

        Polygamous families wanting to have the security of a legal identity and structured property arrangements might do best to seek incorporation, and customize their idiosyncratic wishes in the form of by-laws. An enterprising lawyer could produce a variety of templates for such arrangements, and customize them to order. Maybe in some cases non-profit status would be available. We might see the evolution of something called Corporate Family law. Corporate Families would be for the clean-cut main-stream types. I guess they can call it Corporate Marriage if they like. The less organized will just muddle along.

      • Thomas Vogler

        Well, there’s the general concept of marriage, and then there’s the institution of marriage in civil law. I have a right to marry, sure, but in order to have a civil marriage, my marriage will have to be sanctioned by the state. If I want a Catholic marriage, that will have to be sanctioned by the Church. So, under Jim Crow, Catholic priests married some mixed-race couples in the church, but those couples did not enjoy the benefits of civil marriage. The state may allow same sex marriages, but can’t require any church to perform them.

        So, the state can say there is a general right to marriage, as an institution of the state, but it reserves to itself the power and responsibility to set the basic parameters for what the legal benefits and responsibilities of state marriage. So, very few states permit first cousins to marry, and most States have constraints on the marriage of minors, and do not allow couples of the same sex to enjoy he benefits of civil marriage. Those couples may have religious marriages, but their contracts will not be recognized by the state. That’s the thing that is changing. Same sex couples are making the case that they are being denied access to marriage, as the state defines it, solely because of there sex. The only revision they seek to the law is the provision that excludes them. Beyond that, there is no change to state marriage as such. In that way, it is the same as the case made by mixed race couples, whre the exclusion was based entirely on race. Both populations were being excluded from an existing, institutionalized, civil good.

        The marriage (or marriages?) that a polygamist might want doesn’t actually exist, as a civil institution, with attendant benefits. An arangement of rights and responsibilities that two people have in relation to each other is very different than an arrangement that however-many people might have among themselves. The existing laws and benefits do not transfer. There’s reason to think that the production of legal structures that could compass indefinitely numbered multiple marriage would subsume and eradicate those that have been built up around binary marriage. It really would entail a massive re-definition of civil marriage, in a way that mixed-race and same-sex marriage has not.

        I suggest that the state will not be interested in undertaking these changes. In this case there is no discrimination, because the benefit denied doesn’t actually exist, and it’s absence reflects no discrimination against persons on the basis of race, sex, disability, or economic status. There may be a weak case to be made for discrimination on religious grounds, but as any Catholic or Mescalero Apache knows, the state does not leap quickly or far to accommodate religions on matters where they diverge from civil law.

    • Biff Spiff

      “there is no existing legal structure commensurate with polygamous/polygynous marriages” Yet.

  • JustMyOpinion

    As a person who is for gay marriage, I’m disgusted by this. Gay marriage isn’t what is opening up the hole for polygamy, there has always been a certain type of Mormon (like the guy is in this show) , that believe in polygamy and are for it. He’s been married to these women long before big pushes for gay marriage started happening. And gay people are pushing for marriage to another human being that they love(that’s to the people who are saying, oh if you love something you can marry it, no no, we’re talking about humans of legal age being married, not animals you freak). But gay marriage isn’t what opened up the push for polygamy, even if you try to blame it on that. People who want to screw more than one person and can’t love just one person are the people who are pushing for it.

    • oregon nurse

      No fault divorce destroyed the last legal remnant of civil marriage being anything more than a impermanent romantic construct. That paved the way for gay marriage. Gay marriage has now absolutely kicked the legal doors wide open to polygamy and any other arrangement someone can dream up. Once marriage is no longer limited to one man and one woman until death it has no legally justifiable boundaries.

      Civil marriage will become effectively nothing more than a legal arrangement among any 2 or more people for the purpose of fulfilling some psycho-socio-economic goal. It’s not legally or socially needed for sex or for children. It has become almost completely INverted and therefore totally PERverted. Oh, and that right there is the answer to the famous rhetorical question “How does ssm hurt your heterosexual marriage?” By rendering it worse than meaningless within the culture in which we are forced to live and raise our children.

      If you had anything to do with supporting gay marriage you OWN at least partial responsibility for any and all perversions that follow as well. You (meaning all ssm supporters) were warned this would happen and you thumbed your nose at people who were a whole lot wiser than you.

      • pagansister

        We who find SSm no problem are responsible for “any and all perversions that will follow as well”? What? That is ridiculous. Your idea of perversion is? I know, shouldn’t have asked, because I know the arguments already. SSM is not natural, etc., etc. etc. Just thought, those that have multiple wives are heterosexuals, so how it that “perverted”? They make babies the old fashion way and are raising them together. Wonder if women will start collecting husbands? That would be interesting. Amazon life style. :-) Wouldn’t be my idea of being married, but old style Mormons and many Bible stories seem to disagree that men should only have 1 wife at a time. I’m being a bit sarcastic here, but I find the attempt to “blame” folks who find no problem with SSM being in any way responsible for the things you mentioned, as I said above, ridiculous.

    • donttouchme

      My comment might have got disappeared or something….
      Anyway, when people compare homosexuality to bestiality, they’re not talking about “love” but the comparison of perverse sexual behavior. It’s in no way a loving act to inflict sexual perversions on someone one ostensibly cares about. These unfortunate souls don’t love each other in any Christian sense.

      • hamiltonr

        donttouchme, I think comparing beastiality to homosexuality is offensive. It’s equating people with animals. Please try to find another way to illustrate your points.

        • donttouchme

          Alright, I will. Those sympathetic to homosexuality and “gay marriage”, who use euphemisms like the word “love” to describe the relationship are favorably comparing sodomy to coitus, which is gross and offensive.

          I find it offensive that our language of “love” would be degraded and violated in that way. But many Christians indulge in it. An abuser doesn’t love the object of his abuse in any Christian sense, even if the object is a willing partner and reciprocates the abuse.

          I’m curious why there’s so little feeling of love and compassion for this polygamist man compared to what Christians express for homosexuals. After all, polygamy was at one time a moral option for morally upstanding men. Even holy men like Abraham. Homosexuality was always a perversion. If these women are oppressed or brainwashed, how much more must homosexuals be oppressed and brainwashed. Christians using “love” language to describe their unfortunate situation perpetuates their oppression.

        • Rob B.

          And yet, the drift in our civilization is to consider human beings as “beasts with big brains.” When there is nothing transcendent about us, then bestial acts lose their moral force.

    • Janet

      Gay marriage may not have opened up the push for polygamy, but it makes the case that polygamy is legitimate. Why? Because if you truly believe that marriage between any people who truly love one another is legitimate, than how do you tell three people who truly love one another that their marriage is illegitimate? I have heard someone try to dispute this by saying, “Well, just use common sense – polygamy is just going too far.” But what would gay marriage have been considered just a short time ago? Unthinkable! Way, way too far! And what about those siblings who truly love one another in a sexual way? Again, how can you tell them they can’t marry? But, you say, that poses a danger to society when they produce children who may have genetic disorders. Does our society demand genetic testing before marriage to prevent cystic fibrosis or other genetic diseases? No, that’s a privacy issue. These are not ridiculous questions, they have already been posed in the light of gay marriage. Ideas have consequences. Are we willing to live with them in the long term?

  • Okie from Muskogee Catholic

    Rebecca Hamilton, great article! Also, remember that the sin of Polytheism entered the Lord’s Temple of Jerusalem by Old Testament Hebrew kings (like David & especially his son Solomon) in attempts to appease their MULTIPLE foreign wives with their multiple foreign “gods”. The sin of polygamy resulted in the desecration of the Temple with sinful polytheism. This angered the Old Testament prophets & obviously the prophet’s (& our) true God. In His fulfilling words when He elevated the institution of Matrimony as a Holy Sacrament of Christ (as recorded by the Gospel & practiced in the Church), Jesus sacramentalized MONOGAMOUS Marriage as Grace (not polygamy, nor divorce, nor homosex). 1 male is joined to 1 female= one flesh (& loving union)= baby, period.

    P.S.- Rep. Rebecca Hamilton, I’m an Okie from Muskogee & I gotta say you’re my favorite Oklahoma statesperson. Also, thank you for your consistent pro-Life witness.

  • pagansister

    Let’s face it—the men are the ones who benefit from this type of arrangement. I wouldn’t want to “share” my husband with more women. If I’m correct and I may not be at all, one of the men on one of those shows (I don’t watch) is only legally married to one woman, the first wife. He only is “living with” the other 4. They may have had some ceremony to “marry” them, but legally the other 4 aren’t his wives. I personally don’t see a relationship between this and wanting to have same gender marriages.

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      As we say in Italy, none is more blind than he (or she) who does not wish to see. If you find the arbitrary nonsense of “marrying” two men, or two women, acceptable, then you have already killed the only criterion that makes sense. Everything else becomes allowable, beginning with leaving behind that arbitrary number two. To restrict marriage to two persons only makes sense if the two are different, complementary, and form a unity that does not require further additions – one man, one woman. If you have two men, you may as well have three, five, or seventy-two; if you have two women, there is not the least reason why you should not have twenty-three – and a few men just to make up numbers. If marriage becomes a mere word for living together, I have an amazing number of friends who are married to their cats. Not to mention fathers, morthers, sisters, brothers, and random people at college.

  • dakotasioux

    I never hear how all those kids/wives are supported? Food stamps, welfare, Medicaid? That’s what I’d like to know!!

  • AmyI

    I have a question. Is it a requirement to be a Catholic to join the discussion here? I am a Christian, but not a Catholic, as the posts I put up last night most likely indicate, although not directly 1 I wasn’t thinking about it one way or the other. I am curious as to how this site works. Nothing I posted ten hours ago is here. Does the moderator judge who has worthy comments, or does it just take a while to have the discussion be up to date? I do not believe my comments,me hike they DID disagree with some members, were rude or any more spiteful than many I have seen here. In fact, I believe they were mostly respectful. As a former battered woman who lived in a state of constant jeopardy, and was rescued by loving Christians, I owe my safety and security and now happiness and the blessing of a chance for my children to grow up in a fear free environment to God and the Christians he sent to literally rescue my and my three small kids from my horribly abusive CATHOLIC ex husband. God saved us through his people. My two daughters are now in grad school thanks to their wonderful stepfather and my son is thriving in high school with terrific grades and plans of going to medical school.

    I say these things not in a prideful way, but on my knees in thanks to God, who showed me a way out of despair. As far as I remember, Catholicism does not believe in divorce, or recognize my current marriage.

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      Likely enough, Catholicism does not recognize your previous marriage. Have you ever looked into annulment?

      For personal reasons, I am the last person in the world to underrate the horror of an abusive relationship. Your scoundrel of a “husband”, whether or not he deserves the title, does not deserve you. But that does not change the fact that you cannot make a sacrament mean whatever is convenient for you to mean. The New Testament could not be more explicit. Mt.19.9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Mark 10.6-12: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. Luke 16.18: Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away fromher husband committeth adultery. There simply is no better attested teaching of Jesus. It is not I who says this, not the Pope, not the Church; it is Jesus of Nazareth. And in most of the contexts in which it is presented, it is made very clear that this is one of those terrible teachings that make Christian ethics, properly understood, so demanding. Matthew 5 places it in Jesus’ great Speech from the Mountain, among a whole sequence of terrifying demands, beginning with the statement that unless your righteousness is GREATER than that of the recognized masters of virtue, you shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven (Mt.5.20). Take, for instance, the demand for unquestioning love for your enemies (Mt.5.44) Have you tried “blessing… doing good… and praying” for your brute of a “husband” – a real “enemy”, who “cursed you… hated you… despitefully used you, and persecuted you?” That is what the Lord Jesus requires of you, not by implication and distant suggestion, but in a few words, and here, and now. If you have, then you will know just how hard these teachings are. It is not a matter of the Church’s teaching on marriage being unreasonable; it is a matter of ALL the Lord Jesus’ teaching across a frighteningly large sphere of our daily life being, in that sense, unreasonable. Anyone who told you otherwise might be a very nice person, even a good friend, but they are not Christian; at least not in the sense of understanding anything about Christian doctrine.

  • AmyI

    Sorry, my iPad gives my trouble with posting, so this actually should follow the next post. What I am saying is that I’m not sure WHAT denomination is “right”. I just love God and try to serve him. But I hope I am not excluded because I am not a Catholic. Or because I disagreed with others because I did my best to respect them, which I don’t always see reciprocated here. Frankly, feminism is so broadly condemned. If I only obeyed my first husband and never questioned his authority over me, I would be so badly broken by now, and my children would have grown up in a house where unspeakable atrocities were being committed daily. Divorce is sometimes necessary and some people here are very insensitive to that fact.

    To a Bill S, thanks for your thoughtful posts. As you said. The world would be a better place if we all worried more about being the best people we can be. And thanks also to the others who promote tolerance. I sincerely hope I am allowed to stay and participate. And I also hope I’m wrong about my posts from last night not being approved. Rules like that totally devalue this site. It’s meaningless if dissenters are not allowed. If donttouchme can spew hate, why can’t others counter with love? And why would THIS comment be edited out? Jesus dined with prostitutes and those others considered scum. He truly loved them. Isn’t this what we should emulate? Inclusion while we minister and share his everlasting love?

  • AmyI

    Sorry! For some reason just CANNOT edit on this iPad. So my apologies for inaccurate spelling, grammar, etc. :)

  • AmyI

    I would like to apologize to anyone who I may have offended with my comments here. It was never my intention. God bless your efforts to keep polygamy illegal. It is truly a disgrace and would be a terrible insult to god and Christians everywhere. I have obviously misunderstood the rules on this discussion board and would sincerely enjoy the opportunity to participate if only my transgressions could be pointed out to me specifically. I am not trying to be a hater. I am only interested in the sharing of ideas. I find polygamy to be beyond disgraceful. I have seen that I’m not alone, however, in not condemning gay marriage. I would just like an opportunity to be a part of this.

    • hamiltonr

      Amyl, I went through the delete file, and you’re not in it, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to here.

  • Guest

    Where do you find any prohibition of polygamy in the Bible?

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      In the New Testament. I don’t suppose you know what that is, or do you?

  • dancekitty

    So, joining the discussion rather late, but thought I would leave a few comments/facts based on the messages I’ve read in response to this article.

    1. Polygamy in it’s current form is highly linked to the mormon community, it is religiously ordered, community based but restrictive and always a polygyny set up. Polygamy is actually a term for any multiple based marriage. Polygyny is one man with multiple wives.

    2. Polyandry is one woman and multiple men, there are a few examples of this practice, usually fraternal polyandry, (one woman marrying all the brothers in a family line) existing. These are rarely religious based and develop historically as a result of land, population, geographical reasons.

    3. If a push for more multiple relationship protection develops, it is unlikely to come from the polygamous/mormon community. By and large they live in their own governed worlds and programs like to focus on them as they are extreme examples of the multiple partner lifestyle.

    4. A legal push is much more likely from the general polyamorous community. People who identify as being polyamorous mostly are unrecognisable in general to people on shows such as sister wives. Communication, honesty, fairness and emotional maturity are key skills needed to even consider an open relationship structure in any way.

    5. Polyamory based relationships are just as fluid as monogamous relationships, they can end and change or last decades. All participants can be in a fidelitious based agreement (either with each other or in a prearanged agreement between the participants) or outside dating (respecting boundaries) can occur.

    6. There are harmful/abusive polyamory relationships. There are also harmful/abusive monogamous relationships. Nthe concept itself however isn’t. There are also mamy healthy/positive polyamorous setups.

    7. As far as studies can show, growing up with polyamorous parents has little to no detrimental effect on any children. Polygamous family structures with many moms and one dad are not the norm for many polyamorous families. Most children are either raised with two parents and other partners kept away from their upbringing/introduced as friends/aunts/uncles. OR, the children are raised with triad (3 people in one relationship) or vee (3 people where one person dates two others who are in turn not romantically involved) structure. So get the support and love of three (in general) parental figures.

    8. The legalisation of gay marriage is not a slippery slope to anything. Marriage traditionally exists between one man and one woman for the purpose of protecting the human species through procreation. For better or worse science and society (adoption agencies, IVF, sperm banks, etc) has progressed to a point where in the nicest possible way, one man and one woman having sex isn’t nessicarily required to create a life. As such, we are able to take sex out of the equation in a way and focus on emotional desires, traits and feelings. If we do then adult, moral and consentual choices between people of any race, grnder, orientation and number are valid.

    9. This cannot include beastiality or pedophiles since not all participants can ever legally permit to the relationship in whatever form it takes. Insest is more difficult as if sex is taken out, then repoduction and genetic issues are also removed. However this not only falls under a moral ground, but a mental one as the emotional detrimemt of such a relationship is likely to be high For a variety of rreasons.
    The emotional detrimemt and damage to mental health when being gay or polh usually comes from abuse/hate fron outside people/organisations, or the result of being in a bad relationship in general (which as previously stated can happen to anyone, regardless of circumstance)

    10. A lot of objections to polyamorous ideas and lgbt rights seem to be due to christian ideals. People can twist religious texts to suit themsves however they want. Surely it is better to judge people on their moral code in general rather than their sexual preferences?

    Additional: being polyamorous is not synomous with promiscuous and beimg monogamous doesn’t mean people are faithful

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      In other words, everything is for the best in the best of the possible world. Are you sure you were not educated in Voltaire’s Sorbonne?

      • EricWelch

        What a silly response to dancekitty’s excellent post. The fact remains that “marriage” is a secular contract. Holy matrimony is a religious ritual that by itself has no legal weight. The state grants the right to conduct a marriage ceremony that is recognized by the state. It can withdraw that at any time. In fact, in most European countries going through Holy Matrimony is not enough to be considered married. You have to go through the steps at City Hall to be considered legally married.

        It’s a secular contract because it carries the power to determine legally binding restrictions and permissions especially the right to convey property. That’s a major reason why polygamy to become legal will have some serious secular hurdles to jump: it makes the division of property very complicated.

        The secular nature of the marriage contract is a very good thing for religion since it permits each religion to structure the sacrament of matrimony anyway it wants in keeping with whatever the current orthodoxy might be, while the legal rules and rights apply to everyone.

        That, of course, is one reason why celibacy of priests became so important in the middle ages. (They were allowed to marry until 1139 at the Second Lateran Council.) When priests were married, their property devolved to their spouse. If celibate, their property devolved to the church.

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          “A little learning is a dangerous thing”. Priestly celibacy was the norm in the West since the sixth century at least. Your foolish response does not seem to take into account the fact that there was no such thing as civil marriage in Europe before the French Revolution, and the state confiscation of marriage by the revolutionaries was itself a religious act, since they wanted to nationalize or destroy the Church as such. And to place the division of property ahead of the procreation and legitimacy of children is beyond foolish: it shows a scary ability to absorb pages of writing without once understanding their sense or purpose.

          • EricWelch

            Nothing in your reply contradicts anything I wrote. There is a distinction between “custom” and “requirement” with regard to celibacy, the requirement not coming into effect until 1139 as I noted. I fail to see what the focus on France and the French Revolution has to do with my premise about marriage which is that is has more to do with the transfer of property than some holy ritual. Examine my premise in the context of Henry VIII if you wish to narrowly focus on one country. Procreation was certainly important, but it was precisely because of the need to transfer property down the filial line. Women had little to say in marriage agreements precisely because of the political and economic considerations. The church was (is) a political institution and hardly immune from economic considerations.

            • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

              Are you capable of thought? Have you had one lesson in logic in your entire life? And if you have, where in the world did you get the bizarre notion that there is a contradiction between “the disposal of property” and “holy ritual”? I hope your brain is at least active enough that when I point out to you that the one underlies the other – that property is disposed of because the ritual is about fertile legal union – you are at least bright enough to realize that you have talked crap. And you understand nothing whatever about the Catholic Church if you think that there is no force in Catholic custom. Look up “infallibility vested in the Church”.

              • hamiltonr

                Cool down people. No need to insult one another.

  • Eva deBartholomew

    I find it funny that polygamy is treated like a sin. Biblically, homosexuality is a sin – but polygamy isn’t. What polygamy is however is a non-ideal situation, similar to carnivory and war except nobody is dying (and since the Bible never treats polygamy as a sin, nobody is going to Hell for it either). Polygyny being treated as the only form of polygamy permissible is unfair to women, because only a husband can then be allowed to love multiple women and not a wife multiple men. I think polygyny was more the norm in Biblical times due to genealogy, such as being able to guess who on earth the father is, but with DNA testing now such determination is possible regardless. Via the Golden Rule, you know, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, that if polygamy were to be made lawful again then both forms should be lawful – both polygyny and polyandry – so as to be fair to women also. Yes, such might seem weird, but instead of so many “babydaddies” and “babymommies” just fornicating around they can be married and not just making babies to be paid for remotely – they’ll be able to love the people they do and have them stay around in their lives without so much animosity and pretension of “you can’t really love me because you can only love one other person in your life.”

    You would argue against a sin that condemns people to Hell for eternity, homosexuality, by associating it with something which is merely taboo and not a sin – that’s not very well done, that’s the kind of fence Adam and Eve had when they added to the commandment of “do not eat” to say “do not eat or touch”. It is going to be broken, and your saying that polygamy is worse than homosexuality is going to lead to further destruction of souls because polygamy is not sin and by saying it is worse makes people interpolate to say that the intermediate in your hierarchies of wrongdoing must not be so bad. You have claimed something to be sin which isn’t, and thereby made that which is sin seem like it is not. You don’t need to load people down with such burdens as the fences treated as sinful, because the devil will attack your fences and then what is actually sinful will be done as well – which is exactly what was done in Genesis 3 and precisely what you’re going to help happen by doing the aforementioned defense of a fence.

  • carol Ten Eyck

    Just watched a couple of episodes of this show and i am surprised at my gut reaction. I feel so sorry for Brady. Why? Because his wives are so immature, unrealistic, and selfish The poor guy tells his obese wife that he went to the doctor and was told he had high blood pressure. Her response: “Boo Hooo you don’t love me because I am fat”. if my husband came home and reported he had a health issue i think I have the maturity to make the discussion about him. Not these selfish women–all of them are immature –jut in 5 different way. You have a mom of 4 crying about her “baby” —a 19 year old man leaving home. She cries that her daughter wants to go to college–and even asks her “but you will come back to live at home afterwards right?” Good lord woman. Another one can’t have a simple discussion about paying bills with one of her sister wives— she throws a tantrum like a very distraught 3 year old–oh and she she wants to have another baby even though they have 24 and it is obvious that the family is struggling to make ends meet. Then we have the wife who resents everything and acts like the other wives are slim just to make her life a misery. Finally the 5th wife wants to start adopting children except she barely knows how to use a phone or find an adoption agency and needs Brady to “be their for her” –they all say that–’I want Brady to be there for me” HELLO!!!!–being in a plural marriage means the opposite. Watching Beady try to manage these silly women actually makes me feel bad for him. Unlike Kreepy Kody in Sisterwives, Brady does not make my skin crawl. Brady comes across as a humble, loving and way over worked guy. If his wives continue to be selfish they will be 5 widows. Like I said i am really surprised at my response as I usually have sympathy for the wives and children. I guess that is the problem with these women–they are more like 3 extra children than adults.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X