The Case For Polygamy
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Religion
An editorial from the Minneapolis Star Tribune makes the leap that if same-sex marriage is not outlawed by the state’s constitution, then polygamy is the next step.
My question to all of you is, what’s so bad about polygamy? Seriously. After all, polygamy is still practiced in all corners of the globe and has been for thousands of years. And yes, of course it was much more of a widespread practice back in the day, but most likely because of social pressures and not because those who practiced it felt it was actually wrong.
And by the way, has anybody seen the first episode of Big Love? It’s an HBO show about polygamists in Utah. Personally, I don’t think it’ll last as a series, but I do like Bill Paxton, and I’m curious to see how this season is going to shake out.
And one more thing, some conclusions from the writer of the editorial:
What’s the likely endpoint? Marriage may be redefined out of existence, and replaced by a flexible, contract-based system of government-registered relationships. So get ready. Today gay marriage supporters’ mantra is, “How does my same-sex marriage harm your marriage?” Down the road it may be, “How does my marriage of two men and a woman harm your marriage?” If we don’t answer the first question with resolve — making clear that “one man-one woman” is at the heart of marriage in Minnesota — we may not have a chance to answer the second.
Alright, back to my wives…
This entry was posted on Friday, March 17th, 2006 and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:06 am
This one’s so easy, it’s almost a no-brainer. It even has the sanction of the Bible (O.T.). Historically it has tended to be associated with repression of women and severe extremes of wealth and poverty. But it would work better in an open society like America, especially because it would be just as legal to have, say, a woman with two husbands in her household (if she could afford enough video games and beer for them both). That way you’d prevent the imbalance of a few rich men scooping up a disproportionate chunk of the trim, leaving the poorer stiffs in the land with no hope of Getting Some unless they go blow up a Tel Aviv crosstown bus and collect in Paradise.
Besides, multiple husbands makes more sense than multiple wives. Women multi-task better.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:46 am
Heh.
Again…back to my many wives…
March 17th, 2006 at 9:10 am
The problem with the polygamists in the U.S. today isn’t how many wives they take, it’s that they are encouraged to take child wives. Or worse, when a 14-year-old girl is made to marry her 25-year-old uncle, as was the case recently in Utah. Keep the kids from being molested and I say marry as many strangely warped, submissive women as your ego can handle.
Oh and in case the author of the cited article doesn’t realize it, we already have a “contract-based system of government-registered relationships”. That’s how I could be married by the mayor and if I divorce my husband we’ll have to go to court to divide up the goods.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:17 am
A good friend of mine was the son of his father’s older wife - he had two. This was perfectly legal (Iran, and the marriages had been contracted before the Shah started pushing against polygamy) The house had two wings. He and his mom felt slighted, dad spent most of his time in the younger wife’s wing. My friend said it wasn’t really very pleasant, and he had no interest whatsoever in multiple wives himself.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:04 am
You gotta be kidding? Legalized polygamy is a horrid idea.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Then after polygamy is included in the definition of marriage, someone will want to include beastiality too. I mean, if you and your shetland pony really love each other…, right? Then we can move on to polygamist beastiality - maybe you have two shetland pony lovers!!!
March 17th, 2006 at 10:39 am
[...] I suppose I could have posted this in the comments section of Justin’s post about polygamy, but it’s rather long. Besides, Justin gave me posting privileges and what better way to use them than to question his reasoning? [...]
March 17th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
I’m confused about the jump from consenting adults marrying multiple persons to beastiality. I mean, how would it possible to take a pony in front of a justice of the peace and have it agree to be married to the sicko that owns it? It wouldn’t. That’s a huge leap that just doesn’t make sense.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Well, … If Mr. Ed and Sally Struthers …. oh, never mind. Sally would nevr remember her lines. But on another note I was thinking that when we take over India someone WILL try to outlaw reincarnation.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
If you can redefine marriage to include same sex couples then you ‘can redefine’ it to mean anything you want it to.
If you really don’t believe that someone would actually try this then you don’t know human nature very well… each generation pushes the envelope further.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Animals can’t give consent. Though a trained pony probably can dance better at the reception than some brides I’ve seen.
March 20th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
yeah, right… they’ll get the pet psychic to claim consent…
or they’ll take video of the german shepard trying to ride their leg and claim consent…
come on - if you had said that this stuff would be happening 40 years ago people would have claimed that you were crazy.
March 21st, 2006 at 10:33 am
“Big Love” is to modern Utah polygamy what “Hogan’s Heroes” was to Nazi Germany.
In Jon Krakauer’s book, “Under the Banner of Heaven,” he cites polygamous wives in Colorado City (aka Short Creek, aka “Juniper Creek”) who insist that pedophilia is rampant within the community. Did Tom Hanks fail to read Krakauer’s book or did he simply choose to ignore it?
I was worried that Big Love might glamorize Utah polygamy and gloss over the misery it creates for women and children. So far I’m relieved that its entertainment value is on par with Hogan’s Heroes. With any luck HBO will cancel the series before it makes the “shenanigans” of Colorado City seem as routine and amusing as the Mafia’s drug-peddling and blood-letting.
April 1st, 2006 at 11:23 pm
Debsay said: “If you really don’t believe that someone would actually try this then you don’t know human nature very well… each generation pushes the envelope further.”
Debsay, how much world history do you know? I’m not talking the history of what country attacked which country when, I’m talking social history. It’s totally absurd for you to claim “each generation pushes the envelope further.”
Just last century, do you really think the 1930s were wilder than the 1920s? Do you have any clue just how permissive the 1890s were compared to the 1910s?
That’s not even considering the way life was at various times in India or Africa or Europe.
There were “boy brides” in several ancient cultures, with actually ceremonies and everything. If you think same-sex marriage is some sort of “slide” in the big picture of history you’re missing a helluva lot of historical context and don’t know about damn thing about true human nature.
May 1st, 2006 at 7:39 am
Polygamy sucks. Marriage is the unity of two people who has love, faith and understanding for each other. I wonder what marriage would mean to a man/women with a bundle of rings.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Can you relate two adult people (regardless of sex) to an adult and a child or an adult and an animal? On either count, Polygamy or homosexual sex, you would be relating one adult to another. Assuming they are all of sound mind and body why not allow the marriage. I have a feeling that the people who would not want these kinds of marriage would also agree to consenting adults “living together” as well. Which questions what their true interest is in this discussion. Marriage is a legal term and has little to do with religion, but the right likes to team the two together due to moral implications of both. And by the way, Polygamy has that ick factor due to religion, generally speaking. The idea of the church mandating multiple marriage and dictating who gets married to whom, is the jacked up part.