Wednesday, February 18, 2009

What Passes For Intelligence on the ANTI Polygyny side of the argument.

Blather, be dense, repeat. The arguments against polygyny are simply stated over and over again, and the writers of lies about the practice end up citing each other and the echoes of those lies to lend each other credibility. Who IS this unoriginal idiot? Does she just watch Oprah, Jerry Springer and Bill O'Reilly waxing ridiculous about "sex beds?"
Carolyn Tytler just regurgitates myths that the opponents of Polygyny WANT to be true.
* These settlements are especially harmful environments for children. Every child deserves a home and family of his or her own. Growing up in a commune-like community deprives a girl or boy of that in
dividual love and attention that should be the right or every child. Youngsters receive inadequate education, medical care and socialization skills because of lack of funds and isolation from the outside world.

* The women must render unquestioning obedience to the leader of the group. They are subject to their husbands in every area of their lives. Girls are forced to marry men chosen by the leader who are often much older. Wives are frequently victims of physical abuse while being forced to bear an unhealthy number of children. The women are regarded as possessions of (a) the group leader (b) their husbands. If they try to escape they are pursued and brought back.

* Even the men's lives are far from ideal. True, they have all the sexual activity they want and probably often more than they would wish, but they also have many mouths to feed and gaggles of women constantly vying for their attention. Imagine coming home after work to a household of 15 children and five or six bickering wives. In addition, if they happen to displease the leader, their wives and children can be taken away and redistributed to some of the male church members. Continually buried in a mountain of debt, inundated with needy wives, whining children and a despotic leader, these polygamous husbands must sometimes wonder if salvation is worth the price they've been asked to pay.
This garbage was so trite that I actually looked up the website's rank, before pointing to it to confront it as false. I wouldn't have wanted draw unnecessary attention to something like The Hope Organization, a site no one visits. Or maybe this nitwit did, and thought she was doing "research."

Sphere: Related Content


von said...


As you perhaps know from following my blog or my MD posts, I do not subscribe to the idea that the NT forbids polygyny.

However, except for one case, polygyny is nowhere commanded in the New or Old Testament.

So my question: How do you (except for that one case) justify polygyny in light of Romans 13 and similar verses.

The Pharisee said...

Thanks Von,

First of all, I'd point out that monogamy isn't commanded either, except for the same places that polygyny is commanded. Both are commanded as side effects of other commands, namely, to fulfill a law one must marry, and it doesn't matter if you weren't married at all at the time, or married to someone, or even several someones.

If law in fact does forbid polygyny, one should not engage in it. The commands to become polygynous, which are secondary effects of other laws, don't apply to the majority of believers today. They could only apply to "Messianics." By Messianic, I would mean those believers who are also racially Hebrew and think it is necessary to follow the law as well as recognize Jesus as Messiah.

What is troublesome for those who believe polygyny to be against the law is that none of the behaviors that qualify as polygyny are against the law, save one. Purporting to be married.

That then is a "Free Speech" issue. There can be no law that would pass constitutional test that would forbid me from referring to myself as an Aardvark for instance.

The law says I cannot be married, therefore in their eyes, I am not.

I say I am married. The law really can't consider me married when they don't think it's even possible.

For their purposes I am calling myself Bigfoot, or an Aardvark or a Tasmanian Devil. I am not any of those things, but constitutionally, I am able to say such things about myself.

From their point of view, I live in the same place as several women, and I have sex with them.

From my point of view, I'm married to them.

From their point of view, unless I attempt to register those wives concurrently, I'm not married to any of them except perhaps one.

And I'm calling myself the Loch Ness Monster.

For this reason polygynists are not prosecuted unless they violate another law in the process of their polygyny.

von said...

Oh, I understand that (altho I would disagree on the Jewish Law a bit. Not important here). Not quite my question tho.

According to Romans 13 we are supposed to be 'obeying' the government... obviously with the limitation that when God commands something different we must do that, particuarly when it falls outside of the governments jurisdiction. So we need to try to do that, no?

Now, while I agree with you that, basically, the government has no business at all regulating marriage and forbidding what should not be forbidden. But the fact remains it has tried to do so. And the fact remains that if I were to go and take a second wife (which I am NOT thinking of doing) I would be violating the spirit of that regulation.

Does that make more sense?

The Pharisee said...

That does make sense, and perhaps I improperly addressed your point, since that is what I thought I was answering.

The question becomes: Has government forbidden that which we can view as optional? Namely, not that which God COMMANDS of us.

If the answer is yes, then we should accede to government command.

If the laws made against polygyny are indeed an effective order to cease (and if indeed as is my position) polygyny is in fact optional in this day and time, we should give in to government demand and obey.

I'm just not convinced that government continues to make a coherent and effective order to cease and desist.