What up folks! Let’s talk about Polygamy shall we?
By popular demand, I will fully explain why I support this controversial practice. But first, it needs to be understood that this is merely an academic exercise because…
IT IS SIMPLY SUICIDAL, IRRATIONAL, AND FOOLHARDY FOR ANY MAN TO GET MARRIED, TO ANY NUMBER OF WOMEN, IN THIS DAY AND AGE.
With that being said, let’s get on with it!
1) Polygamy is a tool that should be in every wise ruler’s toolbox.
Polygamy has a very ancient history. As we read in The History and Philosophy of Marriage:
“…the polygamists of Asia have preserved their social purity, and along with it many of their nationalities, through every age, notwithstanding their idolatry and Mohammedanism. Such are the nations of China, Japan, Persia, and Arabia, whose living languages and existing laws date back to the very earliest records of antiquity (p.60).”
The work continues:
“Polygamy is not barbarism, for it has been maintained and supported by such men as Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon; whose superiors in all that constitute the highest civilization - knowledge, piety, wisdom, and refinement of mind and manners -the world has never known, either in ancient or modern times.
Yet polygamy, though it be not barbarism, has almost always and everywhere prevailed, where a simple, natural, and inartificial state of society subsists. Its origin is coeval with that of the human race. It is mentioned before the flood. It is mentioned soon after the flood. As soon as mankind were multiplied upon the earth, it was discovered that the number of the women exceeded that of the men; and also that the amorous passions of the men were stronger than those of the women .
Polygamy brings both these inequalities together, and allows them to correct each other. It furnishes every woman who wishes to marry, a husband and a home; and gives every man an opportunity of expending his superabundant vitality in an honest way (p. 61-61).”
Turning to Lafcadio Hearn’s Japan, An Attempt at Interpretation, we read that:
“The ancient Japanese society was polygynous; and polygyny persisted, after the establishment of the domestic cult. In early times, the marital relation itself would seem to have been indefinite. No distinction was made between the wife and the concubines: "they were classed together as 'women.'" Probably under Chinese influence the distinction was afterwards sharply drawn; and with the progress of civilization, the general tendency was towards monogamy, although the ruling classes remained polygynous. In the 54th article of Iyeyasu's legacy, this phase of the social condition is clearly expressed,--a condition which prevailed down to the present era:--
"The position a wife holds towards a concubine is the same as that of a lord to his vassal. The Emperor has twelve imperial concubines. The princes may have eight concubines. Officers of the highest class may have five mistresses. A Samurai may have two handmaids. All below this are ordinary married men."
This would suggest that concubinage had long been (with some possible exceptions) an exclusive privilege; and that it should have persisted down to the period of the abolition of the daimiates and of the military class, is sufficiently explained by the militant character of the ancient society.”
And according to Mr. Siahyonkron Nysanseor:
To Africans including Liberians, the institution of polygyny (polygamy) is nothing strange. Polygyny was the acceptable form of marriage in Africa prior to the arrival of the colonizers and Christianity. The same can be said about the Americo Liberian settlers. As a matter of fact, the Settlers got involved in this practice of having more than one wife. Therefore, I assume it is out of ignorance that President Taylor wants to legalize an institution which has been the practice of the African inhabitants for hundreds of years.
Moreover, we need to correct a common mistake in referring to polygyny as polygamy. Polygamy is the practice of having more than one wife or husband at one time. Whereas polygyny is the practice of one man having more than one wife at one time. Polygyny is the form of marriage practiced in Africa not polygamy…
… the rationale given for the practice of polygyny in Africa is provided by two schools of thought - the Social and Economic. Proponents of the Social School explained that at the time polygyny was established as the legal form of marriage, the ratio of women to men in Africa was about 10 to 1. As the result, those who were responsible for establishing social institutions - the elders, including women, decided to come up with a marriage system that would address this problem. Their aim at the time was to provide a balance and equal distribution of social, material, security and economic benefits to both women and men.
Furthermore, these social architects or elders felt that if the problem regarding the needs of unmarried women were not addressed, what would eventually happen was the snatching away of other women's husbands, or the unmarried women would, for example, engage in prostitution since as human beings, their sexual, social, psychological and economic needs had to be taken care of.
On the other hand, the proponents of the Economic School reasoned that polygyny was established to address the prevailing economic issues of the period. They explained that during the Pre-colonial era in Africa, the economic activities were centered around subsistence agriculture. This type of farming requires lots of manpower. In order to establish the mode of production that was going to be beneficial to the entire society, the polygynous form was preferred. Since this form of marriage emphasized collective responsibilities, communal ownership of farms, wealth and the economic benefit of the extended family.”
So now we know that for the majority of the world’s peoples, Polygamy was, and is, a legitimate option that existed, and continues to exist, alongside the ideal of monogamy.
Rightly focused, and skillfully applied, polygamy served, and continues to serve, its purposes very well, and we will explore this in detail later.
I would like, at this time, to make a clarification. I previously stated that:
“Man is NOT a monogamous creature by nature.”
Let me now amend that statement and say that Mankind, as a group, is not monogamous by nature. Most people, I think, gravitate towards monogamy, and let it be known that I consider monogamy as a legitimate marriage option. I also support the personal choice of some to be celibate.
(Unfortunately, with the modern day Male Witch Hunt being carried out by the feminist courts of law, many men have entered into a forced celibacy that is quite unnatural.)
Human beings fall upon this sliding scale, and I am not one to quibble with human nature.
The enlightened ruler will recognize that these are the three states that Men aspire to. Suppressing any of these will only lead to inefficiencies and social disorder amongst the people.
Some may wonder if I support Polyandry, which is the union of one woman with many men. I oppose such unions for religious and logical reasons. A woman normally has one child at a time, over a nine month period; whereas a man can impregnate the several women under his care with relative ease. A woman has, on the aggregate, a weaker sex drive than a man; but a man usually has enough vigor to satisfy the multiple wives in his house. Not to mention that such couplings are forbidden in scripture:
“As amazing as it may seem, there is no definition of adultery in the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) and we must go to the Tanak (Old Testament) for that. In the Tanak, the Hebrew word for adultery is na'aph (Strong's #5003), and literally means "woman that breaketh wedlock". Because male-female roles are different in a Biblical marriage relationship, what constitutes adultery for a woman is not the same as for a man.
'And a man who commits adultery with the wife of another man, who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor: the adulterer and the adulteress shall certainly be put to death.' (Leviticus 20:10, The Scriptures)
"When a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman. Thus you shall purge the evil from Yisra'el. When a girl who is a maiden is engaged to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and shall stone them to death with stones, the girl because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has humbled his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:22-24, The Scriptures)
These two passages comprehensively define what adultery is. A married or unmarried man commits adultery if he has sexual intercourse with another man's wife (as King David did with Bathsheba, wife of Uriah) and the woman also becomes an adulteress. This is true whether the woman is fully married (having consummated the relationship) or is betrothed (having entered marriage vows in the presence of witnesses without the relationship having been consummated). This is the only definition of Adultery in the Scriptures.”
Biblically speaking, a woman cannot marry multiple men because she would then be committing Adultery with her multiple husbands.
Religion aside, it is my opinion, based on experience, historical precedent, and scientific evidence , that men, on the main, are better suited to the headship role; and if one is to have a multiple spouse household, then male headship is preferable to the female, in most cases. Men and women fall on the sliding scale of Manliness and Femininity , and we will find women that are suited for the dominant role, however, such women are few and far between.
As you consider this point, let us look at this quote from The Female Brain by Dr. Louann Brizendine:
“What we’ve found is that the female brain is so deeply affected by hormones that their influence can be said to create a woman’s reality. They can shape a woman’s values and desires, and tell her, day to day, what’s important. Their presence is felt at every stage of life, right from birth. Each hormone state—girlhood, the adolescent years, the dating years, motherhood, and menopause---acts as fertilizer for different neurological connections that are responsible for new thoughts, emotions, and interests. Because of the fluctuations that begin as early as three months old and last until after menopause, a woman’s neurological reality is not as constant as a man’s. His is like a mountain that is worn away imperceptibly over the millennia by glaciers, weather, and the deep tectonic movements of the earth. Hers is more like the weather itself—constantly changing and hard to predict (Brizendine, p. 4)”
Male headship is the desired state of things . Men are wired by the Holy One to exercise this authority, and this is one of many reasons why I do not approve of Polyandry as a rule.
If I were King for a Day, would I forbid, by the force of law, a woman from having more than one husband?
No, because marriage is a private decision. Marriage existed long before the formation of our present American Republic, therefore the American government has no jurisdiction over it, in my view. Per the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
Marriage is one of those powers reserved to the People, although the government has done a commendable job of stripping away those unnamed powers by demanding licenses and permits, enticing the common folk with “tax breaks” and other government sponsored services, and the like. But I digress.
If two (or more) men wish to associate themselves with one woman, so long as there is no coercion, and all the parties involved are of age to give their consent to such a union, so be it, although I seriously doubt that such unions would be very common in any case, using Gay Marriage as an example of a marriage movement gone bust. Whether God (Blessed be He) would approve of such unions… I leave that for Him to judge.
My belief that Truth should be known to all, and that lies exist only to be exposed demands me to articulate an otherwise private preference; because by means of sophistry and falsehood, the legitimacy of polygyny (one man, multiple wives) has been unfairly tarnished. I will not stand for this, as I believe that polygamy can be a useful social arrangement that can be used to remedy very pressing present day issues.
More on this in Part II.
I would like to retract the following statement:
Marriage existed before the formation of our present American Republic, therefore the American government has no jurisdiction over it, in my view.
Marriage, and the regulation thereof, is regulated by the Police Power of the State. Sorry for my mistake.
With that being said, the question becomes, by preventing Polygamy, is the State denying First Amendment Freedom of Religion , or the Supreme Court defined Fundamental Right to Marry?
While there are many opinions both in the negative and the affirmative, Kumogakure says that our existing marriage laws need amending on a great many points, Polygamy included.
But that is another post, for another time.