Law professor John Witte Jr., writing in Christianity Today, says:
The strongest argument against polygamy is the argument from moral repugnance. Polygamy is inherently wrong—”just gross” as my law students say, “malum in se” as we law professors put it. Many states legislate against a lot of activities—slavery, indentured servitude, gambling, prostitution, obscenity, bestiality, incest, sex with minors, self-mutilation, organ-selling, and more—just because those activities are wrong or they inevitably foster wrongdoing. That someone wants to engage in these activities voluntarily for reasons of religion, bravery, custom, or autonomy makes no difference. That other cultures past and present allow such activities also makes no difference. For nearly two millennia, the Western tradition has included polygamy among the crimes that are inherently wrong. Not just because polygamy is unbiblical, unusual, unsafe, or unsavory. But also because polygamy routinizes patriarchy, jeopardizes consent, fractures fidelity, divides loyalty, dilutes devotion, fosters inequity, promotes rivalry, foments lust, condones adultery, confuses children, and more. Not in every case, to be sure, but in enough cases to make the practice of polygamy too risky to condone.
Read the rest right here.
As with slavery, there is no clear and unambiguous statement in the Bible that polygamy is wrong or forbidden. However, most Christians, including the Orthodox, the Catholic, and mainline Protestants (and even Mormons) have condemned it. Most civilizations (Western and non-Western alike) frown on it, although some form of it has always been tolerated among the wealthy and powerful elite as long as they were fairly discreet about it.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 8 comments }
I think the strongest argument against polygamy, though not a visceral one, is the imbalance it creates in society’s male-female ratio and the problems that causes.
Yes. Which is why, typically, in societies where it is tolerated, it’s usually seen only among the quite wealthy and powerful, and/or in situations where, for example, a widow needs a husband and so she’s taken as a second wife (i.e. more an obligation and burden on the husband than anything else).
Well, then, why aren’t we pushing for polyandry? A little of that would offset any imbalances stemming from polygamy, right?
It has been a while since I have felt offended by anything that any two consenting adults do with each others’ bodies, or what kind of marital relationships they enter into.
In any case polygamy without benefit of marriage is the typical state of male-female relationship in just about every ghetto and trailer park in the country. The men simply impregnate whatever women they can get into, leave, and find another companion.
My wife and I have had a stable monogamous relationship for many decades. Speaking for myself, I don’t basically care what the rest of American does.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Well, the US can still ban it. For hwo long, though, ranges from "next lawsuit" to "as long as there is a US."
—
"some form of it has always been tolerated among the wealthy and powerful elite as long as they were fairly discreet about it." Solomon was discreet about it?
—
Polygany. Hmm. My mother used to talk about a couple of "maiden" aunts who had a male "roomer" – who did not have his own room -  for over forty years. The rest of the family, after a year or so, decided to find it amusing. As nearly as I can reason, it probably started some time in the Twenties but may have been a bit earlier.
Saying that "the strongest argument against polygamy is the argument from moral repugnance" is roughly equivalent to admitting that there are no strong arguments against polygamy, because outlawing something just because it squicks you is pretty damn weak. (Notwithstanding Scott’s argument, which is more compelling.)
There is no need to outright bar polygamy. In a decent polygomous relationship, 1 man cares for mutliple wives and sets of children. This is very very expensive. Very few can afford this. Just structure things so that the state doesn’t subsidize such relathionships. e.g. stop all welfare to signle mothers who have children from a man who some other women is also getting welfare from – and such like. The market should take care of the rest.
Out of curiosity, will those who say that we can’t ban things simply because people find them icky suggest that public masturbation should be allowed?
Comments on this entry are closed.