PLURAL marriage vs ONE big marriage

[PolyPride]

I have been thinking lately if polygamy really has to be practiced as MULTIPLE (or plural) relationships as opposed to one big marriage (all 3 or more spouses married to each other). Are we assuming that poly as plural marriages is the way? From my reading of some polygamous marriage, it seems that some of those relationships function like one big marriage depending on the living conditions and the closeness of the wives. For now, I haven't found any reason to doubt that monogamous marriages have to be between a man and woman - and one of each since it's monogamy. But if it's polygamy, I'm not fully convinced that a woman can't be married to a woman when there's also a man involved for purposes of poly.


So why can't polygamy be practiced as one big marriage?

Edit:
In response to Cecil's comment in post #2, I want to clarify and also ask if my question would be okay by biblical standards.

 

[CecilW]

So why can't polygamy be practiced as one big marriage?

It can! You are so RIGHT!

There's even a technically correct term for it, polyamory, as opposed to the form of polygamy which we espouse, polygyny.

It's kinda like cole slaw and 3-bean salads are both salads. They may even both fill the same position in a meal, on the salad plate. But they do still have differences ...

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Terms are important here.

First, polygamy is from two terms: poly and gamos and they mean multiples (poly) and gamos (Greek for unions).

Second, the Bible never reveals or presents polygamy anywhere from Genesis to Revelation.

Third, polygyny is a term from two words: poly and gune and they mean multiples (poly) and gune (women). That is seen in the bible.

Fourth, the term gamos is the Greek term we have for union or the existence of a union. The term you use is marriage which is defined as the legal right given by the state system for people to legally bond with each other. The biblical term gamos did not mean that. It, however meant the private unions of a man to his woman and a woman to her man.

Fifth, a union hinges upon the anatomical structures of the body in general. Thus, a woman to woman can not be because there is no physiological anatomy to unite them into a full union as the Bible defines a union.

So when looking at it with properly defined terms we see the bible endorses a man to a woman or multiple women in private love unions (not marriages which is a legal system with their own created terms and rights over their terms) but it does not endorse multiple unions both ways as such is not only missing in Scripture it is defies the actual definition of the term of what a union means.

 

[PolyPride]

Terms are important here.

First, polygamy is from two terms: poly and gamos and they mean multiples (poly) and gamos (Greek for unions).

Second, the Bible never reveals or presents polygamy anywhere from Genesis to Revelation.

Third, polygyny is a term from two words: poly and gune and they mean multiples (poly) and gune (women). That is seen in the bible.

Fourth, the term gamos is the Greek term we have for union or the existence of a union. The term you use is marriage which is defined as the legal right given by the state system for people to legally bond with each other. The biblical term gamos did not mean that. It, however meant the private unions of a man to his woman and a woman to her man.

Fifth, a union hinges upon the anatomical structures of the body in general. Thus, a woman to woman can not be because there is no physiological anatomy to unite them into a full union as the Bible defines a union.

So when looking at it with properly defined terms we see the bible endorses a man to a woman or multiple women in private love unions (not marriages which is a legal system with their own created terms and rights over their terms) but it does not endorse multiple unions both ways as such is not only missing in Scripture it is defies the actual definition of the term of what a union means.

Thanks Dr. K.R. Allen. Your fifth point answers my question. My doubts were mainly coming from me not seeing a real issue if two women married each other in the context of polygyny if marriage did not have to involve sexual intercourse. But if marriage does have to involve sexual intercourse, then you are right.

Sidenote:
On some of your other points and Cecil's post.. I'm not sure why polygamy and polyamory are not valid terms here. Do you guys view these words are dirty words on this forum? I understand polygamy or polyamory is what you guys decide not to call it but logically (going by definitions), polygyny is a form of polygamy. Polygamy (of any form) is also the same as polyamory. I can provide sources if needed.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

I understand polygamy or polyamory is what you guys decide not to call it but logically (going by definitions), polygyny is a form of polygamy.

The issue is where do we determine how to define our terms. If we define our terms from modern culture then those terms will be different than if we define terms theologically. It is an issue of epistemology, i.e. how do we know what we know and how do we properly determine what is the right definition to a term.

Polygyny is precisely not related to polygamy if we limit ourselves to defining our terms strictly by a theological sense. Note the different endings: gamy is from gamos for union and gyny is for woman or women. The only similarity etymologically is the prefix poly which means more than one.

Sometimes people use polygamy generically to cover every multiple form of a union. But that is theologically incorrect. Poly is only one portion of the term.

 

[PolyPride]

I understand polygamy or polyamory is what you guys decide not to call it but logically (going by definitions), polygyny is a form of polygamy.

The issue is where do we determine how to define our terms. If we define our terms from modern culture then those terms will be different than if we define terms theologically. It is an issue of epistemology, i.e. how do we know what we know and how do we properly determine what is the right definition to a term.

The terms are already defined for us in the English language. The very 1st definition I find on dictionary.com mentions for polygamy, "the practice or condition of having more than one spouse, especially wife, at one time". This fits polygyny.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polygamy

Polygyny is precisely not related to polygamy if we limit ourselves to defining our terms strictly by a theological sense. Note the different endings: gamy is from gamos for union and gyny is for woman or women. The only similarity etymologically is the prefix poly which means more than one.

Sometimes people use polygamy generically to cover every multiple form of a union. But that is theologically incorrect. Poly is only one portion of the term.

Both polygamy and polygyny refer to marriage. Going by the definition I offered, polygamy does fit. It's just not as specific as polygyny so this is really an issue of using the best term to avoid confusion rather than an issue of accuracy.

I'm just curious on this issue because this is not the first time someone has taken issue with me using the word polygamy or polyamory on this forum.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm just curious on this issue because this is not the first time someone has taken issue with me using the word polygamy or polyamory on this forum.

That's because a lot of people view "polyamory" as un-biblical and morally wrong. FTR, I agree with them. As for being "married" to a woman, that is a major turn-off for me. I want sister-wives but I'm only interested in being married to a man (and for me, that means each wife has her own bedroom).

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[PolyPride]

I'm just curious on this issue because this is not the first time someone has taken issue with me using the word polygamy or polyamory on this forum.

That's because a lot of people view "polyamory" as un-biblical and morally wrong. FTR, I agree with them. As for being "married" to a woman, that is a major turn-off for me. I want sister-wives but I'm only interested in being married to a man (and for me, that means each wife has her own bedroom bedroom).

Blessings,
Fairlight

Fairlight, polyamory is a general term used to cover multiple partner relationship. Polyamory is NOT just about the 'free-love' philosophy (mostly NON-Christians groups) type of people just as polygamy is not about Mormonism only. People tend to 'stereotype' that that's all those terms involve but it's out of a lack of understanding. I tend to want to correct stereotypes rather than just let people pile them up for a lifestyle that already suffers from misunderstandings on so many other levels.

Polyamory - participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polyamory

Under the definition I just quoted, a polygamous husband would fit this. He is in multiple relationships (marriagess) where love and sex is involved. So this form of polyamory is biblical.

 

[Doc]

I agree with you that polyamory as defined at reference.com is as you say. However, if you were to google polyamory, you would see how the termed is generally being used. In its general, popular use, polyamory denotes the lifestyle you mentioned. Also, 'marriage'/covenant is not a requirement for sexual union in polyamory.

I quote from Wikipedia

Polyamory, often abbreviated as poly, is often described as consensual, ethical, or responsible non-monogamy. The word is sometimes used in a broader sense to refer to sexual or romantic relationships that are not sexually exclusive, though there is disagreement on how broadly it applies; an emphasis on ethics, honesty, and transparency all around is widely regarded as the crucial defining characteristic.
The term "polyamorous" can refer to the nature of a relationship at some point in time or to a philosophy or relationship orientation (much like gender or sexual orientation). It is sometimes used as an umbrella term that covers various forms of multiple relationships; polyamorous arrangements are varied, reflecting the choices and philosophies of the individuals involved.
Polyamory is a less specific term than polygamy, the practice or condition of having more than one spouse. (Most polygamous cultures are traditionally polygynous, where one husband has multiple wives. Polyandrous societies, in which one wife has multiple husbands, are less common but do exist.) Marriage is not a requirement in polyamory.

Hence, as Biblical Families, we tend to shy away from the term in order to avoid association.

Regarding polygamy/polygyny, once again the reference definition may say one thing, however, general use may be quite different. Polygamy in general use denotes a negative connotation of immorality in a multiple relationship. Most folks wouldn't know 'polygyny' if it came up and bopped them in the nose.

You will even see on the forums here a tendency to even lean away from the word 'marriage', because of the way modern culture is redefining the term. For instance, the general public and even some levels of government may recognize 'gay marriage', but we would see that as a contradiction in terms.

Personally, I prefer 'covenant relationship', 'covenant marriage', or 'Biblical (not traditional) marriage'.


This is a good question, and one that comes up from time to time as new people enter on the forums. Please know that whatever term you use, we generally know what you are talking about, and if there is ever an issue, we seek clarification.

JESUS IS ALIVE!!

Doc Burkhart

 

[Isabella]

As for association, I do believe it would be beyond the pale for most people who define as Polyamorists to be confused with Religious Polygamists too. I think on the whole, we will do better to keep the definitions, whilst acknowledging that we are all going against the cultural Monogamy only norm. Let's be honest, no one from the Monogamy position is going to make any distinction, we are all (sometimes gender dependant) perverts, domineering, insecure, door mats etc etc.
Monogamy is SO culturally ingrained and assumed that we would have to be soft in the head to put barriers up in the various Poly communities and it is useful to realise that a win from one side will equal a win for all of us.

Bels

 

[steve]

we use words to convey or communicate the picture that is in our minds to someone else's mind.
boat
gun
car
all of them words that have broad meaning but give no detail and thus the mind-picture is not very focussed.
nonspecific; "i am going to take a boat ride tomorrow"
specific; "i am going to take a canoe trip tomorrow" "i am going to take a ride on a cigarette boat at tomorrow"
"i have 3 guns" shotguns? pistols? rifles?
"my car is white" 93 honda wagon? 66 corvette? 07 suburban?

similarly, all polygyny is polygamy or polyamory but not all polyamory or polygamy is polygyny.
it is an attempt to focus on who we are as a subset of the larger picture.

steve, the ever-helpful non-judaizer

 

[Anonymous]

Monogamy is SO culturally ingrained and assumed that we would have to be soft in the head to put barriers up in the various Poly communities and it is useful to realise that a win from one side will equal a win for all of us.

Not necessarily.....
I am only interested in advancing Biblical Marriage and so is my "significant other". I don't want to be associated with the polyamorists. When I have shared my belief in PM with friends, the first thoughts that occur to them are that I must be either bi-sexual or a member of some FLDS group. IMHO, Christian polygynists need to differentiate themselves from any group that does not embrace Biblically defined marriage.

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[Isabella]

Not necessarily.....
I am only interested in advancing Biblical Marriage and so is my "significant other". I don't want to be associated with the polyamorists. When I have shared my belief in PM with friends, the first thoughts that occur to them are that I must be either bi-sexual or a member of some FLDS group. IMHO, Christian polygynists need to differentiate themselves from any group that does not embrace Biblically defined marriage.

Blessings,
Fairlight

It is not about what you are "interested in" advancing. It is about the fact (one you so helpfully illustrated) that Monogamists like to throw us all in the same bracket and know nothing (and more importantly, care nothing) about the distinct communities we have. And if someone denies the advantages we are all benefiting from by a certain TV reality show portraying a functioning Mormon Fundamentalist Polygamist family, they are fooling themselves. Visibility (and positive visibility at that) Is good for us all.

So you see, it is not about (just) you.

B

 

[tphoover]

I think polypride is missing the underlying fact that modern definitions change which is why we as believers use the original definitions in the original context.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I am just going to assert the following, and if you don't agree (from a Biblical perspective), ask you to prove your case. It's not one big marriage, it's multiple marriages. The reason is that marriage is a contract and/or covenant. You can have wives of concubinage, and no marriage, but marriages are all between parties able to contract which are normally parents for the female involved (widows and divorced women are scripturally able to contract). It seems evident that in first marriages parents also contract for their son. Subsequently we seem him (David and Abigail being a perfect example) authoring his own marriage relationships.

The parents of the wife do not contract with the parents of the other wives, and in some cases could not as those parents may have passed away.

In a sense, we believe in Monogamy Only. It's just that we think a man can have a lot of monogamous relationships in the sense that each relationship stands on it's own with no commerce between the other relationships.

Concubines on the other hand have an interest in the other relationships because of Exodus 21 which provides them with an out, should they be deprived in one or more of three specific ways, but ONLY if it is the result of a man taking an additional wife.

 

[CecilW]

The terms are already defined for us in the English language.

True. And in a technical discussion, that would be one thing. But modern usage is what communicates thoughts mind to mind.

Face it: "Gay" technically means something like filled and overflowing with an excess of joy. But I doubt either of us is too eager to sing, "And we'll all be gay when Johnny comes marching home" anymore. *sigh*

So ... in popular usage, polygamy is predominately used to mean the more technically accurate polygyny. There are those among us who are comfortable with that, and those who want to always be technically accurate. I have a stepson who used to get quite upset if I referred to our Suburban as either a truck or a car. It was an SUV! Hmmm. Ok.

By the same token, when we hear polyamorous, the usual context or image communicated seems to be a poly union that does not have a religious basis and may well allow for multiple partners of both sexes. Technically you are correct, but in general practice and usage, not what we want to communicate or be associated with.

As a personal preference, after years of preferring the term plural marriage, I've more recently come to prefer the term Biblical Marriage, and even more, simply Biblical Families. It definitively sets the tone for any discussion which follows.

 

[Anonymous]

So you see, it is not about (just) you.

No it's not and I never thought it was.
It's about standing up for Biblical Truth, which as believers, I feel we need to do. In this case, it means separating ourselves from ungodly lifestyles. Just because a family is practicing some form of poly ( you defined them as "distinct communities") doesn't mean they are honoring Biblically defined marriage.

And if someone denies the advantages we are all benefiting from by a certain TV reality show portraying a functioning Mormon Fundamentalist Polygamist family, they are fooling themselves. Visibility (and positive visibility at that) Is good for us all.

What advantages? I and several other of my poly friends find that "certain TV reality show" to be quite unfortunate. From our vantage point, we see a group of basically controlling (albeit, nice) women who have a weak (albeit, nice) leader.....and it only reinforces the old stereotype of polygyny with Mormonism. In this case, I'm not finding the visibility to be all that positive. Many of my non-poly friends have told me they find the show a joke.

 

[Isabella]

It's about standing up for Biblical Truth, which as believers, I feel we need to do.

You are missing my point, I have already acknowledged the correctness of us all keeping our separate identifies.

In this case, I'm not finding the visibility to be all that positive. Many of my non-poly friends have told me they find the show a joke.

It doesn't matter if some of your friends feel it is a joke, the point is, the tide is turning and it is because people see happy Polygamists, sure they may not be your ideal, they are not my ideal either, but they are mainstream and people can recognise that. Much as you don't feel you need public acceptance, many of us would like to see a greater acceptance in society for all of us,

B

 

[Anonymous]

people see happy Polygamists

I guess I'm not seeing them as truly "happy polygamists".

but they are mainstream and people can recognise that

I'm not so sure that is what's happening. Their faces are well known now....but they were run out of Utah and lost their homes....and before that, two of them lost their employment because of angry viewers who called their bosses demanding that they be fired. There were also a plethora of angry viewers who called TLC and demanded that they cancel the show. This doesn't sound like acceptance to me. Sure, people watch the show (probably why TLC didn't cancel it :lol: ) and maybe some enjoy it but what I'm hearing from people (including my mom) is they watch it for the same reason people slow down and look at a car wreck.

Much as you don't feel you need public acceptance, many of us would like to see a greater acceptance in society for all of us,

No, I don't need public acceptance but I sure would love to have it!

 

[Isabella]

I'm not so sure that is what's happening. Their faces are well known now....but they were run out of Utah and lost their homes....and before that, two of them lost their employment because of angry viewers who called their bosses demanding that they be fired. There were also a plethora of angry viewers who called TLC and demanded that they cancel the show. This doesn't sound like acceptance to me. Sure, people watch the show (probably why TLC didn't cancel it :lol: ) and maybe some enjoy it but what I'm hearing from people (including my mom) is they watch it for the same reason people slow down and look at a car wreck.

You know, I have seen loads of negative comments, I have spent more time than I care to remember reading through comments from the public, yes many are negative but there are far more positive comments than you would expect and far more 'well it is not my kind of thing but....' types too. I have seen a great many changes just in the last few years. As for being run out of Utah...ermm that was just the pending court case, not as if there was a lynch mob outside the door and if I recall correctly, at least one of the wives thought it would end up in court way before they started the show. Now the Durgers are out too....it is not just a bit of fringe media or FLDS cults, it is mainstream and sympathetic,it is a huge leap.

B