....
Writing around 1604, the Jesuit Pedro Chirino observed, “…I suspect that the alliances formed by (Visayans) are not marriages, but rather the taking of concubines, considering the readiness with which they divorce and marry again, according to the custom of the country…
The Spanish official Antonio de Morga, in his “Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas” (1609) and republished by Rizal with commentary, also observed that Filipino “…marriages were annulled and dissolved for slight cause,” upon the examination and judgement of the relatives of both parties, and of the elders.”
That is basically the same point I've made here that modern marriage is more like Biblical concubinage than Biblical marriage. They could see this because in their time marriage wasn't like that, being a lifetime endeavor and one entered into only with the permission of the father. Not that I expect most moderns to be able to admit this, given with how modern Christians are quick to condemn relationship forms unlike their own 'righteous marriage'.
“Those whom they kept besides her they considered as friends. The children of the first were regarded as legitimate and whole heirs of their parents; the children of the others were not so regarded, and were left something by assignment, but they did not inherit.”
This is funny as it is exactly what Abraham did and exactly what ancient Mesopotamian law provided for in the Code of Hammurabi.
Fray Andres de San Nicolas, writing in 1664 of Cuyunon (of Palawan) and Kalaghans (of Surigao del Sur), noted that traditionally, “they had as many concubines as they could support.” That is, the first or legitimate wife headed the house, supervising the other women in household chores and productive enterprises (such as weaving). Polygamy was a way of expanding the alpha male’s labor force.
Again as in ancient eastern (as opposed to greco-roman practice), the concubines were in the home. The prime difference between Roman and Hebrew practice of concubines was the later lived in the home and under the authority of the man as part of the household and family. The difference between the women being one of status and possibly household heirarchy.
Students of the reformation will find this sounding familiar...
Writing in 1852, Sinibaldo de Mas pointed out “…one cannot exaggerate the harm that a goodly portion of the friars are doing, and the moral force that our government is losing because of the manner in which they are living. The most general weakness is that of concubinage. Many keep a mistress (called a stewardess or despensera), inside or outside the convent.”
Probably doesn't happen as much today however; what with the large number of gays in the priesthood.
...
Until now, polygamy was prohibited for civil marriages in Guinea, even though it is widely practised in religious marriages and no one is sanctioned for that.
Under the revised Civil Code, however, men can choose between the matrimonial regime of monogamy and polygamy, with a maximum of four wives
Polygamy is a centuries-old practice in Africa that has yet to disappear from modern life. It has both cultural and religious origins, and it is generally accepted in 26 out of 54 African countries, particularly Muslim majority countries.
You will often hear from people about how polygamy isn't common anymore or how it is banned in most countries. People are led to believe that because it is banned in some such African country is isn't practiced anymore or is immoral to practice.
But there is a difference between de facto and de jure law. Even in the United States, we in a huge number of cases run based on de facto law, not de jure. Just because the state doesn't recognize your form of marriage, doesn't reward it, doesn't mean it is morally wrong to practice it privately/religiously.
South Africa has also experienced polygamy for a time now – even its former president, Jacob Zuma was in power married to four women.
Jacob Zuma was in the news in the US a lot the last couple of years. I bet you never once heard that he was a polygamist.