My Response To Boxer

This is a reply to Boxer from Dalrock’s blog.  I’m posting it here because Dal doesn’t want me discussing polygyny.  Out of respect for him, I’ll post it here.


I honestly don”t know any Mormon polygynists, but I do know a bunch of (very) conservative Christian polygynists. How they structure the marriage varies. Some have separate families in separate houses, others have separate living quarters for each wife and her children in one house with common areas. Some have a “blended’ approach in which the children are all together, boys bunked together and girls bunked together. In these situations sometimes each wife has her own bedroom, and some of them have told me “we didn’t get married to sleep alone.”

Some of the traits common to all these families are they are very patriarchal and the husband winds up leading Bible studies and prayer on a daily basis. Almost all I’ve met homeschool their children.  They are conservative in both their dress and demeanor.

Had you actually been in a polygamist lifestyle, you’d still be dealing with these women, and these same bitches (older, uglier, fatter, looser than ever) would be riding you into the grave.

And a monogamist who is faithfully married to the same woman after 20+ years isn’t in the same position? It seems to me that you’re making the argument against lifelong commitment regardless of the number of wives. Unless you’re arguing for serial monogamy, which would require divorce, the very thing I think most would like to avoid.

There are no political solutions at this point, only individual solutions. I like to focus on solutions, which requires an examination of the real nature of the problem. Once the problem is understood, there is the possibility of finding a solution. In this case, the problem is three-fold: First, the nature of women is hypergamous solipsism and I believe this is because of the curse in Genesis 3:16. Whether it is or it isn’t, it is a trait easily observed in women. Second, the legal system we have empowers that nature, allowing them to nuke their families for any or even no reason at all. Third, we live in a culture that glorifies such behavior.

Obviously, marriage can be avoided by both men and women by simply by having a few FWB’s and getting sex isn’t a problem. However, there is another consideration for people like me.

I am convicted that I have an obligation to obey God, my Creator, as well as the Lord, who is my savior. Therefore, if I want sex it must be within the bounds of marriage. Any children that result would be legitimate and not bastards. In order to be obedient, no marriage means no sex, no companionship, no children and nobody to warm the bed.

With monogamy, even if the couple got married with a marital contract instead of getting a marriage license, in the eyes of the State they’re still married and thus can be divorced according to the whims of the family court judge. Claiming it isn’t a statutory marriage is irrelevant and the court will simply do what it wants. Under the current regime, all advantage goes to the woman. I think everyone on this forum recognizes that.

Question is, for a Christian man who wants a family with children and regular sex, how can he get what he wants without playing the State’s game? How can the marriage be structured in such a way as to reduce the temptation for the women to nuke the marriage?  How can he be married in the eyes of God without being married in the eyes of the State within a structure that negates many of the powerful influences of the culture? It boils down to the question of what marriage is. My study of the Bible tells me that the agreement of the parties to marry, consummation of the marriage and cohabitation of the parties are the elements that constitute a Biblical marriage. The key is the context, and that context is a commitment to being married because marriage is for life. It is the commitment that the State has attacked with no fault divorce.

Marriage to one woman seems pretty difficult (even a decent woman is often trying). Why would you think dealing with three different women would be better?

Assume: A marriage with more than one wife utilizing a Marital Covenant without any marriage licenses contrasted with a monogamous marriage in any form (statutory, common law, covenant, etc).

1) The State cannot recognize a union of one man and more than one woman as a marriage and thus there can be no divorce court drama. With a monogamous marriage (in which the man and woman hold themselves out to be husband and wife) the State will recognize such a union to be a marriage and thus no-fault divorce rules apply as if it were a statutory marriage. Ouch.

2) The marriage contract for a polygynous marriage can only be viewed by the State as an enforceable co-habitation agreement because the State cannot recognize the union as a marriage. Kind of like a pre-nup that can’t be thrown out at the whim of a family court judge.  With a monogamous marriage the statutory rules apply and the husband can get divorce-raped, lose his kids be forced to pay and that’s all she wrote.

3) In a polygynous marriage, if one of the wives decides to walk, the father has a far greater chance of getting custody of the children (especially if he has children by the other wives and they all live together) and the terms of the contract can be enforced in terms of property (the extent of this can vary, state-by-state). With a monogamous marriage, if the wife decides to walk she’ll get cash, prizes and most likely the kids, he gets to pay.

4) In a polygynous marriage, multiple wage-earners and a SAHM means a higher standard of living than any of the women could expect on her own or in a monogamous marriage. Multiple wage earners means more security in the event one of them loses their job. With a monogamous marriage, a SAHM means only one income. If both parents have to work, the kids are in school/day care and somebody else is raising the children. If the sole bread-winner loses his job it’s an instant crisis that could, in an of itself cause a divorce.

5) The structure of a polygynous marriage places the incentives on staying in the marriage (higher standard of living in the marriage than out, no cash and prizes for leaving and a high probability the dad would get the kids if she did leave). With a monogamous marriage the wife’s incentives are to leave the marriage in order to get cash, prizes, the kids and a regular check from the ex-husband for several decades.

6) In a polygynous marriage, if one of the wives did decide to walk and got custody of her children, child support can only be based on his income, not on the income of the wives who remained in the marriage. Thus, the husband is not financially hurt nearly as badly as he would be if divorced from a monogamous marriage. No marriage? No alimony. With a monogamous marriage the wife has a high probability of getting the kids, child support, alimony (if it’s an alimony state) or chilimony. The husband gets financially raped and if his income increases, the ex can go to court to get his support levels raised. If he loses his job and can’t pay the chilimony, he stands a good chance of going to jail.

7) With a polygynous marriage, intersexual competition between the wives automatically places the husband in a more dominant (attractive) position and the women can get their emotional needs (attention) met from each other. Supply and demand says if the supply of his attention has to be divided between all wives, there is less of his attention available to any individual wife, so his value goes up. That makes his attention the prize they have to compete for and that makes him more attractive. With a monogamous marriage, the wife can withhold sex and sentence her husband to sexual starvation by using sex as a weapon. If he’s serious about his vows, she can use sex as a weapon any time she wants. She will still want him to meet her emotional needs, provide for her (and any children) and “open up” emotionally which actually damages the relationship.

8) For a polygynous marriage, there are a large number of women to choose from who have already preselected for this lifestyle (sharing a man) by being carousel riders. For those who desire a monogamous marriage, there ain’t a lot of virgins out there that are marriage material because of their feminist upbringing. As others have pointed out, trying to wife up a slut in monogamous marriage (even a “reformed” slut) is risky business.

I could keep going, but there is a caveat here that applies to both monogamous and polygynous marriages. Swallow the red pill first. Read and internalize both “The Rational Male” and “Married Man Sex Life” before courting, regardless of what kind of marriage you want.

This entry was posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way, Polygyny. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to My Response To Boxer

  1. Polymono says:

    “In these situations sometimes each wife has her own bedroom, and some of them have told me “we didn’t get married to sleep alone.”

    So then why didn’t they choose to share their mate with other partners then?

    • Would your wife approve of sharing you with other women outside your marriage? I think your problem is you can’t accept that both monogamy and polygyny are Biblically acceptable forms of marriage. Let’s say two women marry the same man. They are both his wives but no other women are. You are trying to equate polygyny with the sin of fornication.

      Was Jacob fornicating because he had two wives and two concubines?

      The people who’ve told me “we didn’t get married to sleep alone” were commenting more on the intimacy of their relationships than on the nature of anything that might happen in the marital bed. Yet, the culture we live in demands that we sexualize everything, even when it leads one in the wrong direction.

      Would you choose to share your wife with other men? I’m assuming you’re a man when I say that. Are you taking the position that ONLY a monogamous marriage is a “real” marriage? If you are, then you’re not in agreement with the Bible.

  2. Renee Harris says:

    Most people misunderstand ‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7‬:‭2‬ to be the same as used in your “own” sin. Plus most people will point out that wives can’t be sisters or mother and daughter combo. And yes Jacob was before the law… I know that.
    Most people think of porn or BDSM lit where the man has a lot woman at once with one woman serving him and another one serving the first Woman .

  3. @Renee
    If I understand what you’re saying, 1st Cor. 7:2 is aimed at each partner providing access to their own body in order that their partner might not sin. If this is the case, I agree with you.

    In Romans 5, Paul states that sin was in the world but prior to the coming of the law sin was not imputed as sin. However, with the coming of the Law, sin was identified as sin and imputed to the sinner as sin. Following the 10 Commandments, the first law was the law of the bondservant. Following that was was Exodus 21: 7-11. Take a look at Verse 10, which makes it clear that she is a wife:

    If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing or her conjugal rights.

    The discussion of conjugal rights means this passage is talking about multiple wives. And look at the order this is introduced: The 10 Commandments, the Law of the bondservant and marital instructions that covered polygyny in the form of a general law. Later came the law against marrying a mother and a daughter (some believe this is also a prohibition against incest) and the law against marrying sisters. Later still, we find a judgment of Moses that states if a man has two wives, one loved and the other hated, if the hated wife gives birth to the first born son, the husband cannot then later give the double portion to the first born son of the wife that is loved.

    God does not regulate sin. He prohibits it and condemns it.

    Renee said:
    Most people think of porn or BDSM lit where the man has a lot woman at once with one woman serving him and another one serving the first Woman .

    A couple of years ago I wrote an epic guest-post at SSM’s blog (now closed), in which I made the argument that the headship authority of the husband over the wife is not limited. I pointed out a curious silence on God’s part about one thing that drove everyone nuts. Look at Leviticus 20:13-16 and Leviticus 18:22-23

    Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a female. It is an abomination.”
    Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
    Leviticus 20:14 If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst.
    Leviticus 18:23a “Also, you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it”
    Leviticus 20:15 If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal.
    Leviticus 18:23b “Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it, it is a perversion.
    Leviticus 20:16 If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

    Did you see that? God chose to specifically prohibit and condemn women in the law against bestiality. The popular argument is made that the prohibition against men with men means that women with women is just as wrong. That is completely shot down in flames by the fact that God saw fit to specifically include women with animals in addition to men with animals. That brings the deafening silence on the subject of women with women to our attention. So, let’s boil this all down and see what we can see:

    Man with man = homosexuality, an abomination, death penalty
    Man marries Mother and Daughter = immorality, burn them to death.
    Man with animal = perversion, death penalty
    Woman with animal = perversion, death penalty
    Woman with woman = *crickets* God was silent on this.

    The only mention of anything close to this is Romans 1:26

    For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural

    In that passage, the word “unnatural” is literally translated as “against nature.”

    What is the natural function of women? The woman was created to be a “helpmeet” (wife) for Adam, and God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. 1st Timothy 2:14-15 says

    14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

    It certainly appears that the Bible is saying that the natural function of women is to be a wife and mother. If that’s the natural function of women, then the natural function of men is to be husbands and fathers.

    So, compare that with what Romans 1:27 says about the men:

    and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [a]indecent acts and receiving in [b]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

    We see that both men and women were given over to degrading passions, so let’s compare the men and women in Romans 1:26-27

    Women – gave up the natural function of women (sex with men)
    No condemnation
    No penalty

    Men – gave up the natural function of the women (sex with women)
    Condemned as committing indecent acts
    Receiving in their own bodies the due penalty for their errors

    We’ve already seen that a man is permitted to have more than one wife. It isn’t a sin. You cannot convince me that God did not understand that if a man has more than one wife, sooner or later the vast majority of those guys will want them all in bed at once. The question is, can he legitimately do that? The first question is the husband’s authority. Ephesians 5:22-24 says

    Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

    If the husband wants them all in bed together, it he asking/commanding them to sin? The answer must be no because even outside the context of marriage God didn’t say it was a sin. Women in a polygynous marriage can fulfil the natural function of women as wives making babies. And, if their husband causes them all to wind up in a naked, sweaty sexually-charged pile of bodies, there will obviously be sexual contact between the wives but they are under the authority of their husband and there is no sin.

    That guest post went on for over 750 comments, but nobody could find a single passage of scripture to point to in order to claim I was wrong. I was personally attacked to an incredible degree and while everyone kept saying I was wrong, they could not point to a single scriptural authority to demonstrate I was wrong.

    You want to know why this really really scares women? They know if they were put in such a situation, they might start to really like and enjoy the female/female attention. This produces instant hysterics. Why? Let’s go back to your last statement.

    Most people think of porn or BDSM lit where the man has a lot woman at once with one woman serving him and another one serving the first Woman

    I don’t like the word serving but let’s say for round one the husband is on top of wife #1, and he pulls wife #2 close and says “you take that nipple and I’ll take this one. And run your fingers through her hair” He says to wife #1 “Put your arm around her and rub your hand up and down her body.”

    They are in bed at his command doing things with each other at his command. Is it a sin? Not according to the Bible.

    Round #2 finds wife #1 flat on her back with wife #2 above her on her hands and knees with husband entering her from behind. Husband tells wife #1 to give wife #2’s breasts lots of attention and while she’s at it, put a finger on her button and start rubbing it.

    The thought of such a thing drives a lot of women over the edge. They’re either willing to admit that the visual image of that is erotic, or it scares them to death because deep down they know that if put in such a position they’d discover that they really did enjoy it. There is another contingent of women who have been told such a thing is wrong and sinful for all of their lives and have such a mental block about it, they experience feelings of revulsion, disgust and to one extent or another, fear. Now… How many copies of Fifty Shades of Grey have been sold? I’d say the percentages are about the same. For some women, the very idea disgusts them, for others it interests them, still others get hot and flustered wondering if deep down they’d really enjoy it.

    It’s the same as women who were taught that sex was a dirty, filthy act, but necessary in order to have children. These women have been injured because God created sex for both procreation and recreation. Otherwise He wouldn’t have given women a clitoris. Lot’s and lots of Christians would say “sex within marriage was meant to be wonderful and pleasurable” but as soon as you step up to two or more wives, they start screaming.

    If it was a sin, God would have said so. He didn’t. Maybe it’s a sin to those whose faith is weak, but for those whose faith is strong it isn’t a sin because God did not forbid polygyny, He regulated it; and the only two rules for the marital bed are no sex during menstruation and after childbirth no sex for 40 days if it was a boy and no sex for 80 days if it was a girl (Leviticus 12). That’s it.

  4. Renee Harris says:

    All things are allowable not all things profitable. One wife is a pain in the ass , so two or three? How many devout Susie homemaker do you think are out there?
    More than likely you’re going to end up with women like me: ugly workaholics Who want to be a part of the last great awakening and have sinless sex life. First wife , daughter of some bluepill you hate, wife number two mid 20s yuppie you has a good job; 3 rd wife 21 old get regulated at the Babymaking Machine.
    While there are benefits come on dude do you really want?
    Also the commentor didn’t look very hard
    Deuteronomy 17:17 – Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

    1 Timothy 3:2 – A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

    1 Corinthians 7:2 – Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

    1 Kings 11:3 – And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

    • Deuteronomy 17:17. David had 7 wives and God gave him Saul’s wives and said if it wasn’t enough He’d have given him more. I don’t think that passage means what you think it means. Multiply, in this case, cannot mean less than 8 wives.

      1st Timothy 3:2. Again, this passage does not mean what you think it means. the word that is translated as “one” is also defined as “first” and so would be a better fit. That is, a man still married to his first wife.

      1st Corinthians 7:2. Context. “Let every man have his own wife” is not restrictive to a man having more than one wife. Both the first part and “Let every woman have her own husband” can also be understood as saying “their own spouse” and not “another’s spouse.”

      1st Kings 11:3. Yep, Solomon violated the command not to multiply wives and they turned his heart away from the Lord. Yet, David, with 8 wives did not.

      God described His having two wives, Judah and Israel. If God was the husband of more than one wife, how is it wrong for a man to have more than one?

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        This is an unusually speedy reply for me. Consider it a rough draft. Please bear with me if I made any obvious mistakes.

        “1st Timothy 3:2. Again, this passage does not mean what you think it means. the word that is translated as “one” is also defined as “first” and so would be a better fit. That is, a man still married to his first wife.”

        Can you cite any Greek grammatical expert who would agree with this? In the meantime, let’s examine this in a limited fashion. A quick and dirty lexicon examination shows that this term is translated as “first” in a few contexts:
        1) “one” day of the week (various references)
        2) “one” of multiple men/speakers (Luke 14:18)
        3) “one” of two wards/guards (Acts 12:10)
        4) “one” of two admonitions/warnings (Titus 3:10)
        In #1, “one” day of the week and “first” day of the week have the same meaning. This is a completely different contextual and semantic sense than comparing “one wife husband” vs. “first wife husband.” The only reason it must be translated “first” is because the enumeration is not otherwise clear in the English translation. In #2, #3, and #4 we likewise have an enumeration. “one” is used in conjunction with a selection (“the first”) contrasted out of the group, but there is nothing semantically special about “first” here. It is just one in a series. It is just numbering distinct things of a kind. But the passage in 1 Timothy isn’t enumerating, numbering, or contrasting wives.

        The enumerating aspect is especially important. Saying that a man must be the husband of a first wife would imply that he has multiple wives and that only those with multiple wives could hold the church leadership position. You can’t have a first wife if you don’t have more than one if the sense of the word is one of contrasting enumeration. It is quite confusing and bizarre to give “first wife husband” as a requirement if what you mean is “one or more” (see the second-to-last paragraph below) and even more bizarre to insert a teaching supporting polygyny here.

        Now, the lexicon is obviously inherently biased according to the translators performing the translation, so any of the other instances of the word (or its variants) might be appropriately translated in the manner that you suggest. I eagerly await any illuminating citations to this effect.

        It is rather amusing that on the face of it one wife husband explicitly rejects polygyny while first wife husband implies it: they are mutually exclusive defeaters of each other. A single word ambiguity leads to completely opposite conclusions!

        Alternatively, if one reads the text, as some do, that this is forbidding a divorced man from holding church office, then it can’t be interpreted as “first” because it doesn’t make sense to single out divorcing of a man’s first wife as a qualification for leadership and simultaneously ignore potential divorces of his later wives. This is the interpretation you seem to be implying when you say “a man still married to his first wife”. It strains credulity to suggest that it’s fine for a man to divorce his second or third wives but not his first. It’s also odd to think that a man wouldn’t be qualified for leadership if he were a widower or single (see below).

        Another alternative is pretty unlikely, that it is an admonition that a man must be married, since neither Paul nor Timothy were married and based on writings elsewhere. “First” can’t mean exclusively “one or more”. If this isn’t a teaching on divorce, then the implication is that the teaching is predicated on if a man is married then he must also have just one wife to qualify for the leadership position. That is, he can be unmarried or have one wife.

        Underlying your whole premise is the notion that because the Bible permitted polygyny and regulated it in the Law that this was because it approved of it generally. It clearly allowed it, much like the Law allowed for divorce. It neither promoted nor condemned the practice, and to say otherwise is to add or subtract from the Law. If Paul wants to restrict church leadership to those in monogamous marriages, it is not a violation of the Law to do so. Polygynist marriages do not have to be forbidden for the leadership guidelines to apply. The most 1 Timothy is saying is that polygynists should focus on their families instead of church leadership. (Ironically? Contextually?) this is traditionally what 1 Timothy 2 is saying: that the women should focus on their families and not participate in church leadership.

  5. Renee Harris says:

    At at s. For those who desire a monogamous marriage, there ain’t a lot of virgins out there that are marriage material because of their feminist upbringing.

    What do you define as a Virgin?
    More than “And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her. And she went down to the fountain, and filled her pitcher, and came up. (‭Genesis‬ ‭24‬:‭16‬ ASV)” I been thinking about this a lot lately …..

  6. tteclod says:


    I read you comment over at Roissy’s. (heartiste) posted 14 August 2015.

    I generally agree with your opinion regarding polygyny, Renee Harris’ comments regarding the qualifications of religious leaders and the dangers of excessive conjugal contracts both related and NOT withstanding. Perhaps I find the concept easier because I’ve discarded religious custom as binding except where plainly justified by observed reality.

    My opinion, post-Christianity, is that polygyny is the only practical relationship in that it is the only family structure which places the man at the head of his household of wives and children while simultaneously preventing his wives from asserting equal partnership with him and equal claim to his assets, or his children from assuming preeminence according to legitimate birth above earned favor. Regarding Harris’ biblical references, the monogamous religious leader is obligated to the church as well as to his wife, thus she and her children by him must share him with the church and the church must share him with her. The church is effectively the second-third-fourth wife to his earthly first wife. Similarly, Solomon had so many wives, he no longer had time to devote to deity. the Muslim prohibition of more than four wives is reasonable in this regard.

    But here’s the question for the modern married man and, if you like, for you to assess with hindsight.

    Is there a means by which a man might legally divorce his wife without excessive heartache and then reestablish that original relationship with her AND with other women according to his motives and means? I have observed several acquaintances divorce and sometimes even remarry, only to eventually cohabitate extra-maritally with the first spouse. One man in particular retrieved his first and only wife from a bad situation with her third husband, including a very long automobile drive, and remains together with her now several years later – unmarried. His family photos are heartwarming.

    It appears we are required to create a new pattern for living, yet there is no clear path by which we can repair and refurbish the old arrangement. Current custom seems to favor disposable marriages. How does one retain one marriage an add another? Our present legal framework appears designed to prohibit tinkering of the sort your propose, thus requiring the change to happen from one generation to another, and preventing the present generation from abandoning a failed system.

    Obviously, you don’t have “the answer” unless you’ve reconciled to your spouse and added another, but I’m interested to hear your opinion all the same.

    • Read the linked comments at Rational Male and if you’re really interested in the Christian component of it, read through the comments at the linked VoxDay post.

      Is there a means by which a man might legally divorce his wife without excessive heartache and then reestablish that original relationship with her AND with other women according to his motives and means?

      This begs the question of what marriage is and what a legitimate divorce is.

      A lawful marriage is a marriage as far as God is concerned.

      *Agreement of the Father
      *Agreement of the two to marry
      *Consummation of the marriage (intercourse, becoming one flesh)
      *Cohabitation as man and wife (public declaration of marriage)

      A legal marriage is a state-created simulacra of marriage in which the people get a marriage license (permission from the state to marry) and the state considers it to be a party to the marriage. It is a contract in which the state receives an equitable interest in all the assets of the marriage. A legal divorce replaces the marriage contract with a divorce contract.

      But, let’s back up and look at what God had to say about divorce. Go to the archives and click on July of 2013, it’s the second article. The bottom line is that for two Christians married together, there is no legitimate divorce. The wife is commanded not to separate, but if she does she is to remain single or be reconciled to her husband. Why? Because they are still married. The husband is flat out told not to separate from his wife. Period. If his wife bails out on him this does not prevent him from taking another wife, but if wife #1 wants to come back he cannot refuse. He can demand she repent of her sin and submit to him, but if she’s willing to do that he runs up against 1st Peter 3:7, “Husbands *live* with your wives…”

      However, there is a silver lining in this “legally divorced” thing. If the legally married and now legally divorced couple get back together, as a rule it negates any provisions of a divorce settlement and the couple can continue their lawful marriage. There is absolutely no need for another marriage license and “remarriage” to each other.

      The provisions of Deuteronomy 24:4 do not apply because there was no lawful divorce, and any subsequent “marriage” the wife may have made was nothing more than an adulterous relationship.

      How does one retain one marriage an add another?

      Obtain a legal divorce, splitting all assets equally and agreeing on 50-50 child custody, both physical and legal. Continue to live together, because you are not lawfully divorcing or separating, you’re getting rid of the legal garbage surrounding a state-sanctioned and controlled marriage. Life goes on. When divorce is final, add another wife and everyone is married under a written marital covenant (contract). The purpose of doing this is to avoid the husband being charged with bigamy. All assets are granted into a trust, husband and wives as trustees, beneficiaries are the children of the covenant.

      Read my comments and responses to YaReally at the Rational Male blog.

      One of these days I’ll have the book about this finished. It’s pretty much a step-by-step guide with a model covenant. Truth be told, it’s more of a plan for broken people to get out of the ungodly situations they’re in than for virgin special snowflake evangelical entitlement princesses.

      The manosphere will tell you that you don’t want to marry a used up carousel rider, because they are wholly unfit for monogamy. I agree, but polygyny works for such women and they’ve already proved they’re willing to share a man. It also work for single mothers (much caution needed here!) but that’s a matter of wisdom and preference. Is the biological dad part of the picture? How old are the kids? Can and will the mom have your kids? All things to consider, but polygyny is the one tool that can clean up the mess that exists in the church today. I reference Isaiah 4:1

      And in that day, seven women will lay hold of one man saying we will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name and take away our reproach.

      The following verse says “And in that day the branch of the Lord will be beautiful.” Christ is the true vine and we are the gentiles who were grafted in as branches (the church) in order to bear much fruit. That (as far as I’m concerned) makes it an end times verse.

      Romans 1:25-27 is also a prophesy. To the Romans, Paul must have been talking about some strange stuff, because in the extant writings we know of, there are only a half-dozen mentions of lesbian type relationships. While homosexuality was rampant (men with men) such relationships between women were almost unheard of. Yet, today they are everywhere. The number of women who identify as bisexual is exploding.

      (Oh- and the entire 840+ comment thread at Vox’s blog (Bow Not To Caesar) is me arguing that sex between women is completely unmentioned in Scripture and it isn’t a sin.)

  7. lithiasis says:

    Hi I am so grateful I found your web site, I really found you by error,
    while I was researching on Askjeeve for something else,
    Nonetheless I am here now and would just like to say thanks a lot for a fantastic
    post and a all round interesting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to look over
    it all at the moment but I have bookmarked it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a great deal more, Please do keep up the fantastic work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s