Bigamist (A lotta fog in Italy)

[Palrmine]

I hold some fairly hardline opinions on this subject, and was curious to get other perspectives. First, here is my definition.

Polygamy (polygyny) - A man who has more than one wife and they all agree on it

Bigamy - When a man leaves his family behind to start a new family.

I know these are not the legal definitions, but I think the difference is very important. Where I am hardline is that I believe this form of bigamy is responsible for most problems in the world. Think of the case from the industrial revolution that still happens in developing nations. A husband moves into a city to find work, sends money home at first, and eventually stops and finds a new family.

I also don't think that marriage is a prerequisite for this kind of bigamy. When a man walks out on his "baby mama", it causes the same problems.

Either way we have children growing up without a father figure and believing that that behavior is ok. I feel like this perpetuates and creates repeating cycles of hurt families and unfair lives for kids. Look at inner cities. I feel as if every father stayed and cared for their child, it would have a greater impact than raising the poverty line.

And the last tidbit I want to mention is that I feel like that if this distinction was better known, people would be more accepting of polygamy.

Just wondering if folks agree, disagree, or have a different perspective.

 

[Quartus]

Where I am hardline is that I believe this form of bigamy is responsible for most problems in the world

That is so right. I heard a doctor speaking along the lines of "none of these diseases" and when he got onto the subject of the damage done to children psychologically by broken homes there is a huge amount of damage done, in terms of social unrest and worse.

But I think "serial monogamy" is a more useful description of this as it serves to emphasise that all is not well in the monogamy camp. The problem is not actually from having more than one wife, but rather from not being allowed to have more than one wife.

 

[rockfox]

The cultural conception of bigamy is a man who secretly has wives in multiple places. So there is a large amount of deception and betrayal of trust going on.

This is different than the Biblical way of all in one household. Doing it above board like that takes a lot more gravitas. But thats a good thing; and it also lacks the deception. You then accrue the many advantages of mutual assistance and economy of living. Bigamy not only denies the first wife those benefits, but also potentially certain other status benefits in being the first/senior wife and in being the wife of a man so attractive he can attract and marry multiple ladies. I realize that as society isn't ok with polygamy fully so these such status' don't come in externally; but they are still at work on the personal level.

Don't take from that I think its sinful to have a different house for each wife. Its the above board part that is key; though doing so does cost you some of the economies of having multiple women.

 

[Palrmine]

I think "serial monogamy" is a more useful description

That is a great point. But I still keep a distinction from divorce and simply leaving. Divorce still being a big hardship for the family, but it legally still demands an amount of responsibility from the father.

I'm talking about leaving families destitute. We use the term "dead beat dad" but I don't think it works. That is someone who doesn't pay alimony. I see the kind of bigamy as a player who gets a woman pregnant, promises to stay forever, and then keeps right on playing. Never returning.

I hope that helps to clarify.

 

[Quartus]

Ah, thank you. "separated by a common language" but certainly the deceit aspect is common.

The English law against bigamy defines bigamy as going through a second act of marriage. Since according to English law, the second marriage is void, even someone who goes through 10 marriages can still only commit bigamy - none of the "marriages" count after the first. So what we would think of as polygamy could only count as serial bigamy in English law. When you get down to it, in practical terms, it's more legislation against deceit, which comes back to your point.

 

[Curtis Gerhart]

Maybe I’m missing the point here. Correct me if I error, but I find great error when one uses “my definition.” It creates for an opposing view the opportunity for a winning argument. Creation versus evolution comes to mind here. It allows for a wide variety of conclusions. What we need to look at are what are God’s definitions of words or the legal definitions. God will not use “my definitions” for words, nor will the courts. I have yet to see anyone that has been jailed for your bigamy’s definition, which is about deceit. Yet if a person presented prema facia evidence or a second marriage license with two women, then you’re gonna win an all expense trip to “the gray bar motel.” This would cause so many issues in hermeneutics if we all used our personal definitions.

 

[Curtis Gerhart]

Also, I believe one author claimed that we all practice some form of polygamy. The most prevelant is successive polygamy. I find this having the most deception of all.

 

[Palrmine]

I'm not talking about legality. I'm talking about the behaviors that cause problems.

There's really 3 situations of harmful bigamy
a) Abandonment: Leaving a family alone to start a new one and never returning
b) Secret lives: Having 2 separate families in secret and visiting both
c) Conflict: Marrying another wife without consent of the other(s)

What I'm saying is that polygyny gets a bad rap because in my experience those three things are what the world wants to see, and they assume all polygamous marriages are like that.

And the second point is that I believe a is the worst because we let it happen. Especially among young people who "live together" instead of legally marrying. But when the man leaves that arrangement the same damage is done.

 

[Palrmine]

Oh, and there is a halfway point between a and c. That would be a runaway. When someone tries to escape their life and moves on to start fresh. That's the plot immortalized in the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's. I never could stomach that story because of it.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@Palrmine something that you might wanna consider c) Marrying one wife without consent of the other.

IMHO. This requirement to gain consent violates the biblical chain of command. It can be answered by the simple question, who do you obey and who do you serve? They should not be the same.

I’ve mentioned this in other posts, but IMO its all about being under authority. The husband is not accountable to the first wife about another that he brings in. He is (or should be) under the authority of his Father and accountable to him for consent and affirmation. This is not to justify browbeating or verbally bullying the first into going along, rather to point out a flaw in your foundation. Obviously a first that is not on board could result in her jetting, but that does not place her in the position of authority that consent would require.

Gotta run. Peace love and all the fuzzy stuff!

 

[Curtis Gerhart]

@Palrmine something that you might wanna consider c) Marrying one wife without consent of the other.

IMHO. This requirement to gain consent violates the biblical chain of command. It can be answered by the simple question, who do you obey and who do you serve? They should not be the same.

I’ve mentioned this in other posts, but IMO its all about being under authority. The husband is not accountable to the first wife about another that he brings in. He is (or should be) under the authority of his Father and accountable to him for consent and affirmation. This is not to justify browbeating or verbally bullying the first into going along, rather to point out a flaw in your foundation. Obviously a first that is not on board could result in her jetting, but that does not place her in the position of authority that consent would require.

Gotta run. Peace love and all the fuzzy stuff!

Soooo spot on! Bro, I was gonna point this point out. Glad you did. Hey, you and da gang common to Georgia retreat?

 

[rustywest4]

@Palrmine something that you might wanna consider c) Marrying one wife without consent of the other.

IMHO. This requirement to gain consent violates the biblical chain of command. It can be answered by the simple question, who do you obey and who do you serve? They should not be the same.

I’ve mentioned this in other posts, but IMO its all about being under authority. The husband is not accountable to the first wife about another that he brings in. He is (or should be) under the authority of his Father and accountable to him for consent and affirmation. This is not to justify browbeating or verbally bullying the first into going along, rather to point out a flaw in your foundation. Obviously a first that is not on board could result in her jetting, but that does not place her in the position of authority that consent would require.

Gotta run. Peace love and all the fuzzy stuff!

Lord Veritas the Boss!

 

[rockfox]

I’ve mentioned this in other posts, but IMO its all about being under authority. The husband is not accountable to the first wife about another that he brings in. He is (or should be) under the authority of his Father and accountable to him for consent and affirmation. This is not to justify browbeating or verbally bullying the first into going along, rather to point out a flaw in your foundation. Obviously a first that is not on board could result in her jetting, but that does not place her in the position of authority that consent would require.

The standard marriage vows have the man vowing to forsake all others. Would you not then need her release from your oath given it was to her?

This isn't so much her having authority as you previously waived your right and now need to get it back.

 

[rustywest4]

The standard marriage vows have the man vowing to forsake all others. Would you not then need her release from your oath given it was to her?

This isn't so much her having authority as you previously waived your right and now need to get it back.

And thus the predicament every western man desiring additional wives has found themselves in! Lol ... We await the blessing of the first wife to be "released" from that monogamous "vow" we made to them... otherwise we aren't "men of our word" right?

 

[frederick]

The standard marriage vows have the man vowing to forsake all others.

Eccl. 5:5 Better not to vow than to vow and not pay.

And thus the predicament every western man desiring additional wives has found themselves in! Lol ... We await the blessing of the first wife to be "released" from that monogamous "vow" we made to them... otherwise we aren't "men of our word" right?

So all the more reason to teach the next generation of men not to make those vows.

 

[Shibboleth]

I'm not in that perdicament, since I haven't married yet. If/when I do, this will be a definite point to consider and raise before making any vow/covenant. I essentially have to rethink/rediscover/recodify what marriage is...

It's a bit intimidating, because I feel that I would have to tear down one highly-venerated and long-running cultural institution to replace it with something more in line with God's Word. Preferably within the bounds of any existing legalities, which I may or may not be aware of. That's terrifying, frankly.

 

[frederick]

I'm not in that perdicament, since I haven't married yet. If/when I do, this will be a definite point to consider and raise before making any vow/covenant.

I can only thank my awesome God for His providential hand in my life but, for some reason, I excluded any reference to "forsaking all others" from my vows. Maybe eloping caused me to be a little different in a lot of things related to marriage in the first place(?)

 

[Palrmine]

Very thoughtful responses. Didn't mean to take the conversation in that direction. I always viewed "forsake all others" as a declaration of man leaving his father and mother to join his wife.

The "all others" were always meddlesome outsiders, not women married into the tribe.

 

[Mojo]

http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/the-mistress-phenomenon.13440/page-2#post-153950

These are a few articles describing a very real and common occurrence in many nations. The problem is not necessarily a character flaw in men. These second families and wives are often well taken care of and truly loved. Social taboos require them to be secretive and deny what they have. In some cultures, wives expect mistresses, etc. They just don't want the two families to mix.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Soooo spot on! Bro, I was gonna point this point out. Glad you did. Hey, you and da gang common to Georgia retreat?

Man I’d love to meet up with everybody again and have some more good times, but my plate is overflowing here in OK and I’ve already made one trip to NC and one to TX since the first of the year. I’m gonna have to pass on this one but we all really wish we could go. I’ll be thinking of you all while I’m bending nails out here.