Terisa, 41, is at the center of this particular polyamorous cluster. A filmmaker and actress, she is well-spoken, slender and attractive, with dark, shoulder-length hair, porcelain skin””and a powerful need for attention. Twelve years ago, she started dating Scott, a writer and classical-album merchant. A couple years later, Scott introduced her to Larry, a software developer at Microsoft, and the two quickly fell in love, with Scott’s assent. The three have been living together for a decade now, but continue to date others casually on the side. Recently, Terisa decided to add Matt, a London transplant to Seattle, to the mix. Matt’s wife, Vera, was OK with that; soon, she was dating Terisa’s husband, Larry. If Scott starts feeling neglected, he can call the woman he’s been dating casually on the side. Everyone in this group is heterosexual, and they insist they never sleep with more than one person at a time.
It’s enough to make any monogamist’s head spin. But the traditionalists had better get used to it….
It’s a new paradigm, certainly””and it does break some rules. “Polyamory scares people””it shakes up their world view,” says Allena Gabosch, the director of the Seattle-based Center for Sex Positive Culture. But perhaps the practice is more natural than we think: a response to the challenges of monogamous relationships, whose shortcomings””in a culture where divorce has become a commonplace””are clear. Everyone in a relationship wrestles at some point with an eternal question: can one person really satisfy every need? Polyamorists think the answer is obvious””and that it’s only a matter of time before the monogamous world sees there’s more than one way to live and love. “The people I feel sorry for are the ones who don’t ever realize they have any other choices beyond the traditional options society presents,” says Scott. “To look at an option like polyamory and say ‘That’s not for me’ is fine. To look at it and not realize you can choose it is just sad.”
Read it all (my emphasis).
The box is open and there is no argument for why this should not be allowed in this age of tolerance as presently defined.
Of course, this is not acceptable before God. It is immorality and sin. But that is another matter and rejected by our culture and eventually by the EC.
Oh this will just be the first of many. If they can all get up and going in the near future, we can then debate them in resolutions at GC2012 and have all those new liturgies approved no later than 2015. Test liturgies can get started just as soon as a few progressive states buy into this.
This Newsweek article is a perfect example of why, for the most part, I do not get my news from secular sources. I don’t like being bombarded by the emptiness of it all. We need to be reminded each time we read and hear this rubbish “this is not acceptable before God”. I wonder if the Newsweek correspondent interviewed any who have tried this lifestyle and seen the damage it does.
Let’s develop a new liturgy! This is how we’ll grow the Church! Obviously the good folks of Bible times did not understand this new thing the “Spirit” is calling us to. We need to fully incorporate all the baptized in the Body of Christ — it’s a basic human rights issue (not that being baptized is that important anymore), and it’s fundamental to our baptismal covenant. One can already hear the gears turning!
Whew, thank goodness for that, I was beginning to worry. But seriously, the conservatives counter-argued that the progressive argument in support of same-sex partnering could also be used to support polyamory (and other -amories); that counter-argument was never engaged. So now that Newsweek is taking the rough edges off the concept and beginning the societal desensitization process, can a progressive now explain: how does this not undermine the concept of “marriage”, and what is the value and meaning of “commitment”?
One more thing, and i’m outta here . . .
Hee hee . . .
I love the *similarity of tone and “argument” [sic]* to the Integrity/Changing Attitude/Chicago Consultation/PEP/Via Media/Oasis groups.
It’s just priceless.
This is not merely sinful, it is impracticable. Group sex is no news, but group marriage – if such is the argument – can’t work because it has no boundaries, no limits, no restrictions and so cannot be clearly defined. The state cannot grant civil protections to such an arrangement. This arrangement is for people who are unable to commit themselves to anything or anybody; this is social anarchy. But don’t mistake me, we shall see more of this.
Are you out there Susan Russell? Here’s a friendly challenge: Can you justify THIS hanky-panky? Can multiples of this sort become priests and bishops? If not, why not? This menage is not mentioned in Scripture (that I know of). Is it therefore permissible in present theology? Larry
The children of these arrangements will bear the greatest harm (psychological, economic, and social). Everyone else will end up paying higher taxes to support the children of these people when the inevitable dissolution of these polyamorous relationships occur. I also believe that domestic crime rates will increase further with these types of arrangements because jealousy will not be assuaged by occassional companions. Gosh, I guess that despite all the “intellectual” counter arguments against there being a slippery slope effect to sanctioning “gay marriage”…there really is such a thing! Who’d a thunk it?
If only they could hear their own question and realize the only answer! Yes, one, and only one, one Person in particular, (actually 3, but not polyamorous 😉 ) can really satisfy every need, though He will not, for our eternal sake, satisfy any of our lusts. Jesus Christ the LORD God can and does satisfy our every need to abundant overflowing when we are convicted of our sins, confess them to Him, ask for His forgiveness and for Him to rule alone on the throne of our life forever. He prayed the Father would send the Holy Spirit to fill us, indwell us, and bring to our remembrance all things of Him, and He does exactly that for those who hunger and thirst after righteousness. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come into him, and dine with him, and he with Me. He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” Why settle for serial sex when you can have glory? 🙂
CBH in #3 is right about the emptiness. Some samples of lazy thinking and unchallenged assumptions from only the part quoted above…
What if Vera had not been OK with that? What does Vera’s and Matt’s mutual adultery say to society about the value of commitment, and about the concept of marriage? What effect will this have on the nation’s divorce courts? If adultery is acceptable, and even a chosen lifestyle, there must be no harm, and therefore it is not cause for divorce.
Notice the implicit bias: it’s not that “society must inevitably evolve to accomodate and recognize these ‘relationships'”, but rather a special-interest group that we can label “traditionalists” are the ones that we need to keep an eye on if their knickers get bunched.
It’s not a new paradigm in the slightest, and it doesn’t break any rules, it simply chooses to pretend the rules don’t exist.
It doesn’t “shake up” our world view at all, it simply offends and reinforces it. My worldview is exactly the same as it was prior to reading this: humans are amoral beasts, dead in their sin, unless faith in the Son of God brings about a spiritual rebirth by the agency of the Spirit of God. Marriage between a man and a woman is God the Father’s intentional design, for many purposes which include providing a check against lustful sin, enabling two to become as one, and to reflect the mutually sacrificial love between God and His people. No shaking up here.
What if it is, and what if it ain’t? We have all sorts of “natural” responses to all kinds of challenges. That we need to govern and reign them, and even deny many of them, is an assumption fundamental not just to religion, but to civilization.
Well, no. Many people recognize up front that nobody can meet all needs, and set expectations and boundaries accordingly. And I recognize that many polyamorists would reject any religious precepts as oppressive, but let’s reinforce the teaching that Christian marriage is not about getting your own needs met, but about mutual sacrifice, self-denial at times, and doing one’s best to meet the other’s needs. Terisa is described as having a “powerful need for attention”; for her, this is not about love, but about self; she needs therapy, not more boyfriends.
Dear Scott, the choices have always been there, though the opportunities may increase once Newsweek is done desensitizing our culture. It’s simply that civilization (and religion, if I dare say) has taught us that the best “choice” is a monogamous heterosexual lifelong commitment, despite its challenges. Another time-honored “choice” is celibacy. A further “choice” is to have a good circle of very deep friendships that will help to address any unmet emotional needs where your spouse may fall short.
That selfish sexual gratification dominates the lifestyle considerations says a lot about where our society is headed.
The V type polyamorous arrangement which is refered to in the article is probably found in Scripture, David, Salomon, Elkana anyone?
Of course it was always men at the center, their multiple wives and sundry concubines. There is nothing new about this! Herein an example of something sort of described in Scripture which we have rejected as being incompatible with Christian values…much as we have done with polygamy.
As far as gays and lesbians in monogamous, longterm, committed relationships (not found in Scripture) and their inclusion in the church the differences should be obvious and are stated in the article…”sexual orientation is not a choice, how many people you are going to express that with… is”.
blessings
Seraph
[5] I think you answered your own question – in their experience, they are blessed by a loving and committed relationship that boils down to: one-at-a-time. But I don’t want to say anything too non-inclusive, you know.
😉
Seraph, I will repeat my counter to the argument that polygamy was condoned in Scripture. Polygamy was nver condoned in the OT, it was only tolerated until we were given greater light in progressive revelation of God’s plan. It is certainly not either condoned or tolerated in the NT for Christians. Every last polygamous relationship in Scripture was marred by strife, included as a bad example for us to avoid.
“As far as gays and lesbians in monogamous, longterm, committed relationships (not found in Scripture) and their inclusion in the church the differences should be obvious”… Well, yes, the only difference is obvious, as you say. We can count, too! But you have missed the similarity between GL “monogamous, longterm, committed relationships” and polygamous relationships. They both put first, and so worship, the creature rather than the Creator, the clay rising up and saying of the Potter, “He has no hands”. He created us first one male and one female as his helpmeet before the Fall’s corruption, a lived-out picture of the greater relationship eternally between Christ and His bride the Church and between Jesus and every (heresy alert!) individual believer. As I asked above, why settle for serial sex and sowing to the flesh which reaps corruption, decay and death, when you can have glory?
And in the 21st Century man said to God I am in rebellion and I shall do what I please not what you desire……
God is love.
Love is sex.
Sex is god.
That is the operational truth statement for the US and our culture.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
RE: “the differences should be obvious. . . ”
But it’s the similarities, instead, that are obvious. And isn’t it nice that both groups have “done their theology.” And such very strikingly similar theology, too. ; > )
RE: ” . . . “sexual orientation is not a choice, how many people you are going to express that with… isâ€.
What a wicked thing for that primitive bigot to say.
[i]Of course[/i] some people are sexually oriented to express their love with many rather than merely one.
Some are Polyamorouses.
All that you are trying to do is box them in and prevent them from expressing their real orientation — who they are. You want them to live a lie, to lie about who they are and how they live.
As we know, Jesus said nothing about polyamory—but he had a word or two to say about telling the truth.
You guys are rushing to judgment. What we need is more dialogue. These folks need a chance to tell their stories so that we can be informed by their culture. We need to dialogue until we agree with them.
How ironic. Charlie Holt, an old friend of mine, pointed out on the HOB/D listserv that the arguments for same-sex marriage could also be used for polyamory and warned that it is just a matter of time…. Of course, he was widely shouted down, and the usual crew adamantly stated same-sex marriages are 2 people only. They took the position that 3 or more is Not Allowed in God’s plan. To me, all of these arguments sounded very similar to those currently used by the orthodox supporting man-woman only marriage. Now that today’s orthodox have been pretty much run off; it shall be interesting to see how the current revisionists feel when they find themselves to be the remaining “orthodox” defending against polyamory.
Sarah1 (Number One indeed!), I thought Polyamorouses were extinct!
No no Milton. They have only been having to be in the closet, hiding from the rigid oppressors who see life in old pre-modern black and white either/or dichotomies.
Isn’t a Polyamorous rather too large to fit in a closet?
The whole idea sounds more like an Unholy Quintity to me. Or more fittingly, a sextet. 😉
Wow! 23 comments. Although red meat gets lots of takers, in the long run more than a little of it is bad for one’s health.
2. Capt. Deacon Warren wrote:
[blockquote]Oh this will just be the first of many. If they can all get up and going in the near future, we can then debate them in resolutions at GC2012 and have all those new liturgies approved no later than 2015. Test liturgies can get started just as soon as a few progressive states buy into this.[/blockquote]
Numerous parishes and even dioceses didn’t wait for “progressive states” to “buy into” g/l partnerships, unions and marriages.
And it is interesting. We have the GL part well launched; notice the letter that comes next — ‘B’ — and that would seem to require something other than monogamy. ‘T’ tried to get ahead of the line at GC 2009 and didn’t get anywhere, but only because some bishops had trouble figuring out wat “sexual identity” actually meant.
8. Larry Morse wrote:
[blockquote]Are you out there Susan Russell? Here’s a friendly challenge: Can you justify THIS hanky-panky? Can multiples of this sort become priests and bishops? [/blockquote]
Actually, she doesn’t have to because the arguments already to advance other sinful relationships works just as well for this sort of thing. (They also work for pedophiles.)
[blockquote]If not, why not? This menage is not mentioned in Scripture (that I know of). Is it therefore permissible in present theology?[/blockquote]
That is the real challenge. Can she are hers offer a theological (or any other sort of logical) deliniation between monagamy and polyamory? Probably not. As you say, Jesus didn’t say anything about multiple partners — or for that matter underage partners, sex with relatives, in-laws, sheep or corpses.
There are a few fatal flaws in the logic, and I intentionally omit God from the equation as we are obviously talking to and about functional atheists. The following segments of bad social ‘DNA’ condemn such arrangements to long-term weakness, dissatisfaction, and failure:
a) the belief that [b]it’s about [i]me[/i] and [i]my[/i] needs.[/b] Such self-referential thinking is arrogant in the truest sense of the word and often leads to the demise of relationships, whether romantic, business, or political.
b) the belief that [b]another person is the [i]source[/i] of my passion, rather than its [i]object[/i].[/b] If someone is not passionate about life, the attempt to gin up some passion via another is merely exploitative and consequently quite unsustainable. The phenomenon is even evident on occasion in our flowering plant business when broken women come in looking for “something to [i]excite[/i] me.”
c) the intrinsic [b]ability to avoid challenges and difficulty by turning to another for temporary excitement, relief, or apparent comfort.[/b] Personal growth, healing, and patience arise in having to work through difficult times, not from avoiding them in favour of a quick thrill.
d) the [b]number of dyads increases remarkably with each person added to the group.[/b] Adding just one person to a couple triples the number of relationships. A group of four generates half a dozen possible relationships. With six people involved there are 15* possible relationships of 2. Given the level of self-centeredness necessary to embarque on such a relationship in the first place, what are the chances many of those relationships will orbit around jealousy, envy, pride, and lust?
To call such chaotic relationships “sex-positive” in the context of an already sex-besotted culture is merely silly and betrays a very childish mind.
I think my parents were much closer to the truth. At their 50th anniversary party my father offered a toast to “Fifty good years,” to which my mother replied “Well here’s to 43 good years and seven that just plain sucked, but at least they didn’t all come in a row.”
#27 just wrote the piece that I wish Newsweek would write. Thank you!
Jesus’ advice … [blockquote]But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away; and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. RSV Mark 13:14-16)[/blockquote]
[url=http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/rUtNaz60BfY6vnTp2q8flQ]… and Gandalf’s advice.[/url]
[blockquote]For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die. they not only do them but approve those who practice them. (RSV Romans 1:18-32) [/blockquote]
It’s not a slippery slope when the arguments one makes encompass the circumstances offered in rebuttal. And the rationalizations offered by the Integrity crowd easily encompass this.
RE: “That is the real challenge. Can she are hers offer a theological (or any other sort of logical) deliniation between monagamy and polyamory?
What on earth are you polamophobes talking about. There is no need for progressive activists to offer any sort of anything.
Can’t you see? Those of polyamorous orientation have already done their theology. They don’t need “more work” — all they need to do is simply offer a few minor edits to “To Set Our Hope on Christ” and all is well.
The sterling work of five theologians and one bishop is eminently customizable.
Here. I’ll help out — but in passing might I add how troubling to see such rigidity and such an eagerness for lying by so-called “conservative” Episcopalians.
[blockquote]The paper is divided into five parts:
Introduction;
Holiness, God’s Blessing and [Polyamorous] Affection;
Contested Traditions, Common Life: The Episcopal Church’s Historical Witness to Unity-in-[Many];
Eligibility for Ordination; and
Walking Together by Grace.
Part II cites a “growing awareness of holiness in [polyamorous] relationships” which “has caused the Episcopal Church to face some difficult questions we did not always want to face. Might Christ the Lord, unfolding the mystery of his redeeming work, be opening our eyes to behold a dimension of his work that we had not understood? In other words, might what we had thought to be a crucial and defining division within the human family — between those of [monogamous] desire and those of [polyamorous] desire — be in fact a biological or cultural difference or cultural difference (as between male and female, slave or free) that has been overtaken by our common Baptism into his crucified and risen Body? Many have begun to answer ‘yes’ to those questions (page. 25).”
The paper makes a case for “the universal call to holiness of life in human relationships,” stating: “The Episcopal Church has called all in relationships of sexual intimacy to the standard of life-long commitment ‘characterized by fidelity, [chastity in whatever relationships we are called], mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication’ and the ‘holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in [many others] the image of God’ (Resolution D039, 73rd General Convention of the Episcopal Church). The experience of holiness in some [polyamorous] unions has called for and deepened our sense of how these life-long unions of fidelity can be seen to manifest God’s love” (page 26).
Two theologians, Margaret R. Miles and Bishop Frederick H. Borsch, have offered early comment on the paper.
Miles — who is Emerita Professor of Historical Theology from the Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley – is former Bussey Professor of Theology, Harvard Divinity School; former dean of the Graduate Theological Union, and 1999 president of the American Academy of Religion. Borsch – who is Professor of New Testament and Anglican Studies at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia – is retired Bishop of Los Angeles, former Professor of New Testament and Dean of the Chapel at Princeton University, former dean of the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, Berkeley, and a past elected member of the Anglican Consultative Council.
Writes Miles: “In the context of 16th century religious conflict and violence, Anglican theologian Richard Hooker described the genius of Anglicanism as its willingness to ask its members only that they participate faithfully in the sacramental life of the community. In our own time, differences of conviction regarding [polamory] and the ordination of [polyamorous] Christians are again pressing Anglicans to reexamine the basis of communion and community.
“‘To Set Our Hope on Christ’ provides a rich and concrete account of what it means to live by faith. It describes the process by which the Episcopal Church has moved, in prayerful and thoughtful commitment to following Christ, from thinking of the Body of Christ as a community of ‘mere like-mindedness’ to envisioning a ‘diverse and complex catholicity.’ Urging that decision relating to sexual matters occur in the context of pastoral rather than ideological concerns, the document proposes that unity of participation and mission ‘need not require uniformity of belief in all matters.’
“‘To Set Our Hope on Christ’ is a record of the thoughtful and prayerful deliberations — theological, scriptural and experiential — of Christians committed to seeking the mind of Christ. It is a powerful and moving statement.”
Writes Borsch: “Not everyone, of course, will agree, just as Christians in the past have disagreed on certain matters involving both theology and faithful Christian living, as, for example, remarriage after divorce. But the Episcopal Church’s response to the Anglican Consultative Council offers a gracious and well-reasoned biblical, theological and ethical case for the full discipleship and place in the Church of celibate Christians of [polyamorous] orientation and those who are committed [to polyamory], alongside [monogamous] disciples, to leading life in faithful relationships while seeking to follow the Lord Jesus.
“The report also sets the matter in the context of the lengthy discussions in the councils of the Episcopal Church.”[/blockquote]
There.
I’ve dusted of the ENS announcement of the “theology.” All the work is done for moving forward, away from repressive and patriarchal ideologies of the past. Our church will grow with this kind of forward-thinking and rigorous, disciplined theology and scholarship.
Y’all are hilarious; the sad part is… it’s only a matter of time before the joke becomes a resolution.
Well,I’ll say it again. Love, marriage, like religion, are disciplines. What is described above is the absence of discipline – a justification of the avoidance thereof. Discipline is rooted in self restraint. Discipline, self-restraint – can you think of two terms as foreign, as incomprehensible to the last two generations? Polyamory is is just another name in one square of modern Monopoly,where all the cards say “get out of jail free.” Larry
Incidentally, this is one thing we should not Get Used To. If we do, there is no resistence to the tsunami and nothing will stop it ruin. Larry
How, folks, is this different from men being allowed to keep many wives, as is allowed in the Church of Nigeria? ++Akinola seems to be okay with that practice, no?
More akin to the Romans allowing already-married Anglican priests into the fold, [i]n’est-ce pas[/i]? Not approval, but simply a refusal to require the sending away of what already is …
Not a rustle from Susan?
Just_me – what a (sad) great line: “it’s only a matter of time before the joke becomes a resolution.”
Particularly poignant because when I read some of the resolutions from GC2009 I thought – they’ve got to be joking!
Ah, mtucker, another adherent of the philosophy, or rather, the sophistry, that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth, are you? No Anglican in Nigeria or even in the West (so far) is ok with the practice of polygamy. No new polygamous relationships are allowed in Nigeria. Existing polyamorous relationships were “grandfathered” in but in effect made monogamous. The husband could have sexual relations only with the wife he married first of all and was still responsible for the support of the other wives so as not to leave them destitute. I hope this is the last time you disregard Solomon’s advice (who paid a price himself for his polygamy):”Better only to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
As one would expect, those such as stabill and mtucker don’t much appreciate this stark reminder of where ECUSA’s Woodstock theology leads. Hey, guys, your church tells us we’re no better than animals, so if it feels good, do it.
35. mtucker wrote:
[blockquote]How, folks, is this different from men being allowed to keep many wives, as is allowed in the Church of Nigeria? ++Akinola seems to be okay with that practice, no?[/blockquote]
There’s an ocean of difference. But you really don’t want to know. It’s just a chance for a disembler to engage in the customary mendacity. Repeat the big lie often enough, and someone (mostly the liar) will think it is true.
So how does TEC’s apostasy differ from the Nigerian practice?
1. Before doing anything the Church in Nigeria went to Lambeth and requested the guidance of the Communion’s bishop.
2. They have followed the advice of the Communion’s bishops at Lambeth.
3. Polygamist converts may receive the dominical sacraments, but they do not have to throw any wives out on the streets (essentially the “Pauline exception”).
4. They must restrict their sexual intercourse to only one of the wives.
5. They may not marry any additional wives, or “replace” any wives who may have died.
6. They may not hold any office in the Nigerian Church, which means no ordinations of polygamists.
How does this differ from TEC and the GLBT apostasy? Well they did go to Lambeth for advice (after starting the un-Christian activities). And the advice was, “Don’t do it! It is not appropriate to ordain those in those relationships, nor is it appropriate to bless those relationships. Period.” Then TEC proceeded to ignore the advice.
Now if the Communion were to use the Ugandan approach, it would mean:
1. A potential convert in an active same-sex relationship could receive the domincal sacraments.
2. The convert would not have to throw the partner out of house.
3. The convert could not engage in sex with the partner.
4. The convert could not take on additional partners.
5. The convert could not replace the partner if that partner should leave or die.
6. The partner could not hold any office in TEC — so no ordinations.
I don’t think Integrity and its minons would buy it.
Mark Twain said “Of course polygamy isn’t scriptural, The Bible says a man can’t serve two masters”!
Polyamorous, homoamorous, necroamorous, just plain amorous: for the Episcopal Church, as long as they’re baptised, there’s no reason not to make them all bishops!
#10 Well said!
#17 Well done Sarah1
Sounds great! How are the children doing?
mtucker in post #35 is the very apotheosis of a “troll”. Remember, don’t feed the trolls!
Polyamory is not polygamy, properlyspeaking, for polyamory refers to an indeterminate number of wives and husbands and polygamy is one husband with multiple wives. There is, in reality, a significant difference in these arrangements, for polygamy has its echo in natural selection in the world of warm blooded animals. It is sanctioned by the demands of natural selection. Polly Amory is not to be found anywhere in this world.
Not mind you that this works among humans. As far as I can see, it does not, since the issue among humans seems to be a passion for sex, not the genetic improvement of the species. Still, the roots or the practice are there for all to see. I do not advocate it, obviously, because the wives are not choosing a spouse for desirable genetic qualities to be passed the the offspring. Human polygamy seems to be more like structured prostitution. Hum. Well. Anyway, a man who has multiple wives deserves what he gets. Even Mohammed had all sorts of problems. Larry