Why Not Bi-Sexual Polygamy?
By Dwight Longenecker
It was drawn to my attention a few
weeks ago that within the global impulse to sanction homosexual ‘marriage’ the
Canadian government has established a working party to
explore the possibility of authorising pluriform marriage.
This is another name for bi-sexual polygamy.
This topic is not for the squeamish,
so be warned. It works like this: let’s say Sally and
Bill are married, but Bill is attracted to men too and
has a friend called Kevin. Kevin also likes women—especially
Sally. Why shouldn’t this ménage a trois (or any
similar permutation) be recognised legally?
I have had some fun trying to imagine
how the arguments for homosexual ‘marriage’ could also
be applied to make bi-sexual polygamy acceptable. The
ease of this artificial exercise has been both amusing
and frightening. The sentimentalists will say, ‘But Sally,
Bill and Kevin are such nice people. They go to church
and give money to charity. Their relationship is permanent,
mature and loving. They have a good sense of humour.
Why shouldn’t they be married?’
The utilitarians will say, ‘This
is just a new form of the old extended family. A three-way
marriage
is much better than divorce. Instead of Sally and Bill
splitting up they can simply add Kevin to the relationship.
Its more cost effective and less stressful. The family
will enjoy three incomes instead of two and the children
will have two daddies instead of just one. If Bill or
Kevin dies Sally will have the added security of two
husbands in her old age.’
The politically correct will argue, ‘Why
should anyone judge Sally, Bill and Kevin just because
they have chosen an alternative form of family life?
They should have full legal rights for their relationship
just as any ‘traditional’ couple. It is not a question
of moral judgement (such judgements are impossible anyway)
but of equal rights. Relationships like this are going
on already. Why be hypocritical about it and try to hide
it away? Let’s just make it legal.’
Think what the ecumenists will say: ‘Muslims
and African Christians have a tradition of polygamy.
Embracing polygamy will help us to build bridges with
them. The Mormons will also come into the ecumenical
fold if we tolerate and endorse polygamy.’
The theologians will not have a
problem will they? They will give it an acceptable name. Bi
sexual polygamy will be called, ‘abundant marriage’ or ‘fully
affirmative marriage.’ The Biblical scholars will point
out that the Bible nowhere forbids polygamy, and that
the patriarchs were polygamous. King David and King Solomon
had ‘abundant marriages’. You can just hear the piously
erudite tones of the theologians, ‘The important thing
here is not the particular genital activity, but the
quality of the relationships involved. One could say
that there is a strong theological argument for “triune
marriage.” Could we not say that “abundant marriage” reflects
the active and abundant love at the very heart of the
Holy Trinity?’
Other theologians will remind us
about the development of doctrine, ‘We have advanced in
our understanding of human sexuality. At first heterosexual
polygamy was accepted. Then we had to go through a time
of monogamy in order to understand the exclusive nature
of human love. During that time we came to understand
and accept homosexuality. Now we can open up to a fullness
of love that is also exclusive in its intention but abundant
in its expression.’
The sexual psychologists will say, ‘In
fact there resides within all of us the anima and animus—female-ness
and male-ness. Within each woman is a latent masculinity.
Within each man there is a latent femininity. Bi-sexual
polygamy enables the fullness of sexuality within all
three partners to be explored and realised to its fullest
potential so that all three persons may move into a more
abundant sexuality.’
I could go on, but you get the idea.
The ease with which such arguments can now be made emphasises
the moral and intellectual depravity of our age. My artificial
arguments illustrate the fact that if your foundation
is moral relativism rather than objective authority,
then anything can happen, and history records the sad
truth that almost always if something can happen—it will.
Return
to Articles main page
