Higamous, Hogamous Men Are Polygamous
By Ann Huggett (08/12/04)
Hidden among the standard emails I get from outraged liberals containing their usual breath-taking leaps in logical refutation to my articles such as “You suck” and “You’re a racist/bigot/nazi” I get what appears on the surface a reasonable request for explanation. Since these are so few and far between, I normally answer them only to find that the person requesting the comments already had their mind welded shut and I simply end up wasting my valuable time trying to deal reasonably with the correspondent. You’d think I’d learn, wouldn’t you?
Anyway, I fell into my helpful mode when I got this rather mundane letter from a reader named “Charlie” (name changed to protect the guilty).
“Hello,
I actually came across your article doing some Google research on polygamy. I'm interested to know, from your perspective, why you think that polygamy should remain illegal? I'm somewhat confused as to why so many conservatives reference polygamy as one of the evils sure to come if Gay marriage is legalized. Polygamy has a historical [sic], and natural precedent. Also, many religious figures in the bible were polygamous. So for my own curiosity, if you could please tell me your opinion on this matter. Thank You
Charlie”
I’m not immune to the flattery of being found through Google so I sent back this answer:
“Dear Charlie,
Polygamy has been tried over and over again in various times and cultures and ultimately has proved an evolutionary dead end psychologically for the female participants. There's an old English doggerel that goes something like "Higamous, hogamous men are polygamous/hogamous, higamous women are monogamous."
Quite frankly, it has all to do with identifying the paternity of the child and ensuring that that child receives the best care. In a committed monogamous relationship, you not only know who the father is but the children receive the exclusive care of both parents. In a polygamous relationship it is assumed the husband sired the child but then that child and its mother must compete with the other mothers and their offspring for inheritance rights and even basic care. Also, if child rearing duties are spread amongst the various wives and concubines then what is to keep the current caretaker from favoring her child over the offspring of her rivals?
A quick glance through history will show palace intrigues in harems where rival wives and their children are routinely murdered or driven out so that the first wife and her offspring become the only heirs. One need look no further than Abraham in the Bible to see Sarah driving out Hagar and her son Ishmael from the family tent once Sarah gave birth to Isaac.
In other words, polygamy does not provide the stability or nurturing environment necessary for the health of the nuclear family, i.e. a husband, wife, and whatever children they may have together. This is why communes have proven failures too. We're not bees living in hives. We're human beings with a basic imperative for survival and territory. That's how we function and that's how we ensure that our offspring reach maturity.
Hope this helps,
Ann”
I think I gave a pretty reasoned response to his request for clarity. I made sure that I didn’t go all religious on him and argued from the standpoint of women’s and children’s mental and physical health. In other words, I couched my arguments in mainly secular survival terms since marriage, as I will end up pointing out in my second letter, predates our Western religious traditions.
Wouldn’t you know I’d get a moronic reply in return? Evidently actually having to prove any assertion or belief was beyond my correspondent. The only excuse I could give this fool was that he “feels in his gut he’s right”. If this is indeed the case, Western Civilization is totally doomed since said Charlie has just thrown out the last 2 thousand years of political and cultural philosophies we’ve developed to make a modern society based on logic, reason, and the Rule of Law. Let’s hope he grows out of it! Anyway, Charlie wrote back this following deathless bit of prose.
“Dear Ann, Thank you for your response. I appreciate you taking time to respond to me. However, I disagree with some of your points. A quick glance through history would show an equal (if not greater) number of failed monogamous relationships. Polygamy in my mind would seem preferable to infidelity in a monogamous relationship. And since infidelity is very widely practiced, wouldn't it make more sense for the society to encourage men to take responsibility for every relationship they are involved in, and any offspring those relationships might produce. Charlie”
Well, at least he was nice enough although I still felt I had been had. You see, I don’t suffer fools gladly and have a tendency to throw whatever diplomacy I have left out the window when forced to deal with the agenda driven. So since I had a full head of steam up anyway as a writer I went ahead and sliced and diced to my heart’s content in answer.
“Dear Charlie,
Monogamous marriages never fail so much as run their course. When the concept of "Till death do us part" was put in to the marriage ceremony, the average life span was far shorter than today. A man or woman, historically, could figure on several marriages over the course of a lifetime as death through childbirth, accident, disease, or a war time spear in the gut would take the other spouse out of the equation. Our increased lifespans and change in personality over several decades of togetherness puts strains on relationships that no 14rh Century cleric could even imagine.
Look at the admonition "What God has put together, let no man put asunder." Traditionally, that means that marriage is until death do you part. Well, love dies as well as the human body. I once got into a debate with a Roman Catholic priest over this point and held that the "let no man put asunder" actually was a pointed reference to outside interlopers coveting a neighbor's wife and willing to steal/kidnap her (or him!) to satisfy their own lusts. This line of reasoning has the implication of mutual divorce between antagonistic spouses. There is no greater hell on Earth than being forced to share a house with one you have come to despise.
But you'll notice that just as marriage is the vow between a husband and wife with the priest/minister/justice of the peace being the prime witness, divorce or the mutual dissolution of the marriage vow should be between that same man and woman exclusively.
Infidelity is not "practiced" but it is committed by those spouses who break their vows. It is a betrayal of trust, a breaking of one's word. It has to do with personal honor and is not endemic to marriage but to a flaw within the character of the spouse in question. As such, that means that even a polygamous spouse with that same character flaw of dishonor can and will cheat on their spouses. Your argument is a false one and shows a failure in logical reasoning on your part.
Now, you make another classic mistake in your line of reasoning when you state that there are many more failed monogamous marriages than polygamous ones. (And shame on you for doing so!) That's because numerically, monogamous marriages are more numerous than polygamous marriages since they are an inherently superior relationship. But, because of their greater number, there are simply more divorces. If you have what the standard wisdom is of a 50% failure rate for monogamous marriages but a 95% failure rate for polygamous marriages, then the monogamous marriage is far preferable even though numerically there are more monogamous divorces than polygamous break-ups. The Mormons found this out the hard way when they officially abandoned polygamy around 1910. Today, 95% of Mormons are monogamous and that last 5% which do practice polygamy has found a high incident of depression/mental illness among the wives.
Unfortunately, I must now take you to task since what I am getting from your two brief and emotional letters to me is that you are convinced polygamy is the only way to go to satisfy whatever lusts are personally driving you. It's pretty obvious that love and commitment are simply too hard a concept to grasp and you'd much prefer a swinging lifestyle full of willing, able bodies with little or no consequences. Traditionally, men have been encouraged to accept responsibilities for their actions. It is only in this current toxic junk culture of the liberals that men can and do get literally away with murder in their sexual relationships. Promiscuity does not lead to a happy and healthy life. A stable marriage blessed with children is what every man should strive for.
Honestly, and I had to point this out to a UN health care worker at Heathrow Airport in London when we were discussing ways of stopping the spread of HIV in Africa, the taboos against promiscuous sex were not developed in order to stop people from having a good time. They were developed to stop the spread of disease in an age when there were no antibiotics and to ensure the stability of society through marriage.
Men, who just go out to score, are not good marriage prospects no matter how many wild oats they have sown. They are merely sexual predators - players who only love you when they're playing - and the women, who whine about how they should have the same sexual freedom of men, have lowered themselves to that same level.
So, you think that these irresponsible creatures are suddenly going to get all responsible for their sexual escapades in a group marriage and take care of whatever children they sire? Order does not come out of chaos no matter what type of socialist group think you've fallen for.
I have provided actual historical facts to back up my comments but all I've gotten from you is some vague references to revisionist history. You really are not prepared mentally to carry on a legitimate debate if you can not or will not refute my arguments.
Let's face it: you want a perfect situation that never fails. I've seen this over and over again from liberals. If something is not perfect according to whatever socialist whim is currently blowing through the halls of academia, then it's time to tear it down and let whatever misguided notions rush in to fill the vacuum. Destroying institutions like marriage, which have been developed to produce a stable and secure society, does not bring anything but misery and destruction. You asked why conservatives call polygamy evil and that's why. Evil delights in the destruction of that which is good. Monogamous marriage is good. It is the foundation of a stable society. It brings a man and a woman together in a union that sanctifies their physical passion for one another. It brings forth children, which are our future. Polygamy destroys the stable society and weakens the bond between husband and wife; what good is a man's word to wife A if he prefers wife B? Then he tires of both to take Wife C?
In any system, a certain percentage will fail. If we were all perfect we'd be born angels and not fallible human beings. Marriage predates the Christian church. It predates Western Civilization. It has developed and stayed mainly monogamous despite experimenting with polygamy because the monogamous relationship is superior.
Stop falling for socialist claptrap and get a life. If you do not want to be in a serious, monogamous relationship which will hold fully 90% of all the happiness you will ever experience as a human being in this lifetime, then that's your choice.
Now stop wasting my time.
Ann”
So, if it’s any consolation to you, “Charlie”, you’re my August 2004 Muse of the moment. To the utterly stupid cow who wrote to me defending the Islamic hajib headscarf which I maintain is nothing more than gangland clothing by asking if I’d ever heard of an hajib wearing Muslim woman getting raped, I haven’t finished laughing long enough to answer you.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ann Huggett
