Holy Spirit Interactive
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Inside Holy Spirit Interactive

Dwight Longenecker
Holy Spirit Interactive: Dwight Longenecker: Why Not Bi-Sexual Polygamy?

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.

E-mail this article to a friend