SECTION 1 What we are talking about.

I argue that the belief in polygamy being morally wrong and the history of making
it illegal originated in the Roman empire, then Roman catholicism, during its long
history, than spread around the would through European colonialism and was later
enforced by a mixture of religious doctrine working hand in hand with feminist
ideology during the 20th century.
I argue that polygamy is NOT banned or discouraged in any way in the Bible, and
that, on the contrary, it is actually a population control device that has been
implemented by the worlds elites.
Along with a long history of constant war, causing a shortage of men, with large
populations of women who never were able to marry and legitimately reproduce,
forced monogamy is the reason that the populations of the western world are
significantly lower than the populations of South and East Asia.
Anti-polygamy is also a psychological control device wielded by the elites and
plays a cyclical role of it enforcing feminism, and feminism enforcing it,
contributing to the weakening of male leadership, the wussification of men in
general and the destruction of the basic family unit, hatred for authority, the
promotion of abortion, pornography, gay marriage, transexualism and the general
upsetting of all order that God created.

Terms and language

This discussion assumes that there are two sexes, that God made those two sexes,
and that the two sexes are created by God to be inherently different physically
psychologically and socially, and that, generally, God intended for them to serve
different rolls in society and in the family.

The word polygamy technically only refers to one person of one sex having more
than one spouse of the opposite sex, Which could be polygany or polyandry.
The term polygany with an "N" refers to one man having more than one wife.
Monogamy, In this discussion refers to men being with one woman at a time,
regardless of how many other women he may be with before or after that, only that
he is "married" according to the custom and general opinion of the society of which
he is a part.
I will use the term "plural marriage" here to refer to one man having two or more
wives. Because it sounds nicer than bigamy, polygamy, or polygany.

It is impossible to discuss a history of plural marriage because polygany has

always existed. It is also impossible to discuss a history of monogamy because
monogamy has always existed.
The discussion here revolves around the idea and the history of forced monogamy,
FORCED either because:
1. It's encoded into religion that it's IMORRAL for a man to have more than one
wife,
2. It's encoded into civil law that it's ILLEGAL for a man to have more than one
wife,
3. It's encoded into the norms of culture that it's STRANGE and SOCIALLY
UNACCEPTABLE for a man to have more than one wife, meaning that this opinion is the
strongly held opinion of the vast majority of society.

Popular sentiment

It's ironic that it's okay for a man to get married and divorced several times
during his life and to not even support or communicate with his own biological
offspring as long as he ceases to physically live In the same house with his prior
wife, and is at least on the way to securing papers from his government saying that
he's "divorcing" her.
Ironically, decent society demands that as long as a man engages in his
relationships sequentially and breaks his sacred vow as completely as possible
between each relationship he's free to have relationships with as many women as he
wants.
It may be looked down on to cheat on your wife , but most of society can get over
and look past that, and even ignore it; however, if that man decides to make a
commitment to the other woman INSTEAD of just using her, or after seeing the error
of his ways decides to marry her, like the Bible actually says to do, or just
because its the right thing to do, he would be as low in public opinion as a serial
killer or a child molester, and if he wound up being married to two women at the
same time, he'd need to actually BREAK one of his his sacred vows to be socially
acceptable again, and it probably wouldn't matter which one, just as long as he
dumps one of the women.

Its Ironic that 99% of Christians would feel so discusted at a man who was
committed in holy matrimony to two women at the same time but almost NO ONE ever
speaks out against the legalization of gay marriage or the fact that homosexuality
in general is portrayed as normal and good in all media or that the gay agenda is
being forced down inoccent children's throats' in many public schools with
official programs forcing children to identity as gay or straight and even forcing
them to "choose" sex which sex they are.
This is an OUTRAGE, yet Christians rarely attempt to even say anything against it.

I argue that the best way to get an idea firmly and ubiquitously instilled within
popular sentiment is to associate it with their religious beliefs. For example,
it's ENTIRELY unconstitutional to ban or control substances just because they are
psychoactive or possibly addictive.
It's strange how many Christian denominations teach that drinking alcohol is a sin,
and how many Christians in general think it's a sin to ingest tobacco.
The hypocrisy in this is that many of these same people are heavily addicted to
overeating, sugar, online porn, and television. While drinking alcohol may lower
one persons social inhibitions temporarily, the television and internet has lowered
the MORAL AND SPIRITUAL inhibitions of the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE PERMANENTLY!
It is fairly evident that one 20 oz Coca-Cola a day will do more harm to your body
than one pack of cigarettes a day, and the only reason cigarettes do any harm your
body at all is because of the hundreds or thousands of chemical additives that may
or may not be in those cigarettes as per the food and drug administration's
official website.
While many Christians think it's morally okay to drink Coca-Cola but not to smoke
cigarettes, neither one of them have any nutritional value, and tobacco actually
has powerful medicinal properties while Coca-Cola is pure poison.
Based on the amount of people that habitually drink Coca-Cola compared to the
amount of people that habitually smoke, Coca-Cola is MANY TIMES more addictive then
any nicotine product. Coca-Cola is so addictive that few people will even TRY to
stop drinking it, whereas it's common for people to quit smoking cigarettes.

I am making this point about Coca-Cola versus cigarettes in common perception, and
also about religious ideological bans on alcohol in denominations and religions
merely to make the point about how when an idea about the moral standing of
something gets instilled into a religion, that moral standing affects the common
perception of a thing and that common perception affects the laws that are made
about that thing.
Conversely, the legal status of a thing can also change the common perception of
it's moral standing. When marijuana became legal in some states, it seemed like a
lot of the people who were most dead set against it for being a major societal evil
and a HORRIBLE SIN were the first people to suddenly start preaching its praises
and even start smoking it themselves!
A lot of them didn't even live in states where it was legal!
If California LEGALIZES prostitution does that suddenly make it MORALLY ok to
solicit a prostitute in Kentucky? How does civic law determine the Gods Will? Was
it ever really immoral to smoke marijuana? Since when?

Discussing why Marijuana has had the legal status it has for the past hundred years
or so is off the topic here but it makes for a good example for what has happened
with plural marriage. If several countries lifted the legal bans on plural marriage
and a rash of charismatic spiritual leaders, philosophers and politicians started
singing it's praises, and a few movie stars and well known pastors took on small
harems, it would be INSTANTLY back in vogue with everyone talking about how THEY'D
ALWAYS known polygamy was ok!

Legality

As of writing this in the beginning of 2022 polygany is legal in 58 countries

according to Wikipedia, and many countries have actually decriminalized it
recently.
Anti plural marriage sentiment in the religious and philosophical context has its
origin part and parcel completely within the evolution of the doctrines and
legislation of the Roman Catholic Church which persecuted it on and off along with
everything else they persecuted, like owning bibles, getting baptized, being Jewish
etc.
On the contrary, there is little record of them ever punishing real forms of
sexual sin, most stunningly, while they have fought tooth and claw for a thousand
years to make plural marriage between decent consenting adults illegal and morally
reprehensible, they have fought just as desperately to protect themselves from the
public knowledge and legal repercussions of their priests that regularly molest
little children. This behavior is apparently just part of being Roman Catholic
clergy and always has been.

Contrary to popular belief, plural marriage has not become "illegal" at least
outside of Roman Catholicism until the early 1600s, with the church of England
waffling between excommunicating men who were married to more than women and
sentencing them to death. There were apparently enough plural marriages, involving
man who refused to divorce their wives for the Church of England to make a big deal
out of it, by leveling widespread persecution against them which began in 1604.
I have not been able to find sufficient information to know which countries under
Roman Catholic rule outlawed plural marriage at what dates, except that it seems to
have been extremely hit and miss with the laws never sticking for long in one place
or being that well enforced.
.
Polygany didn't become illegal in the states until 1862, with an executive order
by Abraham Lincoln, after which he then issued another order for the law not to be
enforced, all of which had to do with political controversy surrounding the
statehood of Utah, Mormonism, and the Civil War. This law was fiercely debated for
many years after that.
In regard to legality, if legality makes something right or wrong then same-sex
marriage suddenly became morally right in 2013 by executive order of the Obama
administration, and it was Abraham Lincoln's politically fueled persecution of
mormonism that finally made plursl marriage morally wrong.

In the future I hope to research what countries made plural marriage illegal at
what dates.
Most of it was probably mostly unenforced laws brought by European colonialism, and
most countries only began criminalizing it very recently as a result of the inset
of feminist ideology creeping into those countries and affecting the laws.
 Besides a couple exeptions I know of in remote corners of the world, polyamory
(one woman with two husbands) has ALWAYS been illegal and culturally unacceptable
EVERYWHERE in the world as far back is human memory goes.

SECTION 2 history

The Romans

The Greco-Roman world was sexually immoral to an extreme that it would probably be
hard to imagine for most moderns .
To give some perspective, it appears at least in some parts of classical Greek
society that it would actually have been illegal, looked down upon and probably
punished for a typical man NOT to engage in homosexuality. The Spartans are one
example and there are probably more. Being a homosexual was part of their war
strategy and life philosophy. Being that their whole lives revolved around War
since childhood the practice was for every man to have a boyfriend, and that he
would fight harder for the life of his lover and these two warriors would live and
fight as a pair throughout their life. Kind of like Elton John and his manager
turned Samurai or something.
It's unlikely that the Spartans would have understood or accepted someone who
refused to engage in homosexual activity as it was an integral part of their
culture.

Another interesting fact of classical Greek culture is how parents would send a
chaperone/bodyguard along with - not their daughter - but their SON whenever he was
out and about for the purpose of protecting him specifically against the advances
of older men.
Similar to the Spartans, pedastry was an accepted cultural norm at least in
classical Greek culture, which is where although men would force themselves to
marry a woman for the social status and to produce offspring they would also have a
young boyfriend that they would have their real romantic relationship with.
A quick glance through Greco-Roman culture shows you that sex with children was
also completely normal. The idea of someone being identified as a "pedophile"
didn't exist any more than the idea of being a "homosexual" did. They didn't have
words for these things.
When scientists were able to study the human remains dug up at Pompeii which
epupted in 79 AD, they discovered that 100% of the children five years old and over
had syphilis. There are so many random mentions of casual homosexuality and sex
with small children in ancient literature of this time it's impossible to mention
it all, and there seems to be little or no sense of it being thought of as abnormal
exept for parents wanting to protect their children, although the mindset doesn't
seem to be the same as now.

Roman emperors and other elites are known to have had harems full of little boys
and girls, aside from the same sex lovers and large amounts of adult wives they
already had. As a typical example, Herod the Great supposedly had ten official
wives.
This was during a time when it was ILLEGAL in the Roman Empire to have more than
one wife.

Hundreds of years later, during the life of Muhammad, the Koran and other similar
sources contain laws and rulings pertaining to marrying AND divorcing specifically
prepubescent girls, so this culture seemes to have stuck around a while.
 In short; before, during and after the time of Christ and the early church, sexual
morality as we know it doesn't seem to have existed, except Within Judeo-
Christianity, which, ironically, seems to have been more stringently moral we are
today. They were far more different from the world around them then today's version
of Christianity is now.

I mentioned all of this because the idea of legally enforced monogamy seems to
have originated in the Roman Empire a little before the time of Christ, and I want
to make it clear that these laws had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with ethical behavior
towards woman or sexual morality. That would have NEVER have entered their minds.
As far as history knows the only source for sexual morality as we think of it IS
from Bible and the Jews, then later Christianity.
There was the idea in pagan occultism that celibacy along with vegetarianism and
other ascetic practices would put practitioners in touch with the gods and give
them magical powers, same as modern Buddhism and Hinduism. It had NOTHING to do
with Biblical Judeo-Christian morality. There was little to no concept of the gods
being displeased with or punishing sexual immorality because it was a sin in those
cultures. On the contrary orgies other gross sins were usually ways of worshipping
those gods.

We tend to look back on the law that Romans made polygamy becoming illegal through
our own modern lens, thinking that this law was the result of some sort of moral
disapproval of polygamy or an attempt at ensuring "better" treatment of women in
the Roman empire.

Let me quickly dispel that illusion. Marriage contracts didn't do the man any good
at all in those ancient cultures, all it did was make him legally accountable to
take care of the woman he married.
Marriage contracts existed for the sake of the woman, and it was less about the
woman herself and more about her family and their political status and everything
associated with marriage and divorce those shame\honor cultures.
In those times most marriages were arranged and even forced, and a man could
divorce wife at any time while a woman couldn't and probably wouldn't divorce her
husband.
If a man kicked his wife out and didn't write her a divorce certificate she may not
ever be able to get married again and if she did the former husband still legally
owned everything she had including any children she had with her new husband and
the former husband could come back later and take them away as well as any money or
possessions she gained, so without a divorce certificate her previous husband
literally still OWNED her even if she got married again.
That was why Moses commanded the Israelites to give their wife a divorce
certificate if they divorced them, it was for the sake of the woman who got kicked
out, not an approval of divorce.
This way of doing things seems have been ubiquitous all through ancient times in
that part of the world.
Legal marriage and divorce certificates benefitted the woman in those ancient
cultures, NOT the man. it gave the woman legal rights and status that promised
provision and a future for herself and her children.
It limited how badly a man could treat her, It gave her access to his money if he
died, and gave her children inheritance rights, so to have this taken away would
have been like an apocalypse to the female sex.
Having an edict issued throughout the Roman Empire that every man was to divorce
all his wives except for one would have been the most horrendous thing imaginable,
and this is exactly what happened.

As explained above with the complete lack of sexual morality a marriage certificate
would not have impeded a man's freedom any way shape or form.
Even if there was a decent man who had three or four wives that he took care of
correctly, now only one of these women had any rights or security.
 Legally the other two or three wives were just property with no hope of
inheritance or rights, who he could do whatever he wanted with.
As bad as women may have been treated anyway, the legal marriage was the only thing
that would have kept the husband accountable to care for is wife and children.

Also when this divorce decree came to pass and everyone in the Roman empire was
forced to divorce their "extra" wives, that doesn't mean they kicked them out or
stopped having conubial relationships with him, it just lowered their status and
annuled their legal recourse.

So this as far as We Know is the origin of forced monogamy and anti-polygamy.

You can see how twisted our modern view is.
The idea that the Romans somehow became enlightened about the ethical treatment of
women and sexual morality and heroicly put a stop to the evil habit of men sleeping
with more than one woman and forced them to only have one wife and that every man
in the Empire happily stopped having sex with anyone besides the one woman he was
allowed to keep and that all those divorced women happily skipped along down the
street and quickly found new husbands that gladly took care of them and their
children and that this bettered the lives of women in general and magically made
men more moral and caused them to treat women better and begin curbing thier sexual
appetites and that this also would have somehow lowered the divorce rate is about
as ignorant and backwards of a point of view as can be.
This event was about the most anti-woman, cold, cruel, sexist thing event to ever
happen,
and it was the origin of forced monogamy.
The origin of forced monogamy was NOT those passages in Timothy and Titus about
deacons and Bishops "having one wife"

Its really hard to separate the ancient Roman empire from the Roman Catholic
church, because they are historically one contiguous political, financial,
ideological entity that has simply changed form through the pages of history and
when it appears to have died or been conquered it somehow manages to resurrect
itself more powerfully than ever before as has happened SEVERAL times in history.
Rome IS weastern culture, it founded western culture and has guided weastern
culture to where it is today.

The Catholic Church and Medieval Times

The religious ideology against plural marriage seems to have its origin in the
Roman Catholic doctrines of celebecy for clergy and the ideology of sex being
almost a sin. It is definitely a christianized version of asceticism, which has its
roots in ancient gnosticism and occult mysticism in General.
Throughout history most if not all of the condescending comments towards polygany
had come from the opinion of Roman Catholic bishops priests and monks, and it seems
like it was within these circles that anti-polygamy sentiment set in and began to
pick up steam during medieval times, meaning that the history of anti-polygamy
sentiment can be traced directly through the evolution of Roman Catholicism from
when it began up to now.

Early America

Author Sarah Pearsall in her book " Polygamy: An Early American History" states
that during her study of American history, she became fascinated with records she
kept coming across that mentioned public debates concerning plural marriage and
after years of researching public records, news papers and such, came the the
conclusion that plural marriage was actually ubiquitous in early america, and that
history books had seemingly been somehow purged most of the information on the
subject.
It becomes a rather moot point to consider the moral ethical or religious
attitudes towards plural marriage in early America when you consider how common it
was for slave owners to have sex with their black slave girls and rape native
American girls as spoils of war.
This was the norm across ALL European colonialism.
Its ironic that the very same people that spread the idea around the world that
commitment to more than one woman was somehow a sin, notoriously engaged in the
systemic rape of the wives and young daughters of men they killed and enslaved as a
matter of course for the purpose of making slaves out of their own biological
children which they would then beat, murder or sell as they pleased.
Thomas Jefferson is famous for his 14 year old black niece that he ended up having
several children with.

Feminism
Feminism is a generic name for almost everything that has now become the modern
worldiew on almost EVERYTHING.
Its origin seems to be rooted in western European witchcraft which is where the
storybook idea of "witches" came from which were actually real feminist secret
societies of women who would take orders from demons. The idea was to secretly
bring "balance" to society where men were too much in control.
To sum up modern "feminism" nowadays is difficult because its become so broad in
its ideologies. Its easier to define what it is AGAINST, and thereby ascertain its
true nature. Feminism isnt really a good word for it like it may have been in the
1960s.
To describe what it has morphed into NOW would merely be to say two things

1. that its a mindset that automatically wants to do things exactly the opposite
of the way God wants them done and seeks to reverse the way in which God has
ordered human existence and created human society to function in every way
possible.

2. It always uses self pity and hatred for authority to achieve its ends and masks
its destructive motives behind thinly veiled philanthropy and demands for
"equality", not LIBERTY or FREEDOM but a fake, forced, despotic tyranny that ruins
the family, the economy and makes slaves of everyone. Its one and the same with
western socialism.

One of the tenants of this minsets is to pretend that men and women are innately
the same, to blur distinctions between the sexes.
and brainwash them into thinking and acting like each other.
Most men are unwilling to share a wife with other men, while, although feminism has
brainwashed most people to where they won't admit it, women who are honest will
many times admit they would be willing to share a husband with other women under
the right circumstances. Sometimes they may even PREFER it, and in general they
actually tend to be HAPPIER.
A society of rebellious, independent women who run everything and feminine childish
men who meekly follow the womans emotional whims will NEVER work where polygany is
allowed, and it ALSO won't work in an agrarian society where life is hard men have
to be real men and families have to be big.

Another tenet of feminism is to discourage childbearing. Large families are a sin

in this religion.
Obviously polygany implies large families, which implies more likelihood of rural
farming lifestyles as opposed to hourly jobs and apartments in the city, which
implies a patriarcal society of healthy, homeschooling, independent, red meat
eating, gun toting people who aren't slaves to the fiat economy and are hard to
control.
Think of the middle east.
SECTION 3 psychology

Men's sexual nature.

Men love variety

Women's sexual nature

SECTION 4 social cultural ethical effects

The micro
The macro
Slavery
Polyandry

SECTION 5 .The Bible

Evangelical Christianity as we know doesn't have to do with the Bible and the Bible
as it was understood by the people who wrote it has hardly influenced Evangelical
Christianity.
One of the biggest reasons this disconnect between our religion and the Bible is
the fact that we hardly include the Old Testament in forming our beliefs, while the
NT authors ONLY HAD the OT

Titus and Timothy

"Extraneous" new testament passages
Old Testament perspective