Monogamy

[Chie]

Well all I can say is I thank God for my heart and mind and for the truth he has given me. I am not sure if it is due to the fact I was born and raised in the culture I live in or not. In my heart I believe it don't. I couldn't and wouldn't share my bed with another woman and wouldn't marry a man that thought it be alright for me to share myself with another. much love and peace to those who feel differently and have different convictions than me.

 

[Chie]

reply to # 138 ShermanNobles:
the first one she was bond to as one flesh, the others wouldn't be her hubbies.

 

[Romanseight2005]

As I said, there is a huge difference between making others conform to our laws here, and going into their country and changing theirs. As far as people coming here, they should be made aware of our laws and respect them. That might mean that the man would continue to take care of any women or children that he has "married," without sleeping with them, or giving them some time to get it figured out or whatever. I see it no differently than how we would treat someone coming to the U.S. with slaves. That slave would need to be able to care for him or herself, or be cared for in the interim. However, the slave owner would not be able to "own" the slave anymore, as this is illegal here, and as well it should be.

Again, adultery whether from the concordance, or the dictionary has one definition. The meaning of the word does not change depending on whether or not it is a male or female. The New Testament, for the first time in scripture shows that a man can commit adultery against a woman.


As for the comparisons to God's kingdom to slavery, here is one of many...
Matt 24:45-51

45 "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,' 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
NIV


As to the comment about monogamy being a modern day ideal, you are wrong. Monogamy was started and created by God almighty, and it is the way that He originally set up marriage. In fact it is how He defined it.

A good question was posed. If a polyandrous "family," moved to the U. S. should they be made to conform to our laws?

The 2 become one flesh issue: Regardless of whether or not one flesh means one person or one "family" the fact of the matter is that the word two, is still two. He does not say the 3. or 4, or even, they become one family. He very specifically says ,"Two." Also, according to my concordance, there is nothing to suggest that the word flesh means family anyway.

I see this as those believing that polygamy is still ok, believe that Christ's coming did nothing to bring any restoration from the curse.

 

[Nadiine]

As I said, there is a huge difference between making others conform to our laws here, and going into their country and changing theirs. As far as people coming here, they should be made aware of our laws and respect them. That might mean that the man would continue to take care of any women or children that he has "married," without sleeping with them, or giving them some time to get it figured out or whatever. I see it no differently than how we would treat someone coming to the U.S. with slaves. That slave would need to be able to care for him or herself, or be cared for in the interim. However, the slave owner would not be able to "own" the slave anymore, as this is illegal here, and as well it should be.

Again, adultery whether from the concordance, or the dictionary has one definition. The meaning of the word does not change depending on whether or not it is a male or female. The New Testament, for the first time in scripture shows that a man can commit adultery against a woman.


As for the comparisons to God's kingdom to slavery, here is one of many...
Matt 24:45-51

45 "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,' 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
NIV


As to the comment about monogamy being a modern day ideal, you are wrong. Monogamy was started and created by God almighty, and it is the way that He originally set up marriage. In fact it is how He defined it.

A good question was posed. If a polyandrous "family," moved to the U. S. should they be made to conform to our laws?

The 2 become one flesh issue: Regardless of whether or not one flesh means one person or one "family" the fact of the matter is that the word two, is still two. He does not say the 3. or 4, or even, they become one family. He very specifically says ,"Two." Also, according to my concordance, there is nothing to suggest that the word flesh means family anyway.

I see this as those believing that polygamy is still ok, believe that Christ's coming did nothing to bring any restoration from the curse.

Wow, I agreed w/ this entire post!

One thing I keep thinking of is this, could any born again Christian man who loves his wife actually not feel any guilt when dating another woman on the side & marrying her to have 2 wives & be able to go thru all the motions with figuring out 'sexual schedules' & quality time?
Have the 2 cook for him or whatever?

I don't think a true Christian would be able to do it out of conviction from God, or just plain it feeling so awkward. (then again, I'd say that about alot of other sins/perversions people do easily).

 

[Nadiine]

Adding to my previous post... as I think more about the Dating process w/ a polygamist -- there's some serious issues to be thought about.

If LUST after someone is adultery... then any lust placed upon the 2nd woman he's dating (at any time) is already committing adultery, is it not?

And, wouldn't the man need to make sure his FIRST wife is into Polygamy too? Before he runs out to gather his 2nd conquest (being the macho man that he is *beats chest*) lol.
If I found my husband DATING another woman seriously and intimately, I'D LEAVE HIM for adultery and it would be lawful in God's eyes, would it not??

Polygamy is NOT ok and NOT biblical folks. Just think of all the other detailed issues that cause it to be such a moral problem between a man & his first wife (namely if she's not for polygamy & he forces this upon her).

 

[ShermanN]

reply to # 138 ShermanNobles:
the first one she was bond to as one flesh, the others wouldn't be her hubbies.

Chie, so what you're saying then is that in polygamous cultures, the first marriage is the only marriage recognized by God, and that the 2+ marriages are not recognized by God and that these are adulterous relationships - regardless of the culture or civil authority. If that's true, then a woman who was wife #2 in a polygamous family came to Christ would need to leave/divorce her husband and break up her family. It's likely that if she had children with this man, she would also have to leave them because she could not support them nor would her husband allow them to leave. If she stays with her husband, she'll be living in adultery (according to what you've said). But I suppose that's the sacrifice that she'll have to make to really follow the Lord.

 

[Chie]

Chie, so what you're saying then is that in polygamous cultures, the first marriage is the only marriage recognized by God, and that the 2+ marriages are not recognized by God and that these are adulterous relationships - regardless of the culture or civil authority. If that's true, then a woman who was wife #2 in a polygamous family came to Christ would need to leave/divorce her husband and break up her family. It's likely that if she had children with this man, she would also have to leave them because she could not support them nor would her husband allow them to leave. If she stays with her husband, she'll be living in adultery (according to what you've said). But I suppose that's the sacrifice that she'll have to make to really follow the Lord.

Regardless of the culture or the civil authority.Convictions and the will of God over rides culture,civil authority and our understanding.
It isn't right for a woman or man even, to have stay in any relationship that separates them from the will of God.
Why are you assuming the woman couldn't support the children.?

 

[dayhiker]

The thing that you guys are missing is that just because something isn't outright condemned doesn't make it something good, or something that we should have to change our laws which are right in this area, to accomodate people who wish to come over and live here. If you are talking about going to another culture, that is a different scenario, and those cases should be handled one by one. My point was very valid that slavery and concubines always followed polygamy. In every instance where polygamy was practiced in the bible, there was slavery. The point is that polygamy never upheld the notion that women should be treated as humans. It goes much further than merely recognizing that oppression tends to be more likely in polygamous settings. The fact of the matter is, that polygamy can not co exist with truly loving your wife in a sacrificial manner. The scriptures are clear, just like with slavery, that while it's not condemned, it's not conducive to showing value to a person. God did set his people free from slavery, and by the way there are plenty of parables showing slave master relationships. This also does not honor slavery. Likewise, the many things that Jesus did while He walked the earth showed clearly that women were to be valued.He did many things that totally freaked everyone out regarding the treatment of women. This is why you don't hear polygamy spoken of in the New Testament because the value that Jesus placed upon women couldn't coexist with polygamy.

I agree with you Romans8 that not all things that are no condemned are good. I think some of your post is misleading, however. Its my understanding that polygamy was against the law in Roman except for Jews. Ye I’d say slavery and concubinage was very common in Roman times. Its also my understanding that woman weren’t treated very well in Roman. I’ve read very well written articles that say the problems we have with marriage in America is because we are monogamous.

In my thinking about organizations there probably are some that work better than others, but in the final analysis for me any system will work if the people treat each other with respect and love. No system will work if the people don’t treat each other with respect and love.

Why don’t we hear polygamy spoken about in the NT? I think because it was still fine within Jewish life and because it was against Roman law for everyone else. For Christians to promote poly relationships would have brought more Roman solders to persecute them.

I’m still learning about history and all, but that’s how I see it now.
dayhiker

 

[Romanseight2005]

I said nothing of Roman culture, and in fact one of my points was that monogamy predates polygamy. I am an honest person, and I said nothing from dishonesty. No misleading. When Jesus was here, he was talking to the Jews, not the Romans. He still said the,"Two,"shall become one flesh. Much of the argument for polygamy is based on the assumption that there isn't enough evidence condemning it. That is erroneous logic because the same could be said the other way. Jesus specifically brought them back to the original order of things. He also specifically said, "Two." He could just as easily have said,"Or more." He could have said they will be joined to the previous family members, etc. In reality polygamy is nothing more than multiple monogamy, which in reality honors monogamy at it's core. Comparing the issue of slavery to this one, is very valid, and in fact if you are going to contend that polygamy can ever respect or value women, then show me. I have researched polygamy in different cultures, and even in the best cases, where the man really wasn't a tyrant, it was still extremely oppressive, just by the very design of it. It is also no coincidence that where and when polygamy was happening in scripture, slavery also was. If you believe it is a coincidence, show some evidence.

 

[Nadiine]

I’ve read very well written articles that say the problems we have with marriage in America is because we are monogamous.

In my thinking about organizations there probably are some that work better than others, but in the final analysis for me any system will work if the people treat each other with respect and love. No system will work if the people don’t treat each other with respect and love.

First off, some things lend to NOT respecting others... how can you respect a wife while sleeping with another woman/wife? That's not treating with love imo.

& as opposed to WHAT? fornication? (no one gets married?) or Adultery? (married to 1 spouse, but needing more excitement w/ others we 'fall in love with'?).
There are only 3 alternative positions and ALL OF THEM produce trouble (without being sinful):
Living with 1 person
Living with 2 or more persons (if it's indeed condoned by God)
Living single - without any sex life.

Since all 3 create undesireable situations & problems, we can't say the problem is monogamy - and namely where pleasing God is concerned. Secular man can write all the articles he wants in his ungodly 'wisdom'... but it doesn't support polygamy as being the best system & he wouldn't know or care if God was ok with it.

Why don’t we hear polygamy spoken about in the NT? I think because it was still fine within Jewish life and because it was against Roman law for everyone else. For Christians to promote poly relationships would have brought more Roman solders to persecute them.

I disagree, I think it IS spoken about in the perameters of what God condones as the prototype of the union He designed. 1 man with 1 woman who become ONE flesh.
It prescribes a man and woman only, and 2 people only.
What more do we need?

 

[Romanseight2005]

Nadine,
I could be wrong, but I believe that he was speaking of pornography and such. Propolygamists, and active polygamists love to blame sexual immorality on monogamy. In reality polygamy didn't even occur in scripture until sin was taking over. The lusts of the flesh do not go away, or become satisfied merely because it gets some variety. In fact the opposite happens. If the lust of the flesh is indulged, it wants more and more. Just look at Solomon. The idea that sexual imorality is present because of a lack of polygamy, is a slap in the face to God, who's original design was monogamy. By Dayhiker's logic, Adam and Eve sinned because Adam didn't have another wife.

 

[jnwilcox]

It doesn't matter came up with monogamy first, who cares if it predated Christianity,so did Love, but its right

a union should be shared between two people, no third partys

 

[Nadiine]

Nadine,
I could be wrong, but I believe that he was speaking of pornography and such. Propolygamists, and active polygamists love to blame sexual immorality on monogamy. In reality polygamy didn't even occur in scripture until sin was taking over. The lusts of the flesh do not go away, or become satisfied merely because it gets some variety. In fact the opposite happens. If the lust of the flesh is indulged, it wants more and more. Just look at Solomon. The idea that sexual imorality is present because of a lack of polygamy, is a slap in the face to God, who's original design was monogamy. By Dayhiker's logic, Adam and Eve sinned because Adam didn't have another wife.

Well it wouldn't be the first time I didn't fully understand a post

I was mainly going after this point:

Originally Posted by dayhiker
I’ve read very well written articles that say the problems we have with marriage in America is because we are monogamous.

As I see it, all forms of lifestyles have big problems attached - the grass isn't greener elsewhere.

Good points, thanks for mentioning that.

 

[ShermanN]

Romanseight2005 and/or Nadiine,

If you will please answer me the questions I've posted before:

If a man in Africa with 4 wives comes to Christ should he divorce wives 2-4 keeping only his first wife? (Of course, I'm assuming in this example that both the culture and civil law allow for polygamy.)

Or if wife #2 in the above example came to Christ, what should she do, divorce her husband or remain married to him?

Thanks,
Sherman

 

[Sojourner<><]

As I said, there is a huge difference between making others conform to our laws here, and going into their country and changing theirs. As far as people coming here, they should be made aware of our laws and respect them. That might mean that the man would continue to take care of any women or children that he has "married," without sleeping with them, or giving them some time to get it figured out or whatever. I see it no differently than how we would treat someone coming to the U.S. with slaves. That slave would need to be able to care for him or herself, or be cared for in the interim. However, the slave owner would not be able to "own" the slave anymore, as this is illegal here, and as well it should be.

The law does need to be upheld and respected. But let me ask you this: would it be wrong for someone to force you into a polygamous relationship? I would think so! In the same manner, would it be wrong for someone to force someone else into a monogamous relationship? It may be the legal thing to do, but is it the right thing to do if scripture doesn't forbid it and it is clearly stated that God is against divorce?

Again, adultery whether from the concordance, or the dictionary has one definition. The meaning of the word does not change depending on whether or not it is a male or female. The New Testament, for the first time in scripture shows that a man can commit adultery against a woman.

I don't think that even Strong's concordance can be considered authoritative like the Word of God. Concerning polygamy, you have to consider that the authors of your concordance might have been subject to the same prejudices as the rest of the majority of western society.

As for the comparisons to God's kingdom to slavery, here is one of many...
Matt 24:45-51

45 "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,' 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
NIV

That's a good point. Let's take a close look at what this means: What is slavery and why is it wrong? IMO, slavery is the exploitation of an indigenous people for the purpose of forced labor. That is clearly wrong. Do you think that is what is being portrayed by this verse? Well, we might be able to tell if we take another look at it. It obviously involves master/servant relations. Can you think of any modern day examples of this that wouldn't be wrong? I think it's fair to say that there are many modern day examples of wealthy people who employ servants within their households, which isn't the same thing as slavery. All in all, this argument doesn't seem to hold much weight against my argument concerning Mat 25.

As to the comment about monogamy being a modern day ideal, you are wrong. Monogamy was started and created by God almighty, and it is the way that He originally set up marriage. In fact it is how He defined it.

I don't think that I made any statement like that. Were you referring to someone else?

A good question was posed. If a polyandrous "family," moved to the U. S. should they be made to conform to our laws?

Yeah... the laws do need to be respected.

The 2 become one flesh issue: Regardless of whether or not one flesh means one person or one "family" the fact of the matter is that the word two, is still two. He does not say the 3. or 4, or even, they become one family. He very specifically says ,"Two." Also, according to my concordance, there is nothing to suggest that the word flesh means family anyway.

But He doesn't say "only two". God doesn't contradict Himself. There isn't any scripture that I know of that states that God is against polygamy.

 

[Nadiine]

The law does need to be upheld and respected. But let me ask you this: would it be wrong for someone to force you into a polygamous relationship? I would think so! In the same manner, would it be wrong for someone to force someone else into a monogamous relationship? It may be the legal thing to do, but is it the right thing to do if scripture doesn't forbid it and it is clearly stated that God is against divorce?

Well this opens a whole can of worms... in the OT, anyone moving into Israel was under Israel's laws - they were obligated to keep the whole law; including Gentiles that lived there.
Further, what of the immigrants who do immoral ritualistic practices, etc.? They do need to come here & abide by our laws; moral & ethical (what laws we have left anyways).

But He doesn't say "only two". God doesn't contradict Himself. There isn't any scripture that I know of that states that God is against polygamy

.
Yes, the bible does SAY only 2. It states 2 in the model Jesus gave at creation. These are verses from my prev post here:

The answer is found in Matthew 19; the prototype God gave for male & female union. This prototype also refutes gay unions and any other type of union.

Mat 19:
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" ​

4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

(also seen in 1 Cor 6:16 & Eph 5:31)​

Jesus gave us the lawful model for marriage and the number: 2 people become ONE flesh. Not 3 or more. And that BECUZ God made them male & female (in the beginning as the MODEL), that those 2 become one flesh. Not 2 men or 2 women, etc etc etc. It's very clear.​

Plus, you have further evidences... when marriage is spoken of, there is no PLURAL "wives" mentioned as lawful:​

1 Corinthians 7:33
but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife (singular, not plural),
again above, Mat. 19:3​

Also in the profile of a church overseer:​

1 Timothy 3:2
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach..​

To be 'above reproach' includes having ONE wife only. If it's so lawful & acceptable in the NT, then a Pastor/deacon should be able to participate in polygamy like everyone else can since it's not sin or questionable.

 

[ShermanN]

A point often being made to oppose polygamy is based on the misunderstanding of "one flesh" as in Gen.2.24 - "and they shall become one flesh", or Mt.19.5 "and the two shall become one flesh." “one flesh” is thought to mean to “become like one person,” even being translated that way in some modern translations (sadly so). As mentioned before, the word "flesh" and especially the phrase "one flesh" both mean kinship or family in these verses. Someone noted that their Strongs concordance did not say that “flesh” means family; however please note the following from both Stong’s Exhaustive Concordance and Vine’s:

------------------------------------------------------------
Strong, J. 1996. The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) . Woodside Bible Fellowship.: Ontario
1320&#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1512; [basar /baw·sawr/] ...... 1 flesh. 1a of the body. 1a1 of humans. 1a2 of animals. 1b the body itself. 1c male organ of generation (euphemism). 1d kindred, blood-relations. 1e flesh as frail or erring (man against God). 1f all living things. 1g animals. 1h mankind.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. 1996. Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words . T. Nelson: Nashville
basar (&#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1512;, 1320), .......
Flesh sometimes means “blood relative”: “And Laban said to him [Jacob], Surely thou art my bone and my flesh” (Gen. 29:14). The phrase “your flesh” or “our flesh” standing alone may bear the same meaning: “Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh” (Gen. 37:27). The phrase she&#722;er basar is rendered “blood relative” (Lev. 18:6; kjv, “near of kin”).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please note the similar wording between what Laban said of Jacob in Gen.29.14 “you are my bone and my flesh” and what Adam said of Eve in Gen.2.23 “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh”. So if “one flesh” meant to become “like one person” then we have a very weird relationship between Laban and Jacob. Of course, I’m being very sarcastic. “One Flesh” means kindred, blood-relation, Family!!

I happen to have 6 in my immediate family (myself, my wife, and our four children). The 6 of us are "one flesh", biblically speaking.

 

[Nadiine]

A point often being made to oppose polygamy is based on the misunderstanding of "one flesh" as in Gen.2.24 - "and they shall become one flesh", or Mt.19.5 "and the two shall become one flesh." &#8220;one flesh&#8221; is thought to mean to &#8220;become like one person,&#8221; even being translated that way in some modern translations (sadly so). As mentioned before, the word "flesh" and especially the phrase "one flesh" both mean kinship or family in these verses. Someone noted that their Strongs concordance did not say that &#8220;flesh&#8221; means family; however please note the following from both Stong&#8217;s Exhaustive Concordance and Vine&#8217;s:

Do you SLEEP with your whole family & have sex w/ your offspring?

the 2 CREATE A UNIT. The man leaves his parents for the woman and they become a new unit - they then procreate, making themselves a family unit together; in one household.
A new unit.

That is in NO stretch condoning or supportive of polygamy.
Laypeople love to use the Strongs dictionary for word meaning but there's more to it than just looking up 1 word. You don't know grammar surrounding it which can also make a difference.

Do you WANT polygamy to be condoned? Do you want to have multiple wives?
With the way people are trying so hard on this thread, it does make me have to wonder about things?

Let's reread the verses again:
4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

Singular "wife", singular "man", Plural "TWO" become "ONE" flesh. How can it be spelled out any clearer to us? God also allowed simple writs of divorce in the OT for any reason... it isn't condoned in the NT when the verbage in the singular for wife.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Do you SLEEP with your whole family & have sex w/ your offspring?

the 2 CREATE A UNIT. The man leaves his parents for the woman and they become a new unit - they then procreate, making themselves a family unit together; in one household.
A new unit.

That is in NO stretch condoning or supportive of polygamy.
Laypeople love to use the Strongs dictionary for word meaning but there's more to it than just looking up 1 word. You don't know grammar surrounding it which can also make a difference.

Do you WANT polygamy to be condoned? Do you want to have multiple wives?
With the way people are trying so hard on this thread, it does make me have to wonder about things?

Let's reread the verses again:
4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

Singular "wife", singular "man", Plural "TWO" become "ONE" flesh. How can it be spelled out any clearer to us? God also allowed simple writs of divorce in the OT for any reason... it isn't condoned in the NT when the verbage in the singular for wife.

The man only wrote a book on the subject. C'mon now, an accusatory tone isn't exactly a loving way at approaching a debate on scriptural exegesis.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Do you SLEEP with your whole family & have sex w/ your offspring?

the 2 CREATE A UNIT. The man leaves his parents for the woman and they become a new unit - they then procreate, making themselves a family unit together; in one household.
A new unit.

That is in NO stretch condoning or supportive of polygamy.
Laypeople love to use the Strongs dictionary for word meaning but there's more to it than just looking up 1 word. You don't know grammar surrounding it which can also make a difference.

Do you WANT polygamy to be condoned? Do you want to have multiple wives?
With the way people are trying so hard on this thread, it does make me have to wonder about things?

Let's reread the verses again:
4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

Singular "wife", singular "man", Plural "TWO" become "ONE" flesh. How can it be spelled out any clearer to us? God also allowed simple writs of divorce in the OT for any reason... it isn't condoned in the NT when the verbage in the singular for wife.

As for myself, I came from a broken family that was torn apart by the unrealistic expectations imposed on my mother by liberal feminism. It had an adverse affect on me as I grew up and I have strong feelings against divorce. I feel for any family that's torn apart, whether monogamous or polygamous.