I think when people here --- and in the press, and elsewhere -- use "polygamy," they are usually talking about "the historic practice of plural marriage as outlawed in Utah in 1890 and which still flourishes among fundamentalists who splintered at that time," and that terms like "polygyny," "polyandry," "polyamoury," etc., all different, come into play with discussion of the practice in different times, cultures, places, ways.I would go so far as to say that the term polygamy in this country has taken on the meaning I gave it above almost exclusively. I would compare it, maybe, to the fact that many cultures have had slaves, but when someone mentions "slavery" in the U.S., the default response is that we are talking about a specific atrocity perpetrated on a specific culture at a specific time. This is not to compare slavery and polygamy per se (though they have been, quite famously, in the past), just the way such terms are used. -Learned Hand Mar 14, 2006 @ 1:05 pm p. 3
impressively well-said, but then you sound snippy twd SamPJackson and I think he replies gracefully:
Dear Learned Hand, I am a Christian (I try) and I understand that the New Covenant frees me from the ~318 rules that an Orthodox Jew observes. Here's the conundrum. When these polygamous "elders" justify their practices, they point to Solomon and David and other Old Testament patriarchs. But they all practiced polygyny within the restraints of Leviticus 18. So, where's the sanction?