[ For Adults Only ]

Recently (at the time of this writing) on national news there was the story of a vegetative women on a feeding tube for 15 years who many wanted to remain on the feeding tube to wait and see if she would someday improve....but the husband of whom wanted the feeding tube removed causing the somewhat slow but sure death of the vegetative woman.

What was interesting to this webauthor was the additional information that that husband - during the time his wife was vegetative - had publicly and openly acquired and declared as wife another woman, had children with her.......and that people in general concentrated on the vegetative woman and her husband being in court to seek legal authority to have the feeding tube removed.....NOT for defending himself against any charges of "bigamy" for having his extra wife on the side.

A while before that, there was the story of a man who had two wives simultaneously in different locations - which two wives knew nothing about the fact that they shared the same man. I am not sure which (if any) of the two wives some of the questionable public demanded the man to divorce, nor which of his harem an immigrating Arab sheik or African chief [whom both sheik and chief jealously guard of their harem] would be required to put away.

Before that, there was the story of a Utah polygamist who was charged with "bigamy" but who in fact had the additional factor of [illegal] incest involved in his case.

As of now, there is a drive by many to promote a "one-man ONE-woman" "traditional"-marriage referendum. The referendum is inferred as merely a prohibition against same-sex/same-gender "marriage" (actually a legalized "civil"-union for sodomy)....which in fact would also outlaw polygamy on the part of either male or female humans. [As written, this webauthor cannot support such a misworded referendum proposal, but instead would promote the phrase: Marriage shall consist of the legal union of "one-man-and-woman" rather than "one-man-ONE-woman"].

Disallowance of multiple-wife polygamy flys in the face of legitimate never-condemned-by-the-LORD polygamy of patriarchs all throughout the Old Testament (e.g. Jacob, Elkanah, David, Solomon, etc.) who the Holy Spirit had write a substantial portion of that Sacred Book. Even Saint Paul in his epistles excluded only bishops and deacons from having more than one wife....although there are inferences from Christ Himself of the singular one-husband-one-wife scenario in relation to the singular situation of Adam and Eve in Genesis.

To repeat, note that multiple-wife multiple-concubine occurrences in Sacred Scripture are never-EVER condemned by the Lord [although it states in one part of the Old Testament that the king "shall not multiply wives nor horses for himself" but note that horses are included, for whatever cause....and the non-quality of the wives - be they Canaanite or idol-worshippers as Solomon lamentably acquired - is not elaborated upon].

Multiple husbands for women are NEVER mentioned, except in the case of the death of a husband (as in the case of the widow Ruth, reference by the gospel writers of a woman who had seven husbands before she died, reference by Paul in Romans of a woman who is not an adulteress if she belongs to another man if her husband has died, reference by Paul in First Corinthians 7 allowing a widow to re-marry "only in the Lord").

[Interestingly, Paul in First Timothy 5 tells us that when a young widow "grows wanton against Christ she desires to remarry, thus incurring judgment for having violated her first pledge." Moreover, Paul does not specifically order younger "widows" [Gr. ch(e)ras] to remarry but rather younger "women" [Gr. ne(o)teras] to marry in KJV's and Wesley's I Timothy 5:14].

WHY would certain [Christian] men want an additional wife or concubine besides the original wife they already have?

There are several reasons.

Generally, as in the case of sexually-deprived Michael and vegetative Terri, there is a serious incapacity or deficiency on the part of the woman to provide some or all of what the husband erotically needs and desires. It is not necessarily a case of the husband not loving and appreciating his somewhat-inadequate wife, nor an evil craving to be unfaithfully immoral against her.....but simply having a serious God-given need not being met. The need has not and does not originate from porn nor lurid imitation of others, but is innate and biological - like the need for food, water, urination, defecation, breathing, sleep, etc.

In the case of non-Christian government-licensed marriages, it might be that the worldly wife is of a demonic sexist-feminist mindset and therefore in some ways noncooperative and insubordinate against the husband in not complying with his explicitly-expressed needs and wants for various intimate types of sexual activity (like clothed-to-nude stripteasing and digital-cam nude posing, consentual-bondage sexplay, erection-enhancing penis-sucking fellatio foreplay [without spilling semen on the ground as Onan spilled for the Biblically-declared cause], etc.). [The Song of Solomon references to 'her beloved's fruit being sweet to her taste' along with command to 'drink deeply, lovers' has profound meaning in the Hebrew wording which goes beyond mere lip-kissing and tongues-mouthing 'oral sex'].

At this point, it should be kept in mind that covert or overt adultery with non-Christian harlots is not the intention of Christian husbands in contemplating the possibility of acquiring an additional woman or women for sensuous fulfilment of the fellatio, stripteasing and nude dancing with even bizarre yoga-like positionings, and other pleasures previously mentioned in his life. The Christian husband knows that any sexual activity with another woman besides his wife must occur within certain parameters.

For example, the additional woman must be a Christian believer (II Cor. 6:14) who brings the doctrines of Christ into his life (II John). He is not attracted to pornograhic indecency used by many immodest weaker-sex (particularly during warm sumer days) as a lewd and lascivious lure to entice him, but instead is consistently dressed modesty year-round in public pertaining to

chignoned or ponytailed HAIRSTYLES
[RSV's/NASV's/KJV's Numbers 5:18, Song of Solomon 7:5, I Corinthians 11:14-16],
long-sleeved ARMWEAR [II Samuel 13:18],
full-length LEGWEAR [Isaiah 47:1-4], and
SOCKS worn with shoes or boots [Jeremiah 2:25 and I Timothy 2:8-15].

The relationship they have must be at least an overt or especially covert (under the circumstances) Common-Law-Marriage marital and NOT adulterous nor bigamous one. The Christian husband has no intention of divorcing nor defrauding his original and primary wife in ANY way...nor does he actually do such. And he is well aware that if he is old and takes a near-teenaged woman to be his secondary wife or concubine [for the messy inevitable seminal emissions involved with fellatio, feces contact resulting from rectal genital insertions, and so forth] and they have children, he not only must PUBLICLY provide for those kids as daddy but remain alive long enough to be their daddy without leaving his young wife a financially-desperate hurting woman. Also, he must face the scorn of self-righteous jealous prudes if his Biblically-congruent Scripturally-acceptable polygamy is discovered and publicized.

In the case of a natural (i.e. birth) mother with a son or daughter who becomes a widow and who then marries another man, it is proper for that son or daughter to call the new husband of their mother by his FIRST name, but not with the title of "father" or "dad." That naming protocol is the same in the case of the son or daughter of their natural mother who divorces their natural father and marries another man. In both cases, the men should be identified to others by the children not as "stepfather" nor "stepdad" but instead: "the second husband of my mother."

In the case of a threesome with the natural dad having the natural mom of their children plus a concubine, the son(s) and/or daughter(s) should address only the natural mom as "mom" or "mother" but the concubine only by her FIRST name.

The children of the family (even if adopted) should address ONLY their birth mother as "mom" or "mother" and (even if adopted) should address ONLY their birth father as "dad" or "father."

Relatives who are not blood relatives but who are acquired by marriage are all "in-law" relatives, including father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, uncle-in-law, aunt-in-law, nephew-in-law, and niece-in-law. Those acquired by divorce are "step" relatives, including step-father-in-law, step-mother-in-law, step-son-in-law, step-daughter-in-law, step-uncle-in-law, step-aunt-in-law, step-nephew-in-law, and step-niece-in-law.