2004 July 06 Tuesday
Polygamy, Sex Ratios Prevent Democracy, Encourage Terrorism

A New York Times article discussing the book, Bare Branches: Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population (MIT Press), Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer (which I've previously covered in my FuturePundit post Aging Or Sex Ratio Bigger Demographic Problem For China?) addresses a consequence of high male/female sex ratios that is a recurring ParaPundit topic: what conditions prevent liberal democracy from developing? A shortage of females is seen as a destabilizing influence and a cause of rebellions and terrorism.

Mr. Fish of Berkeley, in his own research into why democracy is so rare in Muslim countries, has examined 150 countries with populations over 500,000 and has concluded that the status of women, more than anything else, explained the strength or weakness of democracy. And the two biggest indicators of female status, he said, were sex ratios and the gap in literacy between men and women.

On average, he found that Muslim countries had sex ratios of 102 men for every 100 women, although it can go as high as 125 men for every 100 women in Saudi Arabia, for example.

Rose McDermott, a professor of political science at the University of California at Santa Barbara, says the topic raises hackles because many researchers don't want to acknowledge differences in male and female behavior. Ms. McDermott and Richard Wrangham, a professor of anthropology at Harvard, are studying more than 60 African countries to figure out the relationship between gender sex ratios, the number of women in the workforce and internal and interstate violence. They are especially interested in the role of polygamy.

"Historically, when large groups of men can't get married they hang out together and they become monks or marauding bands that rob, rape and pillage," Ms. McDermott said. "Where do you think terrorist groups come from?"

Polygamy raises the effective sex ratio by reducing the supply of women for those men who have no wives at all.

My list of obstacles to democracy in the Middle East already includes polygamy and a previous post links to William Tucker's argument for polygamy as a cause of a "winner take all" ethos that is obviously inimical to liberal democracy.

Islam is the only major world religion that sanctions polygamy. Mohammad allowed his followers to have four wives (the same number he had). About 12 percent of marriages in Moslem countries are polygamous. This is not as bad as East and West Africa, where successful men often take more than a hundred wives and where almost 30 percent of marriages can be polygamous. But the solid core of polygamy at the heart of Islamic culture is enough to produce its menacing social effects.

What are those effects? Do the math. Into every society is born approximately the same number of boys and girls. If they pair off in monogamous fashion, then each one will have a mate -- "a girl for every boy and a boy for every girl." In polygamous societies this does not occur. When successful men can accumulate more than one wife, that means some other man gets none. As a result, the unavoidable outcome is a hard-core residue of unattached men who have little or no prospect of achieving a family life.

The inevitable outcome is that competition among males becomes much more fierce and intense. Mating is an all-or-nothing proposition. Women become a scarce resource that must be hoarded and veiled and banned from public places so they cannot drift away through spontaneous romances. Men who are denied access to these hoarded women have only one option -- they can band together and try to fight their way into the seats of power.

If all those Muslim polygamous marriages involved only two wives that would be enough to deny 12% of the men the chance to have a wife. If the average number of wives per polygamous marriage is even higher then an even larger portion of the men have no prospects for marriage. Offered the chance of dying in a cause in order to get 70 virgins in the afterlife some of them opt for that choice.

The neoconservative neoimperialists do not even want to consider the possibility that there are intractable obstacles in the way of their plans to democratically reform and remake the Middle East. Yet sex ratios, polgamy, consanguineous marriage, and other obstacles are quite intractable unless the United States wants to impose a nearly totalitarian regime and rule ruthlessly for decades while banning some marriage practices, preventing the selective abortion of female fetuses, and imposing liberal curricula upon schools and regulating the content of sermons in mosques.

Of course the United States isn't going to do all that. Yet a sustained effort to remake societies that radically would only begin to remove the obstacles in the way of liberal democracy in the Middle East. By failing to even consider the underlying conditions that cause the Middle East to have no liberal democracies the neoconservatves have launched the US into an intervention in Iraq that is hopelessly naive. The US intervention in Iraq is actually causing Iraq to develop in a directon that lowers the status of women.

Update: Also see an article by den Boer and Hudson in the Washington Post.

We have already seen in China the resurrection of evils such as the kidnapping and selling of women to provide brides for those who can pay the fee. Scarcity of women leads to a situation in which men with advantages -- money, skills, education -- will marry, but men without such advantages -- poor, unskilled, illiterate -- will not. A permanent subclass of bare branches from the lowest socioeconomic classes is created. In China and India, for example, by the year 2020 bare branches will make up 12 to 15 percent of the young adult male population.

While unrelated for the most part to my argument above I've also argued that this shortage of females is causing natural selection to operate on which genes are passed on to future generations.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2004 July 06 02:51 PM  Reconstruction and Reformation


Comments
Ray Clutts said at July 7, 2004 7:00 PM:

For most of the same reasons that you cite and including cousin marriage too, I too tend to be very pesimistic about Iraq's prospects for transition to a society that can sustain a democratic political system.

However, you may want to note the following evidence to the contrary about the prospects for monogamous maritial bliss from an article in the Christian Science Monitor. It may be that for all our pessimistic theorizing the jury is still out on what people will do with some modicum of freedom.

Hat tip to Orrin Judd for noting this item.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0707/p01s01-woiq.html
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/013935.html

Instability in Baghdad has spurred many people to put plans on hold, abandoning half-built houses and dropping out of college. But despite the unrest - or perhaps partly because of it - the number of marriages has nearly doubled since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in April 2003.

"The people I see are not affected by insecurity - I've had a 75-percent increase," says Muhammad Jawad Talikh, a marriage judge in the neighborhood of Kerrada for the past 32 years. "Young people are wishing for a better life, so they come to me and get married."

Karim Haider, deputy clerk at the Kerrada marriage court, registered 1,460 marriages in all of 2002. From May 1 to the end of 2003 - just seven months - he clocked 1,468. "And it's still increasing, every day," he says, stamping a flutter of engagement papers with an official seal.

"This year, we've been having weddings here almost every day," says Thamer Salim, the manager of Mashriq, a wedding hall that caters primarily to Iraqi Christians. Mashriq's accountant, Raed Khalil, estimates that the hall has twice as many weddings as before the war, mostly couples in their twenties.

There are many reasons behind this new enthusiasm: Before the war, military service was compulsory for men, and marriage was seen as a desertion risk. For that reason, young men needed permission from a host of government agencies.

Today, all they need is money. The dowry - money the groom's family gives the couple - is part of the official marriage contract in Iraq. The going rate is half a million dinars, or $350. (In case of divorce, the groom pays a penalty, usually double the dowry.)

Randall Parker said at July 7, 2004 8:52 PM:

Ray, I do not see why an increase in marriage bodes well for democracy in Iraq. A substantial number of those marriages are just going to increase tribal bonds at the expense of loyalty to society as a whole.

Joseph Hertzlinger said at July 8, 2004 9:13 PM:

One possible effect: In some polygamous species, some of the males become female impersonators. They might pretend to join a harem and then they can father many of the children. If the human equivalent has been spreading such genes in polygamous societies, Gay Pride Week may be very strange in Muslim areas after the theocracy collapses.

John Doe said at July 12, 2004 11:47 PM:

Correlation does not prove causation. A whole lot of cultural practices could be blamed for tyranny. You could say hot weather causes backwardness (some 'scientists' have done so).

TurkeyShoot said at July 15, 2004 12:58 AM:

This is a joke or a troll, right?

Where do I start?

1) Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population

Asia's problem has nothing to do with polygamy - the vast majority of Asia's population does not live in polygamous countries, and they have a *real* sex-ratio problem.

2) (which I've previously covered in my FuturePundit post Aging Or Sex Ratio Bigger Demographic Problem For China?)

Last time I looked China had no polygamy but a much-admired Communist policy (one child)

3) Mr. Fish of Berkeley, in his own research into why democracy is so rare in Muslim countries, has examined 150 countries with populations over 500,000 and has concluded that the status of women, more than anything else, explained the strength or weakness of democracy. And the two biggest indicators of female status, he said, were sex ratios and the gap in literacy between men and women.

Sex-ratios was mentioned in the title, and yet you substituted polygamy for literacy - why?

4) On average, he found that Muslim countries had sex ratios of 102 men for every 100 women

A meaningless statistic provided with no context. What is the average for the world population? The distribution/deviation?

5) although it can go as high as 125 men for every 100 women in Saudi Arabia, for example.

Ditto. Notice Saudi is picked as an arbitrary outlier, with no mention of China (Communist) or - far more important - South Korea (liberal democracy) and India (Democracy).

6) Ms. McDermott and Richard Wrangham, a professor of anthropology at Harvard, are studying more than 60 African countries to figure out the relationship between gender sex ratios, the number of women in the workforce and internal and interstate violence.
They are especially interested in the role of polygamy.

... and yet they seem to have absolutely no data they can use on polygamy (certainly none was presented here).

Does anybody here think that Ms.McDermott's special interest in polygamy will allow her to produce any research that contradicts the opinions that she is starting with?

IOW, is this "research" falsifiable, or is it voodoo?

7) "Historically, when large groups of men can't get married they hang out together and they become monks or marauding bands that rob, rape and pillage," Ms. McDermott said. "Where do you think terrorist groups come from?"

Last I looked, Osama and his henchmen were not exactly poor, and most of the 9/11 terrorists were at least comfortable enough to afford a wife.

How about, where do you think criminal gangs come from? Hmmm, does Ms. McDermott's interest in polygamy extend to our peculiar form of serial polygamy (i.e. divorce and remarriage)? I would suspect that would fit her thesis rather better than traditional forms. After all, the lack of stable marriages in our society has produced large numbers of unmarried males, especially in the 18-24 age group, and age is critical when it comes to the gangs she is talking about.

8) Polygamy raises the effective sex ratio by reducing the supply of women for those men who have no wives at all.

So does serial polygamy. Divorced women do not generally end up marrying younger men, while divorced men who are of sufficient status (i.e. those who would have more than one wife in polygamous societies) *do* marry younger women.

Are we beginning to get the feeling that Ms. McDermott is giving a sermon, not doing research?

9) My list of obstacles to democracy in the Middle East already includes polygamy

Obviously - why else bring it into an argument that presents no evidence on the effect of polygamy?

10) and a previous post links to William Tucker's argument for polygamy as a cause of a "winner take all" ethos that is obviously inimical to liberal democracy.

Once again, no comparison to the "winner take all" ethos that comes with serial polygamy. In fact, one can easily argue that serial polygamy is *worse* than traditional (non-Islamic) polygamy, since a low cost of divorce makes it *easier* for high-status males to dominate the pool of young females.

10) Islam is the only major world religion that sanctions polygamy.

You mean the only one to resist demands to ban the practice?

Islam also allows easy divorce (talaq), which probably has a far greater effect on the status of women (and on the practice of consanguineous marriage) than polygamy. The vast majority of consanguineous marriage are, in fact, monogamous.

Funny how you cannot remove the cultural blinders long enough to look at the impact of easy divorce for males on a) the status of women b) the level of violence and c) democracy.

It is easy to see why - the topic would lead to some pretty uncomfortable questions about the viability of the road we are taking.

So just blame it on polygamy, which had been practiced in (non-muslim) Africa and Asia for centuries with no sign of terrorism, while ignoring such peculiar Islamic practices as Talaq, which correlate much more highly with the status of women.

Say - how about looking at Pakistan (Islamic) and India(non-Islamic), where polygamy is almost unknown outside the tribal areas?

11) Mohammad allowed his followers to have four wives (the same number he had). About 12 percent of marriages in Moslem countries are polygamous. This is not as bad as East and West Africa, where successful men often take more than a hundred wives and where almost 30 percent of marriages can be polygamous.

This is getting surreal.

Polygamy is not as bad as East and West Africa, so doesn't that mean that East and West Africa should be hotbeds of terrorism?

Wait a minute - the next statement supplies the answer

12) But the solid core of polygamy at the heart of Islamic culture is enough to produce its menacing social effects.

Yup - what we have here is a conclusion in search of supporting "research". When the data doesn't fit, just beat the data. The 12% is a "solid core" that "is enough to produce its menacing social effects", while the 30%, being presumably not solid or menacing enough, fails to produce such effects.

What a joke.

13) What are those effects? Do the math. Into every society is born approximately the same number of boys and girls. If they pair off in monogamous fashion, then each one will have a mate -- "a girl for every boy and a boy for every girl."

ROTFLMAO.

With martians or doves, maybe (speaking of doves, has Ms. read Lorenz On Aggression ?)

In human societies, the inequality between men (in terms of their desirability to women as mates) is far greater than the inequality of women. So true monogamy is a way of forcing low-status females to accept low-status males that they would not otherwise want. With our serial polygamy (nominal monogamy + easy divorce and easier sex), however, this gets blown out the window, with low-status females preferring recycled (i.e. older, divorced) higher status males to low status males. The result is an even bigger surplus of low status males (since in proper polygamy the male must pay for the females - something that only a small proportion of males can afford).

14) In polygamous societies this does not occur. When successful men can accumulate more than one wife, that means some other man gets none. As a result, the unavoidable outcome is a hard-core residue of unattached men who have little or no prospect of achieving a family life.

Why does this sound like a hip-hop scene ?

15) If all those Muslim polygamous marriages involved only two wives that would be enough to deny 12% of the men the chance to have a wife. If the average number of wives per polygamous marriage is even higher then an even larger portion of the men have no prospects for marriage. Offered the chance of dying in a cause in order to get 70 virgins in the afterlife some of them opt for that choice.

So given the 30% figure cited above, there is a massive terrorist threat lurking in East and West Africa?

16) The neoconservative neoimperialists

Ah Science!!!

17) do not even want to consider the possibility that that there are intractable obstacles in the way of their plans to democratically reform and remake the Middle East.

Ok, I bite.

Name names.

I would be curious to see which one does "not even want to consider the possibility".

Certainly none that I have read.

So put up or shut up.

18) Yet sex ratios, polgamy, consanguineous marriage

Ah yes, lump them all together.

So China or Korea must have some of the highest rates of polygamy or consanguineous marriage in the world, right (given sex ratios)?

And many African countries must likewise have some of the highest sex ratios, right?

19) and other obstacles are quite intractable unless the United States wants to impose a nearly totalitarian regime

You mean like China?

20) and rule ruthlessly for decades while banning some marriage practices

Hmmm, isn't that what was done to Utah?

21) preventing the selective abortion of female fetuses

Ah, the sacred right to abortion!!!

Wait a minute - doesn't femminist theology hold that abortions *improve* the status of women?

You mean abortions actually degrade women and reduce their status?

Oops - sorry, there I was using logic again. My Bad.

I recant the heresy ...

22) and imposing liberal curricula upon schools and regulating the content of sermons in mosques.

Oh, you mean like the public schools in the US?

23) Of course the United States isn't going to do all that.

Of course not - Iraqi democracy is far too uncertain to be able to survive such abuses. The US has a much stronger base to draw on ...

24) Yet a sustained effort to remake societies that radically would only begin to remove the obstacles in the way of liberal democracy in the Middle East. By failing to even consider the underlying conditions that cause the Middle East to have no liberal democracies the neoconservatves have launched the US into an intervention in Iraq that is hopelessly naive.

As opposed to the cynical exercise in propaganda that you have subjected us to here?

25) The US intervention in Iraq is actually causing Iraq to develop in a directon that lowers the status of women.

And this blatantly false statement is based on what facts?

26) We have already seen in China the resurrection of evils such as the kidnapping and selling of women to provide brides for those who can pay the fee. Scarcity of women leads to a situation in which men with advantages -- money, skills, education -- will marry, but men without such advantages -- poor, unskilled, illiterate -- will not. A permanent subclass of bare branches from the lowest socioeconomic classes is created. In China and India, for example, by the year 2020 bare branches will make up 12 to 15 percent of the young adult male population.

And the link to polygamy is?

How about the link to Communism?

27) While unrelated for the most part to my argument above I've also argued that this shortage of females is causing natural selection to operate on which genes are passed on to future generations.

Hey, throw it in, why not? Polygamy causes global warming, too, doesn't it?

I suppose that this is what Science would have looked like if undertaken by Uday Hussein - the torture of a few random facts until they confess to a conclusion that they could not possibly have supported.

Randall Parker said at July 15, 2004 2:32 AM:

Verbose Turkey,

You surely huff and puff a lot. Very lengthy replies tend to bore readers and hence are a waste since few will have the patience to read your whole outpouring.

Polygamy and selective killing of female fetuses are just two different mechanisms by which a shortage of marryable females is created. Either way the result is that there are a of men who can't get a woman.

Where'd I say that there was polygamy in China? You are busy constructing straw men. Are you next going to construct tin men too?

Saudi Arabia is an arbitrary outlier? Arbitrary? What does that mean? Saudi Arabia has both a high ratio of males to females and polygamy. Both factors act to create a shortage of females. Though in Saudi Arabia's case the sex ratio is probably due to a proportionately large mostly male foreign guest worker labor force. But the female shortage does seem very worth noting given that Saudi Arabia also happens to have been the source of 15 out of 19 9/11 hijackers and most of the senior members of Al Qaeda. .

As for the falsifiability of social science research: Since social scientists do not have the ability to control for variables and introduce changes the way physical scientists can social science always has a much bigger problem proving anything. Yet real phenomena are happening out there and are studying and theorizing about.

Abortion: Your bad is that you think you are using logic. Look, if in one society abortion is selectively done against female fetuses then that creates very different consequences than in another society where abortion is used equally against male and female fetuses. Whether abortion raises or lowers the status of women depends on how it is used. Recognizing this does require some small bit if subtle thinking on your part. Try and see if you can grasp this.

You state:

Yup - what we have here is a conclusion in search of supporting "research". When the data doesn't fit, just beat the data. The 12% is a "solid core" that "is enough to produce its menacing social effects", while the 30%, being presumably not solid or menacing enough, fails to produce such effects.

Well, imagine a society where just 12% of the population decides to become bank robbers. By your own reasoning you might argue, 12%, ah such a small minority. But of course having such a high percentage of the population trying to rob banks would cause chaos. Yes, the lot in life of just 12% of the population can have a big impact on the entire society. If just one one hundredth of one percent of the American population decided to become terrorists that would be about 29,0000 terrorists in the United States. That'd create a huge difference in how society worked.

As for East and West Africa: Hey, a lot of elements have to come together to produce a terrorist. I linked to other factors that contribute. But it seems obvious that sexual frustration must be a motivation for Islamic some men.

As for divorce and serial monogamy: In America 72% of women and 80% of men remarry after divorce. But precisely because relationships are far less likely to last in America or other Western country a single guy in a Western country has hope that he will have a lover at least part of the time. Whereas a man who loses the marriage sweepstakes in a Middle Eastern country has a much greater chance of never being with a woman.

You say about my contention that the status of women in Iraq is declining:

And this blatantly false statement is based on what facts?

Look idiot, you have the audacity to tell me I am making a blatantly false statement but you are too busy making an ass of yourself to click thru to a link I provided. That previous post is not the only such post I've made providing information on the declining status of Iraqi women. Do you not recognize the color of links in HTML pages? Is this whole web experience new to you? Too difficult to figure out?

AMac said at July 19, 2004 12:44 PM:

Very lengthy replies tend to bore readers and hence are a waste ...

Ah, succinctly put.

quiet_celt said at July 31, 2004 9:37 PM:

"Hey, a lot of elements have to come together to produce a terrorist..."
"In America 72% of women and 80% of men remarry after divorce..."
"Look idiot, you have the audacity to tell me I am making a blatantly false statement... "

Me thinks thou doest protest too much. Interesting thing about statistics is you can use them to get any answer you want. You also proved the point about serial polygamy, as 6% of the female population are taken out of the picture thus making it highly likely that a good proportion of American men will never have a wife. Also there are a number of women who will not marry in most culture's for various reasons, and some choose the world's oldest profession. So it is unlikely that a certain class of men will never have a woman. Of course, the 6% may also be a compounding percentage. The study was done over a time frame or covering an age range. So one would suspect 6% over a generation and then there would be perhaps two or three generations of 6% of women removed from the marriage scene. Assuming a ratio of 100:100 at birth that would leave a ratio of 82:100 in the say 18-24 age group, as older men take away from this group. Of course this is just a statistical trick and that ratio is probably more like 92:100. But this is just a WAG on my part, and ignores many other conditions that could change that number in drastic ways in both directions. Therein lies the rub, in trying to reduce complex equations to simpler ones.

Of course also ignored is the fact that approximately 1/3 of the world's cultures practice polygamy, and the number used to be much, much higher. Yet, terrorism is a relatively recent condition. Based on your thinking one should suspect there to be a much higher occurance of terrorism and it should have appeared long ago as all of the other factors have certainly come together before. But not knowing what all the other factors are that you theorize, it is impossible to either prove or disprove your hypothesis.

Randall Parker said at July 31, 2004 10:05 PM:

quiet_celt,

Me thinks you are cooking up a bunch of simple statistical analyses. Are those women who do not remarry also sexually inactive? Or do we live in a society where there is a lot more sex available outside of marriage than is the case in the Middle East? Try the latter.

There are factors that reduce the pool of eligible males more than the pool of eligible females. For example, males commit crimes and are incarcerated at much higher rates. Therefore they are not available for sex or to start marriages if they are not already married before jailed. Also, males are homosexuals at higher rates than females. Also, males get murdered and killed by accidents at higher rates than females and have higher all-cause mortality at most if not all age brackets. They probably commit suicide at higher rates than females too. But I'm not sure on that point.

As for why terrorism didn't occur sooner: Most fights between civilizations were decided on battlefields along borders with massive killing and ruthless subjugation of defeated sides. Terrorists didn't have the technology needed to travel distances and then to cause much damage using small numbers of attackers. Also, each civilization wasn't that visible deep inside of other civilizations and so didn't create as much resentment. TV lets Arabs see how we live, what we say, and what our military and foreign policy do in their region. Also, far larger numbers of them can come and live in nations ruled by Westerners than ever happened in the past. Comparisons between historical periods have to account for the many things different between the different periods.

One third of the world's current cultures practice polygamy? Really? It is extremely rare in the Western Hemisphere. It is not allowed in Europe, Russia, China or most of the other East Asian societies. Where is this 1/3 you speak of outside of Muslim countries?

Part of the extra 3-4% said at August 24, 2004 8:53 AM:

In the western world, young males tend to outnumber young females. In the USA this is the case until around age 40. And among the males, a minority of males have a tendency to go through all the females at an early age, as it is typicly a single male taking the virginity of multiple young females. As a result of this, women who are virgins by age 25 are almost unheard of, while male virgins of the same age are quite common. And yet these male virgins are treated as pariahs, while the very self centered males who have deflowered multiple females are given a very high status.

For example, I'm a male in his late 20s who has never even kissed a girl largely because I'm a shy person, I don't get out much, and the fact that there are hardly ever any available females.

And these "alpha males" are the ones getting multiple females pregnant, spreading diseases to them etc... and these same females, as early as Jr High School, are the ones who end up practicing self mulilation or even commiting suicide.

Somthing has to be done about this

It's too bad homosexuality isn't alot more common among males.

For a chart showing by sex/gender ratios by age in the USA, click on the link.

Roz said at March 25, 2005 4:18 AM:

"One third of the world's current cultures practice polygamy? Really? It is extremely rare in the Western Hemisphere. It is not allowed in Europe, Russia, China or most of the other East Asian societies. Where is this 1/3 you speak of outside of Muslim countries?"

You can't really be naive enough to believe that just because polygamy "is not allowed in Europe, Russia, China or most of the other East Asian societies", it doesn't exist at all in practice in all these places?


You mentioned yourself that 30% of marriages in East and West Africa are polygamous, and then you ask "Where is this 1/3 you speak of outside of Muslim countries?"

FYI: Not all of East & West Africa is Muslim. According to research done in 1986 (not recent, but still a benchmark) 40% of East Africa was Christian while 10% was Muslim.

Found at this link: http://www.adherents.com/adhloc/Wh_5.html#6

Also found at the same link was this very interesting piece of info:
"In addition to their Catholic and Protestant communities, East African cities have also witnessed a remarkable flowering of independent Christian churchs, formed almost entirely by charismatic preachers who have split away from the missions. They offer a form of Christianity geared towards traditional African life. They often accept polygamous marriages... "

By erroniously synonymising "polygamous societies" and "Muslim countries", your statement sounds less like it's geared towards exposing the evils of polygamy, and more like it's geared towards exposing the evils of Islam as a faith -- and that to me sounds dangerously non-liberal, and hardly pro-democratic.

Ketubah said at July 15, 2005 9:33 PM:

John Dryden's poem Absolom and Achitophel
(1631-1700 English Poet, Philosopher. He received a classical education at Westminster School and Trinity College, Cambridge)

"In pius Times, e'r Priest-Craft did begin,
Before Polygamy was made a Sin;
When Man, on many, multipli'd his kind,
E'r one to one was, cursedly, confin'd:
When Nature prompted, and no Law deni'd
Promiscuous Use of Concubine and Bride;
Then, Israel's Monarch, after Heavens own heart,
His vigorous warmth did, variously, impart
To Wives and Slaves: And, wide as his Command,
Scatter'd his Maker's Image through the Land. (3)"


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright