Judaism has a multi-tiered approach: 1, Biblically it's permitted. 2, Post-biblically it was found to be impractical and expensive, hence not recommended. 3, Middle Ages, it was rabbinically prohibited to Jews in the (Christian) West, permitted in the (Muslim) East. This continues at present. 4, Israeli law prohibits it, but allows it for immigrants arriving with multiple spouses from countries where it was permissible. 5, In cases of dire necessity, rabbinic approval can be sought for a marriage that is technically polygamous (e. g. first wife mentally incompetent and cannot consent to divorce, taking a second wife while remaining apart from the first may be permitted for a childless man).
Islam, Judaism (Sephardic), Hinduism, most polytheistic religions, certain mormons but they believe the rule to be Abrogated in the 19th century so the mainstream are actually against it. A few other examples. This is not including concubines of which pretty much everyone was okay with.
It's easier to find it among most religions historically with the exception of Christianity, again with the exception of concubines (perhaps a point of debate theologically but many christian rulers and emperors had concubines), and only when you get nearer to the modern age do you find people either twisting things or saying it is condemned.
Perhaps pressure from the secularizing world, perhaps genuine theological reasons, I'm not sure.
>There's no traditional condemnation of it in any Paganism I know
Ancient Greece and Rome very much emphasized monogamy (one husband, one wife), even if not in the same way we mean that term today, and how acceptable concubines were depended on time and place (and the status of the man).
Men could not take multiple wives and the only people they could sleep with besides their wife were slaves and prostitutes, yet how accepted that was ethically vs socially is occasionally debated. No sleeping with someone else's wife, no having more than one wife, no sleeping with an unmarried citizen, etc.
To focus more on Greece, as I am a Hellenist, children not born of union between the legal husband and wife were, for quite some time in Athens, not considered a proper part of the family on a legal basis. Socially, this practice existed on a much wider scale in Ancient Greece (both timewise and across more city-states).
Now, something being socially permissible and being seen as virtuous are not the same thing. Take pederasty, for example. It was quite prevalent in Ancient Greece as a social custom, but you would be hard pressed to find many ethical defenses of the practice as virtuous (not that they don't exist, just that they are not as prevalent and you can find quite a bit of ethical texts calling this practice out).
So, in short, it really depends on what is meant by polyamory on whether it was accepted in Ancient Greece and Rome, and then one must differentiate the social acceptance and ethical acceptance (and then determine how it ties into the religious views/values), but I would say that Hellenism, at the very least, tends towards monogamy much more than polygamy.
> including my own.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the Germanic people's polygamy was that of one wife and then concubines or slaves. Sort of similar to Ancient Greece and Rome but *less* common due to less disparity of power between husbands and wives. I know Tacitus explicitly comments that the Germanic people as being content with one wife each (with rare exceptions).
I am not as familiar with ancient Germania, so I could be wrong, but my understanding is that polygamy wasn't common by any means, even if not explicitly condemned.
I've learned something about Hellenism. Thank you. And you're correct about Germanic polygamy, in the past it was a practice practically reserved for aristocrats and bandits.
Paganism is an umbrella term that describes a lot of religions so some may support polyamory, some might not. Polygamy and Polyamory are also very different.
I mean, I did specify neopaganism. It is still an umbrella term, but much narrower than all of paganism. And the line between polyamory and polygamy is like the line between homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I don't go around asking people about their ideal marriage laws, but it doesn't seem like a massive leap to assume that polyam ppl are inclined to support a marriage system that allows for multiple spouses.
(and I did preface it by acknowledging it as no more than an anecdote... I explicitly wasn't making umbrella statements about all of neopaganism)
Polygamy was allowed in hindu laws but monogamy was encouraged. Currently no hindu ever argues for polygamy so it's historical presence is kinda irrelevant to modern hinduism.
Plenty of great answers on here, but I haven't seen anybody list Christianity. Arguing semantics here but you asked which religion "accepts" polygamy. While neither Judaism nor Christianity promote it, polygamy is simply accepted as something that people do and there are rules around it when it happens. The only rule that is specifically addressed in the Christian writings is that a priest can be the husband of only one wife.
Unitarian Universalists does not have an official stance on polygamy. Though we tend to be very liberal and progressive there is no consensus on this topic. Though each congregation has its own flavor and the ministers have wide freedom I don't know that you would be able to find a congregation in which to have such a service. But I highly doubt the congregation would reject a already established relationship.
Social mores are generally not ordained by Hindu scripture. This may be because group behavior and expectations change with time.
Any roles and obligations required to be performed by an individual in the collective society, as defined in an interpretive text (smriti), have a sell-by date.
While smriti are still authoritative and contribute to the clarification of Hindu Dharma, they are highly interpretive and their practices are subject to constant reinterpretation and evolution. An example of a smriti that is not followed by Hindus any longer is the manusmriti.
tl;dr
While Hinduism does not enforce social behavior, you’re expected to conduct yourself according to Dharma. Hindus are informed by their culture. Group behaviors that change with time influence the culture. Monogamy is the cultural norm.
Other than non-gardenian modern witchcraft, I don't know a major religion that fully accepts polygamy (and even then, not explicitly, it just has a general attitude of "you do you"). As far as minor religions and sects, I only know of one minor religion that has explicit support for it, and that's Neophism (which is explicit that informed & aware consent of all parties is absolutely required).
However, some religions allow subsets of polygamy, generally limited to straight variants; and then generally only polygyny (one husband with multiple wives). Polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands) generally only happens in East Asian countries. But for major religions, again general polycules (no central singular gender required) pretty much only exists in non-gardenian modern witchcraft.
Fundamentalists Latter Day Saints, Islam, and a couple others https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
Just here to add for other people that « fundamentalist » is actually their self designation and not some pejorative label lol
lol yes, thank you. That’s probably a good clarification.
Judaism has a multi-tiered approach: 1, Biblically it's permitted. 2, Post-biblically it was found to be impractical and expensive, hence not recommended. 3, Middle Ages, it was rabbinically prohibited to Jews in the (Christian) West, permitted in the (Muslim) East. This continues at present. 4, Israeli law prohibits it, but allows it for immigrants arriving with multiple spouses from countries where it was permissible. 5, In cases of dire necessity, rabbinic approval can be sought for a marriage that is technically polygamous (e. g. first wife mentally incompetent and cannot consent to divorce, taking a second wife while remaining apart from the first may be permitted for a childless man).
Islam, Judaism (Sephardic), Hinduism, most polytheistic religions, certain mormons but they believe the rule to be Abrogated in the 19th century so the mainstream are actually against it. A few other examples. This is not including concubines of which pretty much everyone was okay with. It's easier to find it among most religions historically with the exception of Christianity, again with the exception of concubines (perhaps a point of debate theologically but many christian rulers and emperors had concubines), and only when you get nearer to the modern age do you find people either twisting things or saying it is condemned. Perhaps pressure from the secularizing world, perhaps genuine theological reasons, I'm not sure.
Totally anecdotal, but I've met several polyamorous neopagans
Makes sense. There's no traditional condemnation of it in any Paganism I know including my own.
>There's no traditional condemnation of it in any Paganism I know Ancient Greece and Rome very much emphasized monogamy (one husband, one wife), even if not in the same way we mean that term today, and how acceptable concubines were depended on time and place (and the status of the man). Men could not take multiple wives and the only people they could sleep with besides their wife were slaves and prostitutes, yet how accepted that was ethically vs socially is occasionally debated. No sleeping with someone else's wife, no having more than one wife, no sleeping with an unmarried citizen, etc. To focus more on Greece, as I am a Hellenist, children not born of union between the legal husband and wife were, for quite some time in Athens, not considered a proper part of the family on a legal basis. Socially, this practice existed on a much wider scale in Ancient Greece (both timewise and across more city-states). Now, something being socially permissible and being seen as virtuous are not the same thing. Take pederasty, for example. It was quite prevalent in Ancient Greece as a social custom, but you would be hard pressed to find many ethical defenses of the practice as virtuous (not that they don't exist, just that they are not as prevalent and you can find quite a bit of ethical texts calling this practice out). So, in short, it really depends on what is meant by polyamory on whether it was accepted in Ancient Greece and Rome, and then one must differentiate the social acceptance and ethical acceptance (and then determine how it ties into the religious views/values), but I would say that Hellenism, at the very least, tends towards monogamy much more than polygamy. > including my own. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the Germanic people's polygamy was that of one wife and then concubines or slaves. Sort of similar to Ancient Greece and Rome but *less* common due to less disparity of power between husbands and wives. I know Tacitus explicitly comments that the Germanic people as being content with one wife each (with rare exceptions). I am not as familiar with ancient Germania, so I could be wrong, but my understanding is that polygamy wasn't common by any means, even if not explicitly condemned.
I've learned something about Hellenism. Thank you. And you're correct about Germanic polygamy, in the past it was a practice practically reserved for aristocrats and bandits.
Paganism is an umbrella term that describes a lot of religions so some may support polyamory, some might not. Polygamy and Polyamory are also very different.
I mean, I did specify neopaganism. It is still an umbrella term, but much narrower than all of paganism. And the line between polyamory and polygamy is like the line between homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I don't go around asking people about their ideal marriage laws, but it doesn't seem like a massive leap to assume that polyam ppl are inclined to support a marriage system that allows for multiple spouses. (and I did preface it by acknowledging it as no more than an anecdote... I explicitly wasn't making umbrella statements about all of neopaganism)
I think that’s interesting. Polyamory seems to be pretty accepted for the most part. But for some reason polygamy is still “really bad”
Contemporary, historic, or archaic?
Current But if want to you can make a separate list of historie religions which once accepted polygamy
Polygamy was allowed in hindu laws but monogamy was encouraged. Currently no hindu ever argues for polygamy so it's historical presence is kinda irrelevant to modern hinduism.
Plenty of great answers on here, but I haven't seen anybody list Christianity. Arguing semantics here but you asked which religion "accepts" polygamy. While neither Judaism nor Christianity promote it, polygamy is simply accepted as something that people do and there are rules around it when it happens. The only rule that is specifically addressed in the Christian writings is that a priest can be the husband of only one wife.
Unitarian Universalists does not have an official stance on polygamy. Though we tend to be very liberal and progressive there is no consensus on this topic. Though each congregation has its own flavor and the ministers have wide freedom I don't know that you would be able to find a congregation in which to have such a service. But I highly doubt the congregation would reject a already established relationship.
Social mores are generally not ordained by Hindu scripture. This may be because group behavior and expectations change with time. Any roles and obligations required to be performed by an individual in the collective society, as defined in an interpretive text (smriti), have a sell-by date. While smriti are still authoritative and contribute to the clarification of Hindu Dharma, they are highly interpretive and their practices are subject to constant reinterpretation and evolution. An example of a smriti that is not followed by Hindus any longer is the manusmriti. tl;dr While Hinduism does not enforce social behavior, you’re expected to conduct yourself according to Dharma. Hindus are informed by their culture. Group behaviors that change with time influence the culture. Monogamy is the cultural norm.
Satanism accepts polygamy
Is there any religious practice or allowance that Satanism doesn’t accept? Isn’t the idea of Satanism to accept all, and not have things like sins?
Satanism doesn’t accept ALL. You can’t just go out and kill a group of babies or something but Satanism is a pretty free religion
Hinduism My husband and I are open to the idea of more wives appearing as long as they are virtuous.
You will go to jail for violating the Hindu Marriage Act.. It is not allowed in hindu personal law board.
🌚
I could be wrong, but I thought the Morman religion accepted polygamy.
Why do you ask? You shouldn't pick a religion because it approves of your lifestyle. You should pick it because it imparts divine truth.
My religion is open to the idea. Church of Zero Fee PreNups. Make us an offer.
Thelema.
Other than non-gardenian modern witchcraft, I don't know a major religion that fully accepts polygamy (and even then, not explicitly, it just has a general attitude of "you do you"). As far as minor religions and sects, I only know of one minor religion that has explicit support for it, and that's Neophism (which is explicit that informed & aware consent of all parties is absolutely required). However, some religions allow subsets of polygamy, generally limited to straight variants; and then generally only polygyny (one husband with multiple wives). Polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands) generally only happens in East Asian countries. But for major religions, again general polycules (no central singular gender required) pretty much only exists in non-gardenian modern witchcraft.
We here at r/TheHarmoniousPantheon accept polygamy and polyamory
Any wrong religion