So much for respectable and no judgment eh OP?

Sadly these are your audience

I brought up the bible, because of the term biblical
So if the man is led by god, does this mean that the woman, is not?
If not why not?
And if it doesn't mean that, and that she too is led by God, then what is the difference?
And does the bible say that same sex relationships are wrong?
I'm still unsure as to why the women having sex with each other is unbiblical

So would I be correct in saying, that from your point of view, that to have a biblical polygamist relationship, the man must be the head of the household, and the women, must not have sex with each other?
Is the head of the household, another way of saying, the 1 who is in charge? If not, then what exactly, does this mean?
And I fail to understand, why its unbiblical, for the women to have sex with each other should they wish to.
And furthermore, I really don't understand, what any of this has to do with the bible

a STARTING PLACE

How does one respond to this situation? The answer begins by seeing that God always points His creation back to the primacy and perfection of the original design. Next, you have to read every book to the end -- especially if it is the biblical context. And if you read the stories about the characters referenced above, you'll quickly find that polygamy was an unmitigated sociological disaster that created heartbreak and sowed familial discord. By the time of the writing of Malachi, God's command to a thoroughly chastised nation was clear: covenantal monogamy was to be the norm.

Further, through the ministry of Jesus, we see God "reset the clock" so to speak to the original goodness of monogamous marital union -- pointing forward to a new society and a new way. He also enacted new provisions to protect women and raise their standing in society. Jesus showed a world that had distorted the meaning of marriage back to the beauty of "the man being joined to his wife, and two will become one flesh."

https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/polygamy-in-the-bible/

Incidents in the Bible are most often there to teach us what NOT to do.

Read about Sodom and Gomorrah.

The books of Corinthians are admonishment to new believers hanging on to old habits.

The OT is full of people disobeying God. Making Jesus necessary.


If a person doesn't know God, they rarely understand the Bible in its context.

The Tanakh (a.k.a. Old Testament) pertains to ancient Hebrew culture in general and the culture of ancient Israel in particular. So, why pursue something that was a part of an ancient culture?

You say 'in a biblical polygamous relationship'. What's the difference between ,'a biblical polygamous relationship' and a polygamous relationship?
And why is it whenever you hear about polygamous relationships, there's usually religion, involved.
You say you hate religion, but use the term biblical , and mention the bible and god.

So let me get this straight ,Burt

You are married but want to " spiritulize" other women

And I assume when you are in the " spirit" giving mood..your pants are off. Right

Indeed woman who should have a couple of hubbies instead of the other way round. Men cannot keep up with several women, a woman can keep up with a few men. Like River said, they need a 'nap', break time, lol.

Part of me feels like if people want this and all really truly are happy with it, no skin of my nose. Who am I to judge?

But... I do NOT like women to be regarded as second-rate citizens, not again, we're just started to get away from that, and I CERTAINLY do NOT condone of women being used as breeding machines.

Apart from that, we don't need MORE children. There's plenty of people on the planet as it is. A normal amount of children is perfectly okay, but beginning a breeding farm, no way.

If polyamory is based on so called religion I'm totally against it as these so called religion -which make me sick to the stomach- all see and treat women as second-rate citizens, often even less than a dog.
It should be forbidden by law. Over here in my country it is.

The only way I feel this could be okay is if a woman also has the right to have more than one husband and if people choose for this, meaning NOT on religious ground as those aren't a choice but brainwashing.
To be honest, I doubt any woman with self-respect and freedom of choice would do this.

The only reason this was ever done a long long long time ago was survival of the species, having strong, healthy off-spring. In order to have that you needed to 'breed' with various partners. BUT -and that is always left out by patriarchal thinkers & religion- this meant that women too had sex with various men, not just men with various women. That was the only way to have a strong off-spring.
These days we don't need that survival strategy anymore as there's more than enough people on the planet. We're not on the extinction list ya know.

Would I go for that? I think that's pretty clear: no freaking way!
I'm not very tolerant of pre-historical treatment of women.

For me most DEFINITELY NOT.

I believe in one man and one woman only. While I know some may have what they feel are practical reasoning for such practices it is not something I would even consider.

Just my two cents.

Ahhh you want a concubine who will bear children.
With no legal status or rights.

Not Social Security based on your earnings.
Not a home with her name on it too.

I am curious what you think the benefit to her might be?